Stakeholder Participation for Nature-Based Solutions: Inspiration for Rural Area’s Sustainability in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I reviewed the article and I see that it is an excellent source of future research. I recommend the publication.
Please consider providing some additional, specific comments such as:
• What is the main question addressed by the research?
It is a nature-based solution to social and environmental problems in rural China. The authors make this issue clear, given the lack of participation of farmers in general in China's main problems regarding the lack of collaboration on their part in the reality of current days.
• Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field?
The theme discussed by the authors is relevant in its entirety, as it addresses a very comprehensive dynamic regarding problem solutions via a solution focused on nature as a resilient form of social problems and the distance between farmers and the reality of the environment.
• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The article adds a new theme about the reality of the facts that farmers face today and as a solution based on nature as a way of solving the problems that society faces in the countryside. Because other articles do not address this topic of the facts investigated.
• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
The article makes a direct summary of the main theoretical investigations and the practical experience of stakeholder participation in the approach to nature as a way of solving the problems that farmers face today, where through a systematic review we can observe five key aspects: policies , motivations, challenges, methods and structures for building a more humanistic society today.
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Yes, the conclusions are concise and actually show the objectives that the article seeks to show us about the theme presented based on the question of nature as a way of solving problems.
• Are the references appropriate?
Yes, quite appropriate as it directs the work towards the objectives it proposes, clearly showing the magnitude of the article.
• Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Regarding the figures and table in the body of the article, I only see the need for a few small improvements in relation to the figures in relation to increasing the font size for better visualization of the information, as the tables are essential for the article as they complement the text in its entirety.
• What is the main question addressed by the research?
The MAIN issue addressed is nature as a way to solve the problems that cover the rural area of China, focusing on the solution through comprehensive, for example, five main categories: ecosystem restoration, ecosystem conservation, ecosystem management, resolution of specific problems and infrastructure.
· Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the area? Does this address a specific gap in the field?
The article is relevant to today's dynamics as it addresses the issue of nature as a solution to various social and environmental problems.
• What does it add to the subject area compared to other published material?
This article adds a dynamic to current facts, taking as a starting point the resolution of problems through nature.
• What specific improvements should authors consider regarding the methodology? What additional controls should be considered?
The study found that research on nature as a solution to problems is relatively abundant in policy introduction and publicity, but research of greater magnitude is still lacking, such as: how to mobilize motivation for public participation, solving future challenges, specific methods implementation, supervision, management structures for sustainable development and exploration of replication of the methodology and which can bring new knowledge to the surface.
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
Yes, quite consistent because in a holistic view they cover the entire reality of the facts researched.
Are references appropriate?
Yes, quite appropriate as it directs the work towards the objectives it proposes, clearly showing the magnitude of the article.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Your appreciation has given me great confidence in my research work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting paper concerning important and current topic: stakeholders participation for nature-based solutions (NbS) being implemented within various activities including food production in rural areas with regard to benefits for sustainable development. This topic is now very crucial for effectiveness of nature-based solution implementation and harmonization helping to achieve sustainable development and mitigation of anthropogenic climate channge. This is a difficult problem to investigate, though many other researchers try to conduct such issues. The authors of this paper tried to do it with a success.
Methodical approach is typical, rather not innovative, but proper in the case of such issues / aims. The results confirmed some well-known regularities and patterns, but also give a new portion of knowledge, as regads results, because of complex approach (thanks to wide construction of the whole research) enabling many aspects to be taken into account (e.g. policies, benefits, methods and frameworks for NbS).
Results and discussion are very interesting and valuable, especially the aspects: benefits, challenges and barriers of participating for NbS and also methods and tools of participation for NbS). These are also the conclusions.
Detailed note: please, formulate directly the aim of research in the end of INTRODUCTION.
In general: it is an interesting article worth publishing after mninor revisions; it is of high readers' interest because of current topic / problem and broad results; rather average as concerns scientific value because of rather typical (but proper) methodical approach.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: [please, formulate directly the aim of research in the end of INTRODUCTION.]
Response 1: We have added a description of the aim of the study at the end of the INTRODUCTION.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
your paper is an interesting one and can bring relevant insights into how NbS could be implemented, as research on on NbS is important for addressing complex environmental and societal challenges, improving human well-being, and promoting a sustainable and harmonious relationship between people and the natural world. Your paper could provide inputs for policymakers, businesses, communities, and individuals to make informed decisions that support a more sustainable and resilient future.
There is some room for improving the paper. I added a general comment and a few more detailed one.
General comment 1:
Paper needs a more clear overall context and thought. Starting with the ch. 2.1 it is not really clear whether this are steps in the analysis or research aims. Latter need to indicate consistently what are you aiming for and not how was it done.
General comment 2:
In ch. 2.3 you provide a protocol of paper screening, where the last step - arbitrarily omitted papers are not justified clearly.
General comments 3:
The discussion part seems too much like repetition of the result section.
Detailed comments: in the text (attached)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Summary:
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
General comment 1:
Paper needs a clearer overall context and thought. Starting with the ch. 2.1 it is not really clear whether this are steps in the analysis or research aims. Latter need to indicate consistently what are you aiming for and not how was it done.
Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. Here expressed is not a step of analysis, is the reason why this paper uses a systematic literature review methodology to explore stakeholder participation for NbS, the aims are:(1), (2), (3) ......
Therefore, we have been expressed more clearly in this sentence of the paper. You can find it on the second page, ch.2.1, lines 110-111.
General comment 2:
In ch. 2.3 you provide a protocol of paper screening, where the last step - arbitrarily omitted papers are not justified clearly.
Response 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the reasons for screening out the papers in the last step with rationalizations. You can find it on page 5, ch.2.3, lines 164-167.
General comments 3:
The discussion part seems too much like repetition of the result section.
Response 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed content similarity with result in discussion part ch.4.1.
Detailed comments: in the text (attached):
Response detailed comment 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added an explanation of "government-led". You can find it on page 2, introduction, lines 52-53.
Response detailed comment 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. This section has been clearly revised. You can find it on page 2, introduction, lines 52-60.
Response detailed comment 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made changes to the vocabulary and expressions of this part. You can find it on page 9, ch.3.4, lines 302-303 and Table3.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
