Unveiling Participation Dynamics: A Comparative Study of Green Infrastructure Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper primarily explores how public participation influences the effectiveness of green infrastructure and low-impact development projects. Through a systematic literature review of 107 global case studies, the authors propose a four-dimensional analytical framework for public participation and analyze the roles and combined effects of these dimensions across different project stages. While the study offers valuable contributions, the following limitations need to be addressed:

1. The contextual and cultural backgrounds of different countries and regions vary, which may necessitate additional discussion on this aspect or a more categorized analysis in the research process.

2. Simply classifying cases as successes or failures may oversimplify the discussion. For instance, a project might be successful in terms of ecological performance but fail in social equity. Such complexity is undermined by binary classification. Therefore, the definitions of success or failure should be specified more precisely, clarifying at which level success or failure is determined.

3. The discussion of power dynamics and equity issues remains somewhat insufficient. Specifically, the study does not systematically incorporate equity and justice as core analytical dimensions into the framework to explore whether the participation process itself exacerbates social exclusion or how the benefits and costs of green infrastructure are distributed among different social groups.

4. Some of the English expressions could be improved to enhance the readability of the paper.

I believe that the above revisions will further enhance the quality of the paper and facilitate its acceptance and publication by the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a valuable and original contribution to the field of green infrastructure and participatory governance. The analytical framework, built around four dimensions of participation (breadth, depth, identity and potential), is rigorously applied across 107 cases, generating meaningful insights into how participation influences the implementation of sustainable urban drainage systems. The manuscript is well structured and clearly written. However, there are several areas that would benefit from improvement, especially in how the systematic review process is reported.

1. Application of PRISMA Methodology
a) The PRISMA flowchart (Figure 2) is presented only as part of the methods section and is not treated as a research result. It should be more clearly integrated into the results to improve transparency regarding the selection process.
b) The reasons for exclusion at each stage of screening are not explained in detail, which limits reproducibility.
c) The PRISMA-ScR checklist and OSF protocol are mentioned, but the protocol is not publicly accessible. If the registration is still under review, this should be explicitly stated both in the main text and in the supplementary material.
d) It is recommended that Section 2.1 be revised to present the PRISMA diagram as part of the results. A short narrative should also be added in the Results section to explain how the 107 studies were selected and why others were excluded.

2. Triaging as a Result
a) The screening process is central in any scoping review and should be presented as part of the study's results.
b) The manuscript describes the reduction from 367 to 107 studies, but it does not characterize the excluded studies by region, publication type or reasons for exclusion.
c) There is also no descriptive overview of the final set of included studies, which makes it difficult to assess the scope and representativeness of the sample.
d) It is recommended that a new subsection be added under Results, possibly titled "3.1 Descriptive Results of Literature Screening," to summarize the distribution and characteristics of the included studies by region, method or other relevant criteria.

3. Scientific Soundness and Limitations
a) While the conceptual and qualitative approach is strong, the review would benefit from the inclusion of basic descriptive statistics such as frequencies or distributions related to the participation dimensions.
b) The limitations of the review, including language restrictions or exclusion of certain types of studies, are not clearly discussed.
c) It is recommended that a brief limitations section be added before the conclusion to outline the main methodological constraints and their possible implications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx