Co-Design of Strategic Plans in the Case of Grassroots Initiatives: Empirical Evidence from a Post-Socialist Country

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an interesting and empirically grounded contribution to understanding participatory planning and co-design within grassroots initiatives in post-socialist contexts. The use of social network analysis (SNA) and exponential random graph models (ERGM) is methodologically ambitious and has potential to enrich the literature on community-led governance and participation.

However, the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. The conceptual framing is uneven, several methodological aspects remain insufficiently transparent, and key variables (e.g., participation depth, community involvement) lack clear operationalization. The connection between theory, data, and interpretation also needs strengthening.

Please see the detailed comments below, which address issues of conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and analytical coherence.

 

General & Conceptual Comments

1. Citation style – Please revise the references according to the MDPI in-text citation format, using numerical references [1], [2], etc., consistently throughout the manuscript.
2. Abstract length – The abstract is too short and does not provide sufficient context, methodological overview, or implications. It should briefly describe aims, data, and key findings.
3. Conceptual grounding – The idea is interesting, but the authors could enrich the conceptual framing by referring to recent commoning initiatives and their links with participatory or co-design practices.
4. Clarification of “V4 countries” – The term “V4 countries” (Visegrád Group) is not explained. Please specify which countries are included and why this regional framing is analytically relevant.
5. Contextual clarity – The statement “these countries are not developed” is problematic and imprecise. Replace it with a clearer socio-economic characterization, e.g., “post-socialist transition economies” or “emerging European contexts.”
6. Repetition (lines 42–43) – There is a redundant statement about lack of discussion in the literature; please merge or rephrase for conciseness.
7. Structure of introduction – The introduction would end more effectively with the research questions. Avoid adding further elaboration after presenting them.
8. Conceptual accuracy (81–83) – The use of the term tokenism needs justification. Provide clearer empirical or theoretical evidence for this classification.
9. Word choice – Replace “natural” with “usual” or “typical” when describing patterns of actor collaboration. “Natural” implies determinism rather than social construction.
10. Positive note – The methodological framework is well justified, and the study’s empirical design is original and ambitious.

 

🔬 Methodological & Analytical Comments

1. Sampling justification – The sample of 106 initiatives should be justified in terms of representativeness and regional coverage. How does this number reflect the total population of Slovak grassroots organizations?
2. Recruitment and data collection – The process of identifying initiatives (via “mass guided interviews” and “snowball sampling”) needs more detail: who conducted them, over what period, and how biases were minimized?
3. Operationalization of variables – Variables listed in Table 2 (e.g., degree of goal achievement, rurality, community size) lack operational definitions. Explain how they were measured and validated.
4. Measurement of “participation depth” – The paper repeatedly refers to “depth of participation” without clarifying its quantification (e.g., ordinal scale, composite index, or network metric). Define it explicitly.
5. Triangulation and validity – The authors mention interviews and surveys but do not show how qualitative data informed quantitative modeling. Consider adding triangulation to enhance validity.
6. Reliability and model fit – The discussion of degeneracy issues in ERGM is superficial. Report convergence diagnostics, robustness checks, or alternative model specifications to ensure reliability.
7. Ethics statement – There is no mention of ethical review, consent, or data protection. This is necessary when collecting data from community actors, even in low-risk social research.
8. Integration of analyses – Clarify how the social network analysis (SNA) results informed the ERGM modeling. The two methods appear parallel but not analytically integrated.
9. Visualization interpretation – The Gephi visualizations (Figures 1–2) are descriptive. Expand interpretation by linking observed patterns (centrality, density) to the hypotheses or theoretical assumptions.
10. Temporal and contextual limitations – The timing of data collection (e.g., pre/post COVID-19) might have affected collaboration practices. This limitation should be acknowledged.
11. Theoretical–empirical bridge – The paper would benefit from a clearer connection between the theoretical framework (participation, co-design) and the empirical material. At the moment, the theory reads as detached from the analytical procedure and does not sufficiently inform the operationalization of key constructs.
12. Depth versus breadth of participation – The study measures the “depth” of participation statistically, but not its quality. Integrating qualitative indicators or narratives from grassroots participants could illuminate how participation is experienced, beyond numerical density or frequency.
13. Reflexivity of the researchers – Given the strong interpretive dimension of the work, the authors should briefly acknowledge their own positionality within the Slovak context — how their institutional or disciplinary background may have influenced data collection, interpretation, and representation of community voices.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

thank you very much for your comments and effort to improve our manuscript. 

1. Citation style – Please revise the references according to the MDPI in-text citation format, using numerical references [1], [2], etc., consistently throughout the manuscript.

Authors' comments: The reference-style numbering in square brackets was added only at this stage, as it was assumed that the final set of literature sources would be incorporated after the review process.

2. Abstract length – The abstract is too short and does not provide sufficient context, methodological overview, or implications. It should briefly describe aims, data, and key findings.

Authors' comments: Thank you, the abstract was completely rewritten.

3. Conceptual grounding – The idea is interesting, but the authors could enrich the conceptual framing by referring to recent commoning initiatives and their links with participatory or co-design practices. Up to 10 new citations were added.

Authors' comments: Thank you very much, it is indeed good idea. We decided to open Theory Background in different way to deliver the better conceptual framing in context of commons and CRP.

4. Clarification of “V4 countries” – The term “V4 countries” (Visegrád Group) is not explained. Please specify which countries are included and why this regional framing is analytically relevant.

Authors' comments: We tried to better explain why this framing is rellevant and explained the V4 term. Two new citations were added.

5. Contextual clarity – The statement “these countries are not developed” is problematic and imprecise. Replace it with a clearer socio-economic characterization, e.g., “post-socialist transition economies” or “emerging European contexts.”

Authors' comments: Thank you. Problem solved.

6. Repetition (lines 42–43) – There is a redundant statement about lack of discussion in the literature; please merge or rephrase for conciseness.

Authors' comments: Thank you for advice. We reduced this statement.

7. Structure of introduction – The introduction would end more effectively with the research questions. Avoid adding further elaboration after presenting them.

Authors' comments: We agree. We belive that it will improve the flow of the chapter.

8. Conceptual accuracy (81–83) – The use of the term tokenism needs justification. Provide clearer empirical or theoretical evidence for this classification.

Authors' comments: Thank you. We added small paragraph better explaing the nature of tokenism.

9. Word choice – Replace “natural” with “usual” or “typical” when describing patterns of actor collaboration. “Natural” implies determinism rather than social construction.

Authors' comments: Several occurences have been rephrased (line 117, 335, 593)

1. Sampling justification – The sample of 106 initiatives should be justified in terms of representativeness and regional coverage. How does this number reflect the total population of Slovak grassroots organizations?

Authors' comments: In Section 3.1 Data, Table 1 now refers to the representativeness of the sample compared to the population of 502 identified grassroots initiatives in terms of region and rural–urban composition.

2. Recruitment and data collection – The process of identifying initiatives (via “mass guided interviews” and “snowball sampling”) needs more detail: who conducted them, over what period, and how biases were minimized?

Authors' comments: The authors agree. Thank you very much for fruitfull advice. We decided to completely rewrite this section of the chapter 3 and far better specify both utilized sampling methods.

3. Operationalization of variables – Variables listed in Table 2 (e.g., degree of goal achievement, rurality, community size) lack operational definitions. Explain how they were measured and validated.

Authors' comments: Table 2 now contains a detailed operationalization, covering the description of variables, their coding, type, and source. The data source was exclusively primary sources described in Section 4.1 Data.

4. Measurement of “participation depth” – The paper repeatedly refers to “depth of participation” without clarifying its quantification (e.g., ordinal scale, composite index, or network metric). Define it explicitly.

Authors' comments: An explicit operationalization and justification of ‘participation depth’ has been added at the end of Section 3.1 Data.

5. Triangulation and validity – The authors mention interviews and surveys but do not show how qualitative data informed quantitative modeling. Consider adding triangulation to enhance validity.

Authors' comments: We understand the request; however, we are not able to meet it. This study is intentionally designed as an exclusively quantitative analysis. In our view, ensuring methodological triangulation would require at minimum the application of grounded theory and narrative analysis, which, given the extensive volume of information obtained from the guided interviews, would substantially increase the length of the article and the scope of interpretations. Moreover, part of the data derived from open-ended survey questions is reserved for studies conceived differently and evaluated within a separate analytical context.

6. Reliability and model fit – The discussion of degeneracy issues in ERGM is superficial. Report convergence diagnostics, robustness checks, or alternative model specifications to ensure reliability.

Authors' comments: The comment has been addressed. In Section 3.3 Econometric analysis, the estimation procedure is clarified by specifying that the models were fitted using MCMLE, and all relevant MCMC settings (burn-in, sampling interval, and maximum MCMLE iterations) are reported. The use of the geometrically weighted term gwb1degree is now explicitly justified, including a clear statement of the chosen decay parameter. In Table 3 utilized ergm model terms are now explicitly stated. In Section 4.2 ERGM, the results now begin with an explanation of the goodness-of-fit assessment. To evaluate the MCMC process, joint p-values are reported and summarized in Table 6 (post-estimation diagnostics). In addition, Model MCMC Diagnostics p-values for individual model terms are provided in Table A3 in Appendix A.

7. Ethics statement – There is no mention of ethical review, consent, or data protection. This is necessary when collecting data from community actors, even in low-risk social research.

Authors' comments: Thank you for the comment. We would like to clarify why the study does not yet include a formal statement from the Ethics Committee. In our national context, such committees are only now being established, and ethical consents are currently issued by the Vice-Rector for Science and Research. For this reason, the statement will be added after consultation with the publisher to ensure an appropriate formulation. All necessary proofs, including informed consent documentation, have already been provided.

8. Integration of analyses – Clarify how the social network analysis (SNA) results informed the ERGM modeling. The two methods appear parallel but not analytically integrated.

Authors' comments: At the end of Section 3.1 Data, the connection between the SNA and ERGM models is now explained. The text now explains that SNA metrics and visualizations were first used to identify overall patterns of stakeholder involvement, and these insights directly informed the selection of ERGM model terms—particularly those accounting for skewed degree distribution and the centrality of specific stakeholder types. A brief text at the end of Section 4.1 Social network analysis also points to the integration of these methods.

9. Visualization interpretation – The Gephi visualizations (Figures 1–2) are descriptive. Expand interpretation by linking observed patterns (centrality, density) to the hypotheses or theoretical assumptions.

Authors' comments: Section 4.1 Social network analysis has been revised; the text now more systematically discusses general patterns in networks and debates the validity of relevant hypotheses.

10. Temporal and contextual limitations – The timing of data collection (e.g., pre/post COVID-19) might have affected collaboration practices. This limitation should be acknowledged.

Authors' comments: In the paragraph describing the limitations of the study, we noted the constraints associated with data collection during the Covid-19 pandemic.

11. Theoretical–empirical bridge – The paper would benefit from a clearer connection between the theoretical framework (participation, co-design) and the empirical material. At the moment, the theory reads as detached from the analytical procedure and does not sufficiently inform the operationalization of key constructs.

Authors' comments: The theoretical overview has been strengthened; however, the operationalization of key constructs remains challenging. This is inherently difficult to resolve, as we are not aware of any existing study that examines the determinants of participation depth in strategic planning specifically in the context of grassroots initiatives. Nevertheless, we have reinforced the justification for our hypotheses. While the variables themselves were largely derived from the broader planning and governance literature—albeit literature not focused directly on grassroots initiatives—the specific hypotheses concerning determinants at individual phases of the planning cycle were formulated during the preliminary research stage, based on focus groups conducted with the initial participants. Thus, the hypotheses are grounded in insights provided by representatives of 15 grassroots initiatives. Given the absence of relevant literature on this topic, it was not feasible to design the quantitative hypotheses in any other way, which is now more clearly explained in the manuscript.

12. Depth versus breadth of participation – The study measures the “depth” of participation statistically, but not its quality. Integrating qualitative indicators or narratives from grassroots participants could illuminate how participation is experienced, beyond numerical density or frequency.

Authors' comments: This comment appears to be related to comment 5. We ask for your understanding that this study is already exhaustive in terms of the methodological apparatus used and the scope of interpretations, and therefore we do not consider it possible to strengthen the triangulation so that it is carried out rigidly and does not only lead to the enrichment of the text with a few random storytellings.

13. Reflexivity of the researchers – Given the strong interpretive dimension of the work, the authors should briefly acknowledge their own positionality within the Slovak context — how their institutional or disciplinary background may have influenced data collection, interpretation, and representation of community voices.

Authors' comments: Than you. We will add the required information, however, it is not suitable at the moment as this information will be censored in blind peer review.

In addition to the comments of the reviewers, other sections of the text were revised and added to clarify the research design, ensure transparency in the analysis and present the results more clearly. The variable names have been standardized, and for the model results, the variable names are now provided with clarification of the type of effect. The tables in the text were reorganized, and an Appendix A section was added, which provides a more detailed discussion of the descriptive statistics of the variables, the characteristics of grassroots initiatives, and the results from the estimation process. We sincerely thank you for your time and for the valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the conceptual framing, methodology, results and overall readability of the article.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your manuscript makes a solid empirical contribution to understanding strategic planning and participation at the grassroots level in post-socialist contexts. The ERGM network analysis is technically sound, and the qualitative data collection extensive.

However, the manuscript needs to be fundamentally revised to address critical issues related to production quality, methodological transparency, theoretical orientation, and analytical basis before it can be accepted for publication.

Production Errors

• You reference Table 4 (line 295–296) as containing "descriptive statistics of the six bipartite networks," but this table does not appear in the MS.  However, this table would be essential for readers to assess network density, isolate rates, and degree distributions -core properties underpinning your ERGM analyses
• Figure 1 (the six network visualizations, reference line 321) is labeled "Figure 2” , while the GOF diagnostic charts (reference line 390) are also labeled “Figure 2,” resulting in duplicate labels and confusion.
• Hypothesis H5 (lines 146–148) uses “SI” without prior definition; even though “social innovation” appears later (line 163), the abbreviation SI should be explicitly defined when first used.

MAJOR METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

• A remarkable number of 89 interviews and focus groups were conducted, but no direct quotes, no systematic coding scheme, and no integration of the qualitative results into the ERGM results were provided. Statements such as “based on the statements of the respondents...” (line 342) lack an evidentiary basis and readers cannot verify whether this generalization is supported by 2 or 50 interviews.
• Systematic qualitative analysis  would unlock the untapped explanatory potential of your mixed-methods data.
• The study lacks clarity in variable operationalization: several variables are undefined or missing key details such as scales, units, coding rules, or data sources, which prevents reproducibility and undermines the validity of the ERGM analysis. An operationalization appendix is needed to document precise measurement procedures, coding criteria, and data sources for each variable.
  • Highest spatial level of activity (scale 1–9): Never defined. What does 1 represent? What does 9 represent? How was this measured?
  • Degree of goal achievement (0–1 continuous): No explanation of measurement method, who assessed it, or what criteria were used
  • Rurality: Completely undefined; is it binary or continuous? What threshold was used?
  • Length of planning period: No unit specified (years? months?). Range is 0–7, but unit is unclear
  • Binary variables ("Social innovator," "Engages in commercial activities," "Involvement in LDP"): Coding criteria not explicitly stated
• Several interpretations extend beyond what the data justify, as statistical associations from the ERGM are presented as causal mechanisms without supporting evidence. The claim of “internalization of human capital (...)" (line 441)  is speculative, since neither the model nor qualitative data confirm this process. Such overinterpretation risks compromising analytical credibility and causal validity.
• Hypotheses H4–H6 are conceptually misaligned with the sample, as only a minority of cases exhibit the professional or commercial characteristics these hypotheses presuppose. Their rejection therefore reflects a sampling and scoping flaw rather than substantive evidence against the proposed relationships.
• By excluding conventional grassroots groups such as sports clubs and unions, the study focuses narrowly on social-innovation-oriented organizations, which limits its representativeness and external validity. Since sports clubs are documented sources of social innovation, this exclusion should be acknowledged as a design boundary rather than interpreted as evidence of their lesser innovativeness

Secondary issues:

• The sample description lacks detail regarding the distribution of initiatives by sector, organizational form, and the legal status of non-nonprofits, as well as mission or goal diversity. Without this information, readers cannot fully assess sample heterogeneity or the relevance of findings across different kinds of community initiatives.
• The rejection of six out of eight hypotheses (H1, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7–H8) indicates that, although null results hold scientific merit, the initial theoretical framework appears insufficiently aligned with the realities of grassroots organizations in post-socialist settings. This suggests a need for recalibration of conceptual assumptions to better reflect the contextual nuances of the study population.

Final remarks:
Your research addresses a crucial question about grassroots engagement in participatory strategic planning with rigorous empirical methods in a post-socialist European context, where such studies are scarce.
The key insight, i.e., communities serve as central resources while external actors are strategically involved early on, is both valuable and robustly supported by your ERGM results.

Nonetheless, the manuscript's potential is currently limited by incomplete production aspects, insufficient qualitative data use, unclear operational definitions, and hypotheses that do not fully fit the sample.

Fortunately, these challenges are entirely manageable with targeted revisions. I strongly encourage you to revise, as the work holds promise for making a meaningful contribution to the literature on grassroots governance and social innovation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

thank you very much for your comments and effort towards improvement of our manuscript. 

1. You reference Table 4 (line 295–296) as containing "descriptive statistics of the six bipartite networks," but this table does not appear in the MS. However, this table would be essential for readers to assess network density, isolate rates, and degree distributions -core properties underpinning your ERGM analyses

Authors' comments: The tables in the text were reorganized, network level descriptive statistics are now provided in the Table 3. More comprehensive statistics are provided, accounting for density, isolate rates and degree distributions for both types of nodes.

2. Figure 1 (the six network visualizations, reference line 321) is labeled "Figure 2” , while the GOF diagnostic charts (reference line 390) are also labeled “Figure 2,” resulting in duplicate labels and confusion.

Authors' comments: The labels of figures and tables have been corrected throughout the entire text.

3. Hypothesis H5 (lines 146–148) uses “SI” without prior definition; even though “social innovation” appears later (line 163), the abbreviation SI should be explicitly defined when first used.

Authors' comments: The abbreviation SI is now defined when first used (H5, line 148)

4. A remarkable number of 89 interviews and focus groups were conducted, but no direct quotes, no systematic coding scheme, and no integration of the qualitative results into the ERGM results were provided. Statements such as “based on the statements of the respondents...” (line 342) lack an evidentiary basis and readers cannot verify whether this generalization is supported by 2 or 50 interviews. Systematic qualitative analysis would unlock the untapped explanatory potential of your mixed-methods data.

Authors' comments: Thank you for this comment. Yes, we removed statements like „based in the statements of respondents“. This study is intentionally designed as an exclusively quantitative analysis. In our view, ensuring methodological triangulation would require at minimum the application of grounded theory and narrative analysis, which, given the extensive volume of information obtained from the guided interviews, would substantially increase the length of the article and the scope of interpretations. Moreover, part of the data derived from open-ended survey questions is reserved for studies conceived differently and evaluated within a separate analytical context.

5. The study lacks clarity in variable operationalization: several variables are undefined or missing key details such as scales, units, coding rules, or data sources, which prevents reproducibility and undermines the validity of the ERGM analysis. An operationalization appendix is needed to document precise measurement procedures, coding criteria, and data sources for each variable.

Authors' comments: Table 2 now contains a detailed operationalization, covering the description of variables, their coding, type, and source. The data source was exclusively primary sources described in Section 4.1 Data.

6. Several interpretations extend beyond what the data justify, as statistical associations from the ERGM are presented as causal mechanisms without supporting evidence. The claim of “internalization of human capital (...)" (line 441) is speculative, since neither the model nor qualitative data confirm this process. Such overinterpretation risks compromising analytical credibility and causal validity.

Authors' comments: In the Results section, we avoided formulations that could appear speculative or insufficiently supported by the evidence used in the manuscript. The paragraph in lines 576–582 was therefore fully rewritten.

7. Hypotheses H4–H6 are conceptually misaligned with the sample, as only a minority of cases exhibit the professional or commercial characteristics these hypotheses presuppose. Their rejection therefore reflects a sampling and scoping flaw rather than substantive evidence against the proposed relationships.

Authors' comments: In the case of hypotheses, we identified even more serious shortcomings. Hypothesis H3 was not even mentioned in the list of hypotheses - we added it and we also decided to intervene more significantly in the interpretation of hypotheses H4-H6. We believe that the impression that they are conceptually misaligned could be caused by both the interpretations and the missing tables in the methodology section, which were added. I am not sure why their rejection should reflect a sampling and scoping flaw rather than substantive evidence against the proposed relationships. After all, there were enough innovators or commercial service providers in the sample. The request to include these hypotheses come directly from representatives of grassroots initiatives in the preliminary research and therefore we would like to leave the hypotheses in their current form. The results that these parameters are not statistically significant or negatively affect the depth of participation bring important insight. Specifically, that even small, inexperienced initiatives, or initiatives that lack various capacities and financial resources, are likely to be able to co-design solutions in DIY mode with broader involvement of partners.

8. By excluding conventional grassroots groups such as sports clubs and unions, the study focuses narrowly on social-innovation-oriented organizations, which limits its representativeness and external validity. Since sports clubs are documented sources of social innovation, this exclusion should be acknowledged as a design boundary rather than interpreted as evidence of their lesser innovativeness

Authors' comments: Thank you for your idea to better specifiy design boundaries. We done so. However, we have to take into consideration country-specific reality. Sports clubs in Slovakia are not such a source of social innovation as in the case of Western European countries. Authors are deeply engaged in activities of most important networking organizations in third sector in country – thus the practitioneers. Even if they were in very rare cases a source of social innovation, one of the criteria was the potential contribution to wider local development and the principle of community-led organization, which in our specific conditions sports clubs are mostly not - they operate on the principle of management by officials. And agricultural and other similar narrow-interest associations are an even more striking example of interest communities with almost zero innovation potential. In any case, we have fulfilled the assignment and better justified the method of classifying third sector actors in the Methodology chapter.

9. The sample description lacks detail regarding the distribution of initiatives by sector, organizational form, and the legal status of non-nonprofits, as well as mission or goal diversity. Without this information, readers cannot fully assess sample heterogeneity or the relevance of findings across different kinds of community initiatives.

Authors' comments: More detailed description of the initiatives is detailed in the section 4.1 Data, where the representativeness of the sample is now described. More detailed description of the distribution of initiatives regarding sector, legal status and field of activity is now provided at the beginning of the section 4 Results.

10. The rejection of six out of eight hypotheses (H1, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7–H8) indicates that, although null results hold scientific merit, the initial theoretical framework appears insufficiently aligned with the realities of grassroots organizations in post-socialist settings. This suggests a need for recalibration of conceptual assumptions to better reflect the contextual nuances of the study population.

Authors' comments: We believe that this comment is closely related to Comment No. 7. The hypotheses have been reduced, and we have adjusted the interpretation of the results accordingly. However, we would prefer to maintain the methodological approach already established in the study, namely the specification of hypotheses based on insights obtained during the preliminary phase of the research. Given the absence of relevant literature directly addressing this topic, it would not be feasible to justify these hypotheses solely through existing academic sources.

In addition to the comments of the reviewers, other sections of the text were revised and added to clarify the research design, ensure transparency in the analysis and present the results more clearly. The variable names have been standardized, and for the model results, the variable names are now provided with clarification of the type of effect. The tables in the text were reorganized, and an Appendix A section was added, which provides a more detailed discussion of the descriptive statistics of the variables, the characteristics of grassroots initiatives, and the results from the estimation process. Many other changes in text in relation to: conceptual grounding, lenght of abstract, repeated statements, word choice, structure of introduction, justification of variable „depth of participation“, specification of reliability and model fit, integration of analyses, interpretation of visualization, limitations any many other were improved. A total of 13 additional literature sources were incorporated, and all citations were inserted using the square-bracket reference style.

We sincerely thank you for your time and for the valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the conceptual framing, methodology, results and overall readability of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the revised version, I believe the manuscript is now in a strong and coherent form, and only a few minor refinements would further enhance its clarity. Some transitions in the Introduction could be slightly tightened, especially where the narrative shifts from Western European participatory planning to post-socialist contexts, and a few sentences in the theoretical section still repeat key concepts such as co-design and co-creation more than necessary. It would also help to be a bit more explicit about the reasoning behind choosing local government as the baseline category in the ERGM stakeholder effects, and to include a short explanatory note on the role of the gwb1degree term for readers less familiar with ERGM modelling. In the Results, the interpretation of negative coefficients for more centralized actors could be clarified to avoid misunderstandings. Offering one or two short examples of how communities participate in later planning phases would make the empirical contribution more tangible. There are also a few long sentences in the Discussion that could be lightly polished for readability, and the concluding remarks might benefit from a brief indication of how these findings can inform participatory planning frameworks in post-socialist settings. Overall, these are small adjustments within an already well-developed and meaningful piece of work.

Author Response

Reviewer comment: ..few sentences in the theoretical section still repeat key concepts such as co-design and co-creation more than necessary

Author comment: We have reduced the interpretation of the benefits of co-design in the Introduction section to avoid repeating this information in two chapters.

 

Reviewer comment: It would also help to be a bit more explicit about the reasoning behind choosing local government as the baseline category in the ERGM stakeholder effects

Author comment: In our opinion, this justification was sufficient - we clearly defined the relationship between grassroots organizations and local governments at the level of donor of funds - recipient, or provider of permits and applicant, which defines the possibilities of the emergence of some solutions of grassroots initiatives - especially in public space and if the local government is to be involved in maintenance. We added the missing information that this suggestion also results from the testing phase of the research and therefore from the focus groups.

 

Reviewer comment: ...and to include a short explanatory note on the role of the gwb1degree term for readers less familiar with ERGM modelling

Author comment: The description of the structural effect “Activity spread of grassroots initiatives” in Table 3 now includes an explanation of the gwb1degree term in relation to representing centralization patterns in the network without overfitting and its necessity in networks with highly skewed degree distributions.

 

Reviewer comment: In the Results, the interpretation of negative coefficients for more centralized actors could be clarified to avoid misunderstandings.

Author comment: The Results section now contains an interpretation of this structural effect, highlighting the negative coefficient associated with high network centrality (lines 617–630).

 

Reviewer comment: Concluding remarks might benefit from a brief indication of how these findings can inform participatory planning frameworks in post-socialist settings

Author comment: We fully agree. We integrated such an explanation into Conclusion section. 

 

Thank you for your effort to further improve this manuscript, we appreciate it a lot.

Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I commend you for your substantial efforts to improve the manuscript.

The revised version demonstrates significant advancement from the previous submission, effectively addressing most prior comments through expanded theoretical grounding (e.g., urban commons framework), clearer hypothesis formulation (H1-H6), detailed ERGM/SNA methods, and refined results presentation with added tables.​

Remaining Issues

However, spelling and formatting issues persist, e.g.:

• consistent use of "post-socialistic" vs "post-socialist" [line 2]
• "re-search"  [line 8]
• "processess"  [line 54]
• "deveoped a stratgeic plan"  [Table 2]
• "trough" [line 222]).

Proofreading remains essential.​

Specific Revisions Needed

• Research Questions (Lines 72-79): Rephrase yes/no format (Q1-Q3) as testable statements. For example, Q1 ("Are community-led initiatives... a source of good practice?") could specify "what patterns characterize" or "to what extent do they exemplify" to align with your empirical focus on network structure and actor involvement across planning phases. Revise for clarity and operationalizability.​
• Arguments/Discussion: While direct literature may be sparse, hypotheses demand theoretical justification per Whetten (1989): 'what, how, why, who, where, when.' Revise by explicitly linking H1-H6 to established frameworks (e.g., Slave et al., 2017 on planning phases; Seyfang & Smith, 2012 on grassroots networks) for greater coherence.​
• Tables/Figures:
  • Remove Table 2 last column (redundant "Source").
  • Fix Table 3 label positioning (page 11/12 split).
  • Simplify dense Figure 1 visualization (node sizes/labels) or create sub-figures; expand caption (lines 478-480) to clarify "Size of nodes represents degree [number of ties]; polygon sides reflect highest spatial level of activity." Note isolates handling.​
  • Table 5: Add footnote: "e.g., GI covariate = Grassroots Initiative covariate; *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001." Clarify values in parentheses (estimates/SE?).​
• Tense Consistency: Standardize results/discussion to past tense (e.g., lines 463-465: "provided... laid... used"). Rephrase line 607 for precision

Author Response

Reviewer comment: ..few sentences in the theoretical section still repeat key concepts such as co-design and co-creation more than necessary

Author comment: We have reduced the interpretation of the benefits of co-design in the Introduction section to avoid repeating this information in two chapters.

 

Reviewer comment: It would also help to be a bit more explicit about the reasoning behind choosing local government as the baseline category in the ERGM stakeholder effects

Author comment: In our opinion, this justification was sufficient - we clearly defined the relationship between grassroots organizations and local governments at the level of donor of funds - recipient, or provider of permits and applicant, which defines the possibilities of the emergence of some solutions of grassroots initiatives - especially in public space and if the local government is to be involved in maintenance. We added the missing information that this suggestion also results from the testing phase of the research and therefore from the focus groups.

 

Reviewer comment: and to include a short explanatory note on the role of the gwb1degree term for readers less familiar with ERGM modelling

Author comment: The description of the structural effect “Activity spread of grassroots initiatives” in Table 3 now includes an explanation of the gwb1degree term in relation to representing centralization patterns in the network without overfitting and its necessity in networks with highly skewed degree distributions.

 

Reviewer comment: In the Results, the interpretation of negative coefficients for more centralized actors could be clarified to avoid misunderstandings.

Author comment: The Results section now contains an interpretation of this structural effect, highlighting the negative coefficient associated with high network centrality (lines 617–630).

 

Reviewer comment: Concluding remarks might benefit from a brief indication of how these findings can inform participatory planning frameworks in post-socialist settings

Author comment: We fully agree. We integrated such an explanation into Conclusion section. 

 

Thank you for your effort to further improve this manuscript, we appreciate it a lot.

Authors.