A Comparison of Vulnerability Risks and Conservation Perceptions between Mariculture, Fishery and Ecotourism Livelihood Groups in a Multi-Use MPA in Indonesia
Davide De Battisti
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
sustainability-1445162
A Comparison of Vulnerability Risks and Conservation Perceptions between Mariculture, Fishery, Ecotourism Livelihood Groups in a Multi-use MPA, Indonesia
General comments:
The present study provides information on the comparison of the seasonal, trend and shock livelihood vulnerability indicators (LVIs) of three dominant groups (fishers, fish farmers and ecotourism operators) and the groups’ perceptions towards supporting the Anambas Archipelago marine protected area conservation efforts, located in Indonesia.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and structured, therefore I recommend its publication. However, I think the work may still be improved. Changes and suggestions are described below in the specific comments for all sections of the paper.
Specific comments:
Introduction
Page 2, Line 54: I suggest putting the name of the author before the citation number: “This is in line with Kerr [8], who argues…”. Please correct other situations like this for the rest of the paper, for instance in line 60: “For example, studies by Ferse et al. [9] and Ferrol-Schulte et al. [10] suggest that increased…”
Materials and Methods
Page 3, Lines 102: Define “EEZ”.
Page 3, Lines 121: I suggest changing to: “The LVIs with similar characteristics were grouped into categories…”
Page 4, Line 134: You have made questionnaires to 65 individuals belonging to the three groups. Maybe you should mention what percentage that corresponds of the total population of the three groups, to have an idea if it is a significant number of respondents belonging to each group.
Page 5, Line 158: Correct to: “Where LVIijx = LVI index value of respondent i in indicator j of group x; Xijx = real value of response of respondent i in indicator j of group x; Min(Xijx) = minimum real value of respondent’s response in indicator j of group x; Max (Xijx) = maximum real value of respondent’s response in indicator j of group x.”
Results
Page 6, Line 198: I recommend that you give the percentages for each group, as you did for the seasonality risks. Here and for the rest of the results. Sometimes you give the percentages, others you do not.
Discussion
Page 11, Lines 363 and 372: Define “MMAF” and “NGOs”.
Page 11, Lines 366: Correct to: “…areas and number of visitations from and to overseas.”
Page 14, Line 485: It seems that this sentence is incomplete.
Conclusions
Page 14, Line 524: Correct to: “In order to solve this issue,…”.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
This study aimed at understanding the vulnerability risk of three groups of households in small islands. I enjoyed to read this well written study. It has a clear, concise introduction and a comprehensive discussion. I have only minor suggestions provided below.
Specific comments
Line 30 - Nice starting paragraph. I think it would be good to provide few examples regrading the pressures from vulnerability, maybe just in parenthesis. In this way it would be more clear and tangible what is the problem at hand also for not specialist in this field.
Line 58 -59 - does this apply to only Indonesian or to other small island? In the latter case it would be good to highlight that because it will imply that results from this study have a broader applicability.
Line 12 - Figure 1. In the figure’s legend there is reported “Map sources: 1. Authors’s field work, 2.BAPPEDA anabas, 3. Geospatial information agency”. My understanding is that these are the sources used to construct the map shown in the figure. If this is the case, I found a bit confusing having them here in the legend of the map. Probably it would be better to place these info in the caption of the figure.
Line 121 - I think there is a word missing, “were grouped” instead of “grouped” only.
Line 48 - the explanation in parenthesis is redundant.
Line 157 - 163 - The number for equation 1 it is not in line with the other equation’s numbers. Also, equation 3 is indicated as equation 2. In equation 3, should be X1jx instead of X1jx.
Line 171 - I suggest to italicised these subtitles otherwise it is a bit confusing because it looks like a continuations of the previous paragraph.
Line 191 - I do not understand what this statement provides differently from the following sentence.
Line 326 - 327 - I am not entirely sure I have understood this sentence.
Line 329 - In tables 6 and 7 it would be good to report the sample size for each group.
Line 363 - It would be good to specify what the acronym MMAF stands for.
Line 485 - The beginning of this phrase is missing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Journal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1445162
Type: Article
Number of Pages: 17
Title: A Comparison of Vulnerability Risks and Conservation Perceptions between Mariculture, Fishery, Ecotourism Livelihood Groups in a Multi-use MPA, Indonesia
Dear Authors,
It has been for me a great honour, as well as a pleasantly challenging activity, to review the article entitled ”A Comparison of Vulnerability Risks and Conservation Perceptions between Mariculture, Fishery, Ecotourism Livelihood Groups in a Multi-use MPA, Indonesia.”
The paper reads well and is well organized – the structure is correct.
The Introduction chapter introduces potential readers to the discussed issues well, and is also based on well-chosen literature. The Authors clearly and understandably specified the aims of the paper (lines 80-97).
Materials and Methods
The research methods were correctly selected and described in a clear and understandable way. Figure 1 is a good illustration of the location of study sites, which is especially useful for international readers. However, the quality of this drawing should be better. Besides, I would like to ask for a clearer explanation of how the research sample was selected, why were 65 respondents tested?
Results
The obtained results were described in an understandable way and well illustrated with 5 tables and 3 figures.
Discussion
The obtained research results were well discussed and confronted with the results published by other authors. The only thing I would suggest is to refer to competitiveness and innovation in the context of tourism, which has recently been widely discussed in the literature, e.g .:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147929
https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10110569
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126578
Conclusions are interesting and presented in a clear and understandable way. However, I would suggest to refer, at least in a few words, to the limitations that the Authors encountered during their research. How they could influence the obtained research results and the conclusions drawn.
Overall, the text is interesting, reads well, and has the potential to interest readers. I will not comment on the linguistic correctness, because English is not my mother tongue.
Congratulations for your work and valuable insights reflected in the content of the manuscript!
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is of good quality and high interest.
GIS locations should state the software used to get the coordinates (example fig 1)
Author Response
Dear reviewer, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
