The Collaborative Process in Environmental Projects, a Place-Based Coevolution Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is presented in an abstract form and has many common phrases that are repeated from section to section without carrying a significant semantic load.

The study area is poorly described in the manuscript: the number of people living in the study area is not shown (the number of cities, how much does tourism participate in the environmental load?), Which does not allow making a correct assessment and realizing the scale of the work

The size of the territory is not shown (except for the picture), and its main types of land use (except for aquaculture), landscapes, etc.

Because of this, the reader does not form a correct understanding of the described environmental problems.

Figure 2 is primitive and uninformative - you can exclude or replace it.

The work presents little practical cases; the completeness and essence of the project can be obtained only from the Appendix Table A1.

The goals and objectives of the reviewed projects are not sufficiently described, perhaps they should be inserted into table A1 \, the discussion mentions “the next action plan conducted by SMBT (2019-2025)” [567], the goals of the structure are also not clear.

Section 2.2.2 ends with several interrogative sentences and it seems that it has not been disclosed, but, on the contrary, is more confused, where the material has not been worked out. You can identify the problem, but then you need to offer possible solutions ... Otherwise, it looks unprofessional.

The material, financial and resource part is poorly spelled out, who paid how much and how did they participate in the joint SMBT project? Who was the main coordinator, and who was the performer and maintainer?

Author Response

Please sea the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Based on a case study of South of France, management of Thau territoire, this paper aims at analyzing the ways environmental research and management organizations can co-evolve and at describing the process of their mutual articulation.

The paper is very clear, well presented and documented.

However, as reader "je reste sur ma faim" as it is said in French.

It seems the paper devotes so much attention and time in describing planning processes that it doesn't touch upon the question of outcomes and results in a very satisfying manner.

As a reader, we would like to know more clearly in which effective ways the "twenty research projects identified from 1986 to 2017, [corresponding]  approximately to 100 cumulated years of funded activities" improve the situation and what it really changed on the ground: for the ecosystem, the inhabitants, the shellfish economy?

It will be very helpful and perhaps necessary to retrace also a chronology of the social-ecological outputs delivered during the different moments of these 31 years of collaborative projects. It will be good also to demonstrate that these projects were consistent and mutually helpful and not redundant and a waste of EU taxpayer money. Or to understand if the shift in focus from ecology to global change via social issues is due mainly to a shift of social-administrative trends or to changes in terms of tackling different aspects of the problems in an integrated way.

Another thing is that the collaboration between research and planning is presented in a rather idealized fashion and we wonder whether the authors could not dive a little more into the limits and impediments of these interactions. "Scientific activities and public actions shaped each other in a continuous process of interaction." Ok but what about setbacks, conflicts, etc. - and how to address them? There exist a whole literature on the difficulties of such interactions. But in this case some possible examples of issues and ways to resolve them will better support the claim of the authors.

Also, some specific examples of positive synergies having positive results will be helpful to better picture the situation.  For example in terms of shellfish farming economic activities in Thau: what is the situation now? still going on? more reliable? more sustainable? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments and questions were received, the article was revised and improved

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have taken into account cautiously and systematically the remarks of the reviewer. The paper can be accepted in its current form.