This is an interesting collection of case studies looking at justice in mining communities around the world. Overall, the paper is well-written and clearly organized. There are a few places where concepts could be clarified or emphasized to improve the paper.

Main comments:
-The concept of temporality is well described, but it was not fully clear how it related to the case studies presented. Explicitly describing the temporality aspect within each case study would be helpful.

-Likewise, the authors state that the case studies span the “mine lifecycle”. do the authors really mean the mine lifecycle, or do they mean the lifecycle of a mining community? Either way, a description of the lifecycle and key parts of it in the introduction would help the reader place the case studies along the life cycle.

-The description of the “just transition” concept is somewhat narrow. While the labor aspect is an important one, “just transitions” have also been discussed extensively in relation to environmental and climate justice (see e.g., Jenkins et al 2016). A brief discussion of the broader conceptualization would be helpful.

https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/science/article/pii/S2214629615300669

Minor comments:
-Page 5: first paragraph of New Zealand case study - do the authors mean “resource exploitation” as written, or “resource extraction”?
-Page 6, line 15: “in” missing between “resulting” and “the price of coal”
-Page 9, line 45: “and figuring out how to get there” should be “but figuring out how to get there”
-Page 11, first paragraph of Zimbabwe case study: This paragraph feels like it is too broad to be in the case study section and would fit better in the overall introduction.

The authors have done a good job of addressing the reviewer comments, and the paper is now much clearer.