Change and Continuity of Coastal Mangroves in Greater Mumbai, India: Towards the Sustainable Governance of Blue-Green Infrastructure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript on mangrove change and governance in Greater Mumbai. The topic is timely, and your attempt to combine geospatial analysis with policy review is appreciated. However, the manuscript faces several significant limitations that weaken its empirical foundation and explanatory value. I outline key concerns below:
1. Causal Attribution Is Overstated
The study reports a 3.91% decline in mangrove cover, but attributes this loss primarily to urbanization, without providing spatial evidence to support this claim. There is no land-use overlay, buffer analysis, or assessment of other potential factors such as sea-level rise, pollution, or aquaculture. The causal inference is therefore unsubstantiated.
2. GIS/RS Methodological Weaknesses
Only two time points are used (1994 and 2024), with no intermediate data to capture trends or disruptions. The classification lacks validation (e.g., a confusion matrix), and no land-use change categories are presented, limiting the interpretive depth of the spatial analysis.
3. Governance Analysis Lacks Ground-Level Insight
The document review provides background but does not reveal how or why policies failed in specific contexts. Field-based case studies or stakeholder interviews (e.g., with local officials or communities) would significantly strengthen the governance assessment.
4. Policy Recommendations Are Too General
Proposals such as "mainstreaming BGI" or "enhancing community participation" are conceptually valid but lack practical details. The paper does not specify how BGI principles would be implemented in Mumbai's planning system or how community engagement would be institutionalized within it.
5. Missing Stakeholder Perspectives
Although the manuscript mentions community participation, it does not examine the actual role of local actors—such as coastal communities, NGOs, or fishers—in mangrove conservation. Including such perspectives would strengthen the governance analysis. For example, Conservation International and AERF have partnered with Apple Inc. to implement community-led mangrove restoration in Raigad district, Maharashtra, near Mumbai. These initiatives link conservation with local livelihoods and show how NGOs and the private sector can support effective, inclusive governance. Referencing such models—or comparable efforts in Mumbai—would enhance the manuscript's practical relevance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers’

We extend our heartfelt appreciation to all four reviewers for dedicating your time to reviewing our manuscript. Your perceptive feedback and suggestions have played a pivotal role in improving our work. Your expertise and meticulous attention to details have unquestionably enhanced the quality and coherence of the content. We deeply value the thoroughness with which you evaluated our manuscript and offered insightful comments. Your contributions are greatly appreciated, and we are truly grateful for your efforts.

Reviewer 1

1. Causal Attribution Is Overstated

The study reports a 3.91% decline in mangrove cover, but attributes this loss primarily to urbanization, without providing spatial evidence to support this claim. There is no land-use overlay, buffer analysis, or assessment of other potential factors such as sea-level rise, pollution, or aquaculture. The causal inference is therefore unsubstantiated.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We have added a detailed LU/LC classification in the revised manuscript. The updated analysis strengthens the causal interpretation by considering multiple potential drivers alongside urbanization.

2. GIS/RS Methodological Weaknesses

Only two time points are used (1994 and 2024), with no intermediate data to capture trends or disruptions. The classification lacks validation (e.g., a confusion matrix), and no land-use change categories are presented, limiting the interpretive depth of the spatial analysis.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for raising the question of why we have only two points of reference (1994 and 2024), as we realize now that we should have explained it in the methodology. So, now we have added the following explanation in the methodology section.

“These years were chosen as temporal reference points to permit a clear long-term valuation of the net change of mangrove landcover over three decades from the pre-Coastal Regulation Zone enforcement conditions to the current conservation-oriented environment, an evaluation that uses years of comparable high-quality satellite imagery, which are less impacted by intermediate, short-term variations.”

We have also added a detailed LU/LC classification in the revised manuscript, along with the kappa coefficient and the confusion matrix.

 

 

3. Governance Analysis Lacks Ground-Level Insight

The document review provides background but does not reveal how or why policies failed in specific contexts. Field-based case studies or stakeholder interviews (e.g., with local officials or communities) would significantly strengthen the governance assessment.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. While we have not discussed the failure of policies in the results section, we have delved into the aspect of policy failure in the last paragraph of the discussion section.

The constraints of resources and lack of funding limited our ability to conduct field-based case studies or stakeholder interviews (e.g., with local officials or communities), which we agree would significantly strengthen the governance assessment. We accept this limitation confronting our study, and we have highlighted it as one of the limitations as follows:

“However, the constraints of resources and lack of funding limited our ability to conduct field-based case studies or stakeholder interviews with local officials or communities, which could have significantly strengthened the governance assessment. Hence, our study misses out on local contexts and informal governance that might speak otherwise. Despite these limitations, we searched for local-level initiatives and have highlighted the role of private companies and fishermen in addressing these issues in a grass-roots level collaborative way.”

4. Policy Recommendations Are Too General

Proposals such as "mainstreaming BGI" or "enhancing community participation" are conceptually valid but lack practical details. The paper does not specify how BGI principles would be implemented in Mumbai's planning system or how community engagement would be institutionalized within it.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We completely agree with the point raised. To address these issues, we have further specified in our recommendations how the BGI principles could be implemented in Mumbai's planning system as well as how community engagement could be institutionalized within it. These changes are highlighted in the conclusion section of the manuscript.

5. Missing Stakeholder Perspectives

Although the manuscript mentions community participation, it does not examine the actual role of local actors—such as coastal communities, NGOs, or fishers—in mangrove conservation. Including such perspectives would strengthen the governance analysis. For example, Conservation International and AERF have partnered with Apple Inc. to implement community-led mangrove restoration in Raigad district, Maharashtra, near Mumbai. These initiatives link conservation with local livelihoods and show how NGOs and the private sector can support effective, inclusive governance. Referencing such models—or comparable efforts in Mumbai—would enhance the manuscript's practical relevance.

 

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We have explained that local communities and artisanal fishers are typically excluded from processes of governance, creating mistrust and further marginalization and inequity. However, based on the example of Conservation International and AERF partnering with Apple Inc. in Raigard, concerning Mumbai, we have updated our Manuscript about the role of Godrej in the protection of Mangroves in Vikhroli. We have added the following:

“The sustained independent stewardship of the mangroves in Vikhroli by the Godrej Group is noteworthy in this regard, highlighting how the private sector has effectively contributed to the conservation of large tracts of urban mangrove forests in Greater Mumbai over four decades. Fisherfolk helped in this initiative by sharing their knowledge about tide cycles, sediment shifting, and fish migration, and in return, participated in species documentation by adding local names to the mangrove app.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to review the article "land-3797006". The manuscript examines changes in coastal mangrove forests in the Mumbai metropolitan area of India from 1994 to 2024, explores the causes of mangrove decline, and discusses the impact of policy and institutional frameworks on mangrove conservation within the Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) framework. The article’s topic aligns with the research scope of the Land journal, and the content contains some innovative elements. However, the following issues may need to be addressed before publication:

1. Lines 33-34. The article emphasizes the importance of mangroves as a BGI system, but does not mention the distribution and threats to mangroves globally. Mangrove conservation is a global issue and should have broad international significance. Therefore, I suggest improving the relevant content to explain the urgency of the research and supplementing it with related data to enhance the global relevance of the research.

2. Lines 85–92. Conceptual framework and theoretical section. The authors mention multi-center governance in the sustainable governance section but do not elaborate on how multi-center governance is understood and applied in mangrove protection. Additionally, in the policy and institutional framework section, while mentioning that India has numerous policies for protecting coasts and forests, the authors do not analyze the synergies or conflicts between these policies.

3. The introduction outlines BGI's role in sustainable governance and the background of mangrove coverage change research, but it is not systematic and should include background on land use, ecosystem services, and climate change. It is recommended to reference the following literature to enhance comprehensiveness:The Dynamic Effects of Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand on Air Quality: A Case Study of the Yellow River Basin, China; Cycling Greenway Planning towards Sustainable Leisure and Recreation: Assessing Network Potential in the Built Environment of Chengdu

4. Lines 213–215. In the results analysis section, the article analyzes mangrove coverage data from two time points (1994 and 2024) but does not analyze changes in intermediate years. In fact, it is impossible to determine whether mangrove coverage is decreasing annually or experiencing phased changes (e.g., faster reduction in certain periods, slower reduction or even recovery in others). The authors should clarify and explain the feasibility of this approach.

5. Lines 215–216. The analysis of mangrove change trends and causes is insufficiently in-depth; merely providing a superficial explanation of the data is inadequate. While the study mentions that the decline in mangrove coverage is due to land use development, infrastructure encroachment, and ineffective enforcement of existing regulations, it should focus on exploring the underlying logic and deeper causes. For example, land use development, policies, etc.?

6. The discussion comprehensively analyzes the complex relationship between urbanization, governance fragmentation, and mangrove ecosystems. However, when discussing the impact of urbanization on mangroves, the potential of climate change, urban planning, and land use policies to mitigate negative impacts is not mentioned, which should be discussed and explained.

7. The conclusion should further summarize and refine the innovations of this paper compared to similar studies, particularly in exploring the trends and factors influencing mangrove changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers’

We extend our heartfelt appreciation to all four reviewers for dedicating your time to reviewing our manuscript. Your perceptive feedback and suggestions have played a pivotal role in improving our work. Your expertise and meticulous attention to details have unquestionably enhanced the quality and coherence of the content. We deeply value the thoroughness with which you evaluated our manuscript and offered insightful comments. Your contributions are greatly appreciated, and we are truly grateful for your efforts.

Reviewer 2

Thank you for inviting me to review the article "land-3797006". The manuscript examines changes in coastal mangrove forests in the Mumbai metropolitan area of India from 1994 to 2024, explores the causes of mangrove decline, and discusses the impact of policy and institutional frameworks on mangrove conservation within the Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) framework. The article’s topic aligns with the research scope of the Land journal, and the content contains some innovative elements. However, the following issues may need to be addressed before publication:

1. Lines 33-34. The article emphasizes the importance of mangroves as a BGI system, but does not mention the distribution and threats to mangroves globally. Mangrove conservation is a global issue and should have broad international significance. Therefore, I suggest improving the relevant content to explain the urgency of the research and supplementing it with related data to enhance the global relevance of the research.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We completely agree with it. We have updated the introduction section as per the suggestion. 

2. Lines 85–92. Conceptual framework and theoretical section. The authors mention multi-center governance in the sustainable governance section but do not elaborate on how multi-center governance is understood and applied in mangrove protection. Additionally, in the policy and institutional framework section, while mentioning that India has numerous policies for protecting coasts and forests, the authors do not analyze the synergies or conflicts between these policies.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We completely agree with it. We have made the suggested changes in the respective sections by elaborating on how multi-centre governance is understood and applied in mangrove protection, as well as by analysing the synergies and conflicts between the policies for protecting coasts and forests in India. 

3. The introduction outlines BGI's role in sustainable governance and the background of mangrove coverage change research, but it is not systematic and should include background on land use, ecosystem services, and climate change. It is recommended to reference the following literature to enhance comprehensiveness: The Dynamic Effects of Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand on Air Quality: A Case Study of the Yellow River Basin, China; Cycling Greenway Planning towards Sustainable Leisure and Recreation: Assessing Network Potential in the Built Environment of Chengdu

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment.  As per your suggestion, we have systematically organized BGI's role in sustainable governance and the background of mangrove coverage change research by including background on land use, ecosystem services, and climate change. We have also cited the recommended references: The Dynamic Effects of Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand on Air Quality: A Case Study of the Yellow River Basin, China; Cycling Greenway Planning towards Sustainable Leisure and Recreation: Assessing Network Potential in the Built Environment of Chengdu.

4. Lines 213–215. In the results analysis section, the article analyzes mangrove coverage data from two time points (1994 and 2024) but does not analyze changes in intermediate years. In fact, it is impossible to determine whether mangrove coverage is decreasing annually or experiencing phased changes (e.g., faster reduction in certain periods, slower reduction or even recovery in others). The authors should clarify and explain the feasibility of this approach.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We have compared data from two time points (1994 and 2024) to assess the total magnitude and spatial pattern of mangrove change over three decades. This long-term comparison helps establish clearer connections between sustained land-use pressures, shifts in policy, and resulting socio-ecological impacts, without the distraction of short-term fluctuations that may not represent broader trends. The scope and feasibility of the research are aligned with its primary objective to provide a policy-relevant baseline for the governance of blue-green infrastructure by assessing the overall loss or persistence of mangroves. Analyzing annual rates or phased patterns would require an entirely different research design, higher-resolution datasets for multiple years, and a more intensive analytical framework. Hence, to maintain methodological reliability of the study, we have not used a time-series analysis.

5. Lines 215–216. The analysis of mangrove change trends and causes is insufficiently in-depth; merely providing a superficial explanation of the data is inadequate. While the study mentions that the decline in mangrove coverage is due to land use development, infrastructure encroachment, and ineffective enforcement of existing regulations, it should focus on exploring the underlying logic and deeper causes. For example, land use development, policies, etc.?

Authors’ Response:

The study intentionally limits the analysis of mangrove change to a broad scale, considering the primary focus of the study is to quantify and map long-term mangrove change to establish a governance-oriented baseline. This long-term comparison of three decades helps establish clearer connections between sustained land-use pressures, shifts in policy, and resulting socio-ecological impacts, without the distraction of short-term fluctuations that may not represent broader trends.

We have added the following information to the discussion section:

“Mumbai has witnessed exceptional urban growth in a very short period [51]. Its urban growth is a constantly ongoing process, which exacerbates its suffering and the degradation of its natural environment due to uncontrolled and exploitative urban development. However, the nature and pace of urbanization have varied across Mumbai. The urban expansion in the coastal areas of Mumbai has always differed from the inland areas, given the premium values of coastal lands [90]. The coastal areas took the form of edge expansion, while the inland areas underwent infilling [90]. The width of Mumbai’s creeks has been reduced by the impact of urbanization [91]. In addition, Mumbai’s Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) rules have also been violated severely. According to one study, spillover from urban development has led to navigation patterns and unnatural tidal flows, as narrow creeks are being reclaimed, directly impacting mangrove health. This is because flooding and water flow are premised on maximizing the area of the overall mangrove ecosystem [34,91].”

6. The discussion comprehensively analyzes the complex relationship between urbanization, governance fragmentation, and mangrove ecosystems. However, when discussing the impact of urbanization on mangroves, the potential of climate change, urban planning, and land use policies to mitigate negative impacts is not mentioned, which should be discussed and explained.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. As per the suggestion, we have detailed the potential of climate change, urban planning, and land use policies to mitigate the negative impacts in the conclusion section as part of our recommendations.

7. The conclusion should further summarize and refine the innovations of this paper compared to similar studies, particularly in exploring the trends and factors influencing mangrove changes.

 

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. Our study places strong emphasis on the governance dimension of blue–green infrastructure, which distinguishes it from many existing works. We have updated the conclusion to not only summarize the drivers of mangrove change but also to integrate insights on governance mechanisms, policies, and institutional effectiveness, making it both ecological and policy-relevant. Based on all the comments received from our reviewers, we have completely modified the conclusion section, trying our best to address all the comments together.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I have thoroughly and thoroughly reviewed your manuscript. However, I think it is important to focus on reviewing and addressing the following observations which I recommend:

Introduction

It is suggested to include specific data on the loss of key ecosystem services (carbon sequestration capacity, coastal protection) due to the reduction of 91% of mangroves in Mumbai (1994-2024), linking it to local climate risks. 3. 91% reduction of mangroves in Mumbai (1994-2024), linking it to local climate risks

I think it is necessary for the authors to mention the theoretical framework of "Blue-Green Infrastructure" (BGI) from an environmental justice perspective, mentioning how the exclusion of fishing communities in mangrove governance aggravates socio-ecological vulnerability

I think it is necessary to explicitly contrast existing policies with their actual implementation, using examples such as the Coastal Road project to highlight regulatory incoherence.

Materials and methods

Detail the validation protocol for satellite imagery (Landsat), including accuracy metrics (e.g. Kappa index) and how limitations such as cloud cover or spatial resolution in dense urban areas were handled

Specify the selection criteria for the thematic analysis of documents, such as the number of government reports, reviewed and keywords used to ensure reproducibility.

Discussion

I think the authors need to focus on the contradiction between the use of technologies and the lack of institutional resources, proposing a polycentric governance framework that integrates local communities in participatory monitoring

Perhaps something could be mentioned about why institutional fragmentation reflects conflicts of interest between urban development and conservation, suggesting inter-institutional coordination mechanisms with clear timelines and targets

Please relate mangrove loss to the increased costs of grey infrastructure for coastal protection, quantifying opportunities for savings if BGI is prioritised in urban plans.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for your critical review and comments on our paper. We have attempted to address all of your concerns. Hope you like these. 

Reviewer 3

Dear authors, I have thoroughly and thoroughly reviewed your manuscript. However, I think it is important to focus on reviewing and addressing the following observations which I recommend:

Introduction

It is suggested to include specific data on the loss of key ecosystem services (carbon

sequestration capacity, coastal protection) due to the reduction of 91% of mangroves in Mumbai (1994-2024), linking it to local climate risks. 3. 91% reduction of mangroves in Mumbai (1994-2024), linking it to local climate risks. 

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We agree that it would have been very meaningful to add specific data on the loss of key ecosystem services, linking it to local climate risks. However, we could not do so due to the absence of locally calibrated, high-resolution biophysical data for Mumbai’s mangroves. Applying generic global coefficients would risk significant inaccuracies given local variability in species composition, biomass, and tidal exposure. Such a valuation would require a separate methodological framework involving field measurements and ecological modelling, which was beyond the scope of this spatial-temporal change study. This limitation is acknowledged, and future research incorporating site-specific ecosystem service assessments is recommended to strengthen the link between mangrove loss and local climate risk mitigation.

 

I think it is necessary for the authors to mention the theoretical framework Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) from an environmental justice perspective, mentioning how the exclusion of fishing communities in mangrove governance aggravates socio-ecological vulnerability. ‘

 

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We have modified the theoretical framework on BGI from an environmental justice perspective, mentioning how the exclusion of fishing communities in mangrove governance aggravates socio-ecological vulnerability. We have added the following:

 

“However, from the perspective of environmental justice, the benefits of BGI are often not uniformly distributed. For instance, fishing communities, for whom mangroves mean livelihood security, storm protection, and cultural identity, are often not included in the formal governance of BGI [46,47]. This exclusion not only diminishes the social legitimation of conservation measures but also heightens socio-ecological vulnerability by taking away the communities' traditional access rights and their participatory role in the co-management of the sustainable resources they rely on.”

 

I think it is necessary to explicitly contrast existing policies with their actual implementation, using examples such as the Coastal Road project to highlight regulatory incoherence.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We have added information about the Coastal Road project to highlight regulatory incoherence in the discussion section.

 

Materials and methods

Detail the validation protocol for satellite imagery (Landsat), including accuracy metrics (e.g.

Kappa index) and how limitations such as cloud cover or spatial resolution in dense urban areas were handled.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We chose the datasets with consideration for their low cloud cover, and the spatial resolution limits in dense urban areas were addressed by carefully selecting the representative training samples to minimize classification errors. We have added this to the manuscript. As per the suggestion, we have also included the accuracy assessment and Kappa index (supplementary file).

 

Specify the selection criteria for the thematic analysis of documents, such as the number of government reports, reviewed and keywords used to ensure reproducibility.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We have added the following to the manuscript:

“In the thematic analysis, we selected our documents through Google search using Boolean keyword searches (e.g., "mangrove*", "Mumbai", “governance”, AND "policy"). In this way, documents published between 2012 and 2025 were sourced from government portals, academic databases, and institutional repositories. Accordingly, at least 5 government reports, 5 peer-reviewed articles, and 5 grey literature sources addressing the themes were included. We made sure to exclude duplicates, unrelated works, and non-analytical items. The screening process involved title/abstract review and full-text analysis.”

 

Discussion

I think the authors need to focus on the contradiction between the use of technologies and the lack of institutional resources, proposing a polycentric governance framework that integrates local communities in participatory monitoring. 

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We have added the following to the manuscript:

“While these new monitoring technologies have the potential to enhance compliance and adaptive management, global studies have shown that monitoring must be embedded in institutional capacity and funding, and inter-agency coordination [102]. This reinforces our finding that operational constraints limit the functionality of new technologies in the real world. To address the governance-technology gap, it is essential to establish a coherent polycentric governance structure that facilitates decentralized decision-making and interconnected, multi-institutional governance, incorporating community participatory monitoring. Combining forms of local ecological knowledge, such as those from fishing communities, with technological information can facilitate adaptive co-management that is both accountable and legitimate.”

 

Perhaps something could be mentioned about why institutional fragmentation reflects conflicts of interest between urban development and conservation, suggesting inter-institutional coordination mechanisms with clear timelines and targets. 

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We have added the following to the manuscript, to the discussion section and conclusion section respectively:

“In mangrove governance, institutional fragmentation often reflects the competing priorities of urban development and conservation perspectives [102,103]. In Mumbai, infrastructure, housing, and transport agencies are often directed by mandates that serve as competitors to environmental and coastal regulatory agencies. Confused jurisdictions and competing policy directives further exacerbate this tension and produce delays, contradictory compliance instructions, and ineffectual enforcement.”

“Considering the overlapping jurisdictions and competing directives, we recommend an inter-institutional coordination mechanism that combines transparent roles and responsibilities with a collective planning process to intentionally integrate conservation priorities in development proposals at an early stage. The development of time-bound action plans and clear performance indicators can support accountability, organize conflict resolution, and help balance development and conservation objectives transparently.”

 

Please relate mangrove loss to the increased costs of grey infrastructure for coastal protection, quantifying opportunities for savings if BGI is prioritised in urban plans.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the suggestion, we have added the following to the discussion section:

“The loss of mangroves makes natural coastal protection weaker or less effective, causing cities to invest massive sums into expensive grey infrastructure, such as seawalls and embankments [107]. Existing studies show that mangroves reduce annual flood damage by huge sums globally, while their degradation significantly increases infrastructure costs [108]. Cities prioritising blue-green infrastructure (BGI) within their planning procedures ensure savings from restoration costs rather than concrete or stone defences [108]. BGI can be an integrated effort to protect coastlines, promote public cost savings, and improve longer-term local resilience against climate-related hazards.”

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript, I have the following comments/remarks on its content:
Title
- The title is very long; I suggest removing the part referring to the time frame from the current version.

Keywords: I suggest adding the keyword “Blue-Green Infrastructure.”

Introduction
- The authors analyze a narrow segment of blue-green infrastructure. It would be worthwhile to describe this issue in more detail.

Methodology
- The first subsection lacks an argument or justification for why the authors decided to analyze Mumbai.
Document Review and Thematic Analysis
- Did the authors use any scheme at this stage of the analysis? Which years of publication were the authors most interested in? It is worth describing this part in detail.

Discussion:
- The authors should also refer to international research on this phenomenon here. The research is quite limited in its territorial scope, so in order to make the content more interesting to the reader and improve the quality of the manuscript, examples from other countries should also be referred to.

Conclusions
- Here, the authors should first refer to the purpose of the research and write whether the goal was achieved. What are the authors' future plans for further research? I ask because the current manuscript seems to be a kind of beginning, and the authors do not use very advanced methodology and methods.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thanks a lot for your thorough review of our work and the detailed productive comments. These helped us work very hard and we were able to address all your concerns. Please read the revised manuscript where all new text is shown in yellow. Your specific comments have been addressed as below (see our response).  

Reviewer 4

After reviewing the manuscript, I have the following comments/remarks on its content:

Title

- The title is very long; I suggest removing the part referring to the time frame from the current Version.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. We have removed the time frame from the title.

Keywords: I suggest adding the keyword “Blue-Green Infrastructure.”’

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the keyword. 

Introduction

- The authors analyze a narrow segment of blue-green infrastructure. It would be worthwhile to describe this issue in more detail.

 

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated the introduction section.

 

Methodology

- The first subsection lacks an argument or justification for why the authors decided to analyze Mumbai.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated the introduction section.

“The significance of this study is universal, as it contributes to understanding and dealing with the severe loss of coastal mangroves in a rapidly-urbanizing area of the Global South, namely, Greater Mumbai. Such incidences of biodiversity losses is a common phenomenon in a majority of developing economies, and by using Mumbai as a case study, we hope its lessons can serve as examples to other developing countries of the world. The state of mangrove loss in this area reflects broader global patterns, where urban coastal ecosystems are undergoing damage due to reclamation, pollution, changed hydrology, as well as climate change. Thus, gaining insights from Greater Mumbai can inform integrated, community-centered conservation strategies applicable worldwide. This can contribute to sustainable urban resilience and the protection of vital blue-green infrastructure.”

 

Document Review and Thematic Analysis

- Did the authors use any scheme at this stage of the analysis? Which years of publication were the authors most interested in? It is worth describing this part in detail.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the query. Here, we have analyzed the documents thematically by coding and inductively categorizing them to identify major patterns and policy gaps related to mangrove conservation. This thematic categorization is a narrative synthesis of literature, policy reports, and news sources. The literature used comprises published materials from 2012-2025, which are representative of current circumstances, policies, and case-specific data on Mumbai. In addition, there are significant references, which we provide as contextual legal, policy, and governance background, as well as a lesser representation of older but seminal works that serve as historical baselines on mangrove benefits. This is shown in the table below (Table 1).

 

Table 1. Chronological Distribution of Key References and Their Thematic Focus

Year	Key References	Focus
2012 - 2014	The Indian Express (2012), Everard et al. (2014)	Shows a strong focus on current institutional structures, urban projects, and recent mangrove cover changes
2017 - 2021	Boda (2017), Chouhan et al. (2017), Down to Earth (2018), Dodhiya (2021)	Provides governance, CRZ policy debates, and socio-environmental conflict background
2023 - 2025	Bhattacharjee & Sharma (2023), Bhattacharjee & Sharma (2025), BMC (2024), Devasia (2025), Kumar (2025)	Serve as historical benchmarks for legal rulings and ecological valuations
Undated	MCZMA (n.d.), MMB (n.d.), NITI Aayog (n.d.), GOI (n.d.)	Serve as historical benchmarks for legal rulings and ecological valuations

 

These have been added to the manuscript. Here, it is noteworthy that many times on the websites of the government agencies in India, we find the necessary information, but without any date of uploading or updating the information. In such cases, we have marked it as n.d., meaning ‘undated’ as per international referencing standards. 

 

Discussion:

- The authors should also refer to international research on this phenomenon here. The research is quite limited in its territorial scope, so in order to make the content more interesting to the reader and improve the quality of the manuscript, examples from other countries should also be referred to.

Authors’ Response:

 Thank you for the comment. We have updated the discussion session with examples from other countries.

 

Conclusions

- Here, the authors should first refer to the purpose of the research and write whether the goal was achieved. What are the authors future plans for further research? I ask because the current manuscript seems to be a kind of beginning, and the authors do not use very advanced methodology and methods.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for the comment. We have updated the conclusion section with the following information: 

“This study aimed to analyze mangrove conservation in Greater Mumbai by applying an integrated policy analysis framework connecting urban ecology and environmental governance. We delve into the change in mangrove cover over 30 years, CRZ infractions, and policy changes, uncovering spatial pressures, governance contradictions, and limited inclusion of marginal communities. The constraints of resource availability, stakeholder engagement, and data continuity challenged the study and restricted bringing to light micro-level analysis. Nevertheless, the study presents a strong macro-level analysis of conservation practices and governance shortfalls.”

 

“Taking this research as a baseline, future research can examine how to integrate Blue-Green Infrastructure in statutory planning, the formalization of coastal community participation in governance, establishing co-management and benefit-sharing methods, and the use of spatial analytics and multifunctional design approaches that align urban-built structures with the ecosystem services provided by mangroves in Mumbai.”

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made substantial revisions in response to the previous review comments, and most of the changes align well with the suggested recommendations. To further enhance the quality required for publication, it is recommended that Section 6 ("Strengths and Limitations") and Section 7 ("Conclusion") be merged into a single, cohesive concluding section. This unified section should also strengthen the discussion on future research directions by explicitly linking each identified limitation—such as the reliance on secondary data or limited temporal resolution—with corresponding methodological or conceptual recommendations for future studies.

Author Response

Response: Thank you for pointing out this issue. We have taken care of this. Now, we have merged Section 6 & Section 7 and made them into one. The new text is shown as below in yellow. In addition, rest of the paragraphs are flowing well.

“This study has its limitations, but it also highlights important research directions. First, a reliance on secondary data limited the ability to represent lived experiences and informal governance processes. Future research should incorporate field-based case studies, interviews with multi-stakeholders, and participatory mapping with coastal communities to build more contextually specific information and empirically validate institutional analyses. Second, issues of time lag of two to four years in the land cover datasets obstructed the ability to identify rapid change over short timescales. For future research, we would suggest using high-frequency remote sensing, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) surveys, or citizen-science-based ecological monitoring to obtain this temporal resolution. Third, the study provides a macro-level policy analysis, but we have no information about micro-level socio-ecological processes in the target countries. Future studies could comprehensively collect mixed methods data, including household surveys, ethnographic methods, and spatial analyses, to assess how conservation policies and practices developed in relation to community experiences in the 'real' world.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good revision.

Author Response

Comment: Good revision.

Response: Thank you very much! Appreciate your comments during round 1 that helped us do the revisions and make our paper sharper.  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors.

I have reviewed in detail each of the responses. I consider that you have done an excellent scientific work and the manuscript has significantly improved its quality. 

For this reason, I consider that in its current state it can be considered for publication.

Best regards.

Author Response

Thank you very much! Appreciate your comments during round 1 that helped us do the revisions and make our paper sharper.  

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I do not have any comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much! Appreciate your comments during round 1 that helped us do the revisions and make our paper sharper