Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Continental Ecuador and Galapagos Islands: Challenges and Opportunities in a Changing Tourism and Economic Context

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Report for sustainability

Proposed paper “Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Continental Ecuador and Galapagos Island”

Summary

The paper reports on a systematic study on the status of ICZM in mainland Ecuador and the terrain of Galapagos. A framework comprising 10 criteria is applied to diagnose status and performance of strategies and measures as stated in documents or put forward in interviews. Key domains of intervention and directions of improvements are identified and discussed.

Comments in general

Originality/Novelty/Significance: A more sustainable development of coastal regions continues to be a prominent societal issue on the global scale. The presented study is embedded into this challenging setting. The topical research question is directed to the status of ICZM in Ecuadorian territories in general and remains somewhat skin deep. Although results of the criteria-based assessment are presented with good traceability, the reflection on the interaction of the criteria and the overall situation of ICZM in Ecuador remains vague. In consequence, the contribution to advancement in current knowledge on the national level and in particular to global ICZM is limited.

Careful re-consideration of the research question is recommended to shape the profile of the paper and to make results more relevant with respect to both scientific novelty and relevance for ICZM practice. The authors might focus a bit, e.g., on the challenges for an ICZM well adapted to the conditions on mainland coasts and Galapagos far afield or whether or not the catalogue of criteria is suitable to identify different needs and success of ICZM or whether or not any progress can be monitored for certain criteria of the history of ICZM in Ecuador.

Interest to the Readers: The study meets the ambitions of the Sustainability journal. The topic is relevant for a significant portion of the journal´s readership and an audience beyond.

Merit: Publishing a more mature version of the study can contribute to a better understanding of ICZM processes and support future more sustainable management of marine and coastal regions.

Scientific Soundness: The paper is solely descriptive and touching on a broad spectrum of issues without in-depth diagnosis. It can significantly benefit from a clear focus that is linked to regional conditions, specific actions or the overall performance of ICZM in Ecuador (see also specific comments).

English Level/Quality of Presentation: The paper is structured in an appropriate way. Considerable re-working, however, is necessary to realise serious linguistic and conceptual improvements. The English text is not understandable at all points. The help of a native speaker is recommended to make a more precise text easier to read and to avoid unintended connotation. The paper will significantly benefit from a thorough revision of the terms and the related phrasing (see ´scientific soundness´).

Links with Special Issues: A revised paper is likely to become part of the Special Issue “Sustainable Coastal and Marine Management” which will be announced very soon. The authors are invited to check the description of this special issue and to integrate key terms of the special issues´ topics into the design of the analysis and reflect on the results and the terms in the discussion section.   

Specific comments

Title: Indicate the focus of this study on ICZM in Ecuador

Abstract: (a) Add sentence on key results and implications with respect to research question as stated in the first sentence or a revised focus of this study.

Key words: Check selection with findings/phrasing in Discussion chapter and aligned Abstract; avoid repetition of key words and title

Introduction: This chapter lengthy repeats generic information on the object and nature of ICZM mainly. Information on the Ecuadorian setting and the motivation is very sparse. It is restricted to one small paragraph towards the end of the chapter. A more detailed description of the social-ecological setting in Ecuadorian territories is needed to justify the research question.

The posed research question at the end of the Introduction might be valid. However, this question does not guide the study and the statements in the Discussion. Please align.

Materials: The information is restricted to physio-geographical data. Basic information of ecological and socio-economic facts will help readers from other regions to understand foundations and needs for ICZM in Ecuador better (see also Introduction). Is there a permission to use the map of Figure 1 – check for readability (small font sizes)

Methods: This section needs further information on the approach, i.e., it seems logic to define an assessment framework, which is the decalogue, prior to the gathering of relevant documents, their analysis and the conduction of interviews. Why have the authors proceeded the other way around? Information is missing on the nature of interviews (informal talks, semi-structured interviews etc in bilateral interviews or group discussions). Have statistics been applied to check documents for which catalogue of key words?

The authors state that they have gathered and analysed data on the long period of ICZM in Ecuador. Unfortunately, they do not make use of this treasure to trace out certain developments in ICZM and identify reasons of success or shortcomings.

Results: Line 149 check reference number -> 30

Discussion: Observations and statements on ICZM in Ecuador as given in the Discussion often lack proper justification either by observations made in the Results section or by comparison with findings documented in literature.

Author Response

Estimado revisor,

Consulte el archivo adjunto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors proposed an interesting topic analyzing the ICZM state of the art in Ecuador.
I think that the subject of the manuscript is interesting and that the manuscript is well structured.
However, I believe that the manuscript has to be significantly improved with a more detailed introduction presenting other case studies.
For example some Italian papers:
Archetti, R., Damiani, L., Bianchini, A., Romagnoli, C., Abbiati, M., Addona, F., … Molfetta, M. G. (2019, July 15). Innovative Strategies, Monitoring and Analysis of the Coastal Erosion Risk: The STIMARE Project. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
Cantasano, N., Pellicone, G. & Ietto, F. J Coast Conserv (2017) 21: 317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-016-0479-z

Moreover, it would be very interesting to readers inserting a section about the current Ecuador coastline situation (erosion, risk, etc) in order to have more details about that area.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

What are the recommendations of the authors based upon this research? This is an assessment, which is clearly needed, but it would be more impactful if you could make some clearer (even very general) recommendations for next steps that Ecuador needs to take to develop integrated coastal zone management. I imagine you have another article on this - but you could allude to this in making general recommendations for how they should proceed that will be fleshed out more specifically in a forthcoming article. 

You make some very interesting points regarding education and the (lack of linkages) to governance and policy-making - this is interesting and could be a focused study unto itself - about how to do this better. Ecuador could be a leader in making this work and integrating sustainable development into education and economy (tourism) with the asset of the Galapagos! 

I recommend having a native English speaker read over your manuscript and work with you to correct some errors (such as using roll and role interchangeably or extra usage of 'the') and clarify some things that are unclear (such as usage of the term 'competences' in this context). This will greatly improve the readability of your article. 

What about enforcement of the policies that Ecuador does have? How well are existing policies enforced and what are the barriers there? This study is very high-level, and you could spend the next several years drilling down into each of these 10 areas for more specific recommendations. 

Recommendations should be more prominent! 

Author Response

Estimado crítico

Consulte el archivo adjunto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors´ work on a seriously improved version of their paper is acknowledged.

Two minor modifications are still pending

(i) Methods section - Information is missing on the nature of
interviews (informal talks, semi-structured interviews etc
in bilateral interviews or group discussions). Have
statistics been applied to analyse documents. If so, which key words were used?

(ii) Conclusions - In this section ICM is used instead of ICZM. Why? There are certain differences implied when using the one or the other term. Continuous application of ICZM is recommended.

The paper still have several weaknesses with respect to grammar and phrasing. Authors or editors are encouraged to contact a native speaker or a colleague who is fluent in written English. 

Author Response

Dear Review,

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf