Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper.

I especially liked your overview on stakeholder engagement in general in the beginning of the paper and your outline of the critiques raised. However, I was more than surprised to find out at the end that you do not have finished your analysis yet and do not provide any results. Please finish your analysis first and finish the paper before resubmitting it again.

Moreover, I have added several comments in the manuscript itself which I attach here that I encourage you to consider when revising the manuscript before resubmitting to this journal or another one.

There are several points I want to raise more specifically:
a) please state your research question earlier on in the paper. It is stated in line 185, which is too late within the argumentation. Please think of reshaping the introduction in such a way that the research paper and the purpose of the review become crystal clear within the first two pages (see also my next comment). By this, your study becomes more compelling and readers stuck reading it.
b) Why is it important to review the past? What I want to trigger here is: what is the benefit of the review? What are you expecting to find? What do you want to highlight based on this review? Failures, learnings, deficits, ...? Please specify in the section of line 156 why the literature review is worthwhile. You list your research goals in lines 166-183. However, they should be stated beforehand (line 156 & ongoing), when you make the claim of doing a review.
c) why your focus on aquatic SES? Please specify the reason for why you look at aquatic SES in your review. I made a comment in the manuscript (line 157), so you may want to add your reasoning in this section.
d) what is the logic of the headlines? Isn't there any numbering for the headlines? Would make the reading much easier. Is "Primary research question" really a first order headline?
e) lines 184-226: please make this section a readable section that properly introduces the framework you apply (what is it used for) and which doesn't put headlines for paragraphs that are only one-sentence-long. Also, I wouldn't say that "the research question can be broken down following..." but that "to answer our research question, our literature review follows the criteria of the PICO framework."
f) after having read until line 448 I was puzzled to realize that the review and its analysis are not finished yet. Why would you publich a paper that does not show any results? You need to add your analysis and the findings of your literature review. Then you can submit the paper to a journal.