Two Sides of the Same Coin: A Theoretical Framework for Strong Sustainability in Marine Protected Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors

 

I am happy to have read your manuscript entitled ”Two sides of the same coin: a strong sustainability system perspective for protected areas management“ which was submitted as a Theoretical and Methodological paper to Sustainability.

The manuscript provides a full description on an interesting ministerial project in Italy, aimed to provide an integrated accountability on marine protected areas both in terms of an ecocentric and of an anthropocentric viewpoint. The project endorsed a full analysis of a small set of ecosystem functions and services very much related with the context of the region.

Your manuscript is well written and is very much descriptive on the steps undertaken under the project but, in my view, it suffers from a few critical handicaps.

Although submitted in the form of a Theoretical and Methodological paper, the manuscript sounds very much as an application form of a project to a funding line. It starts by putting readers on the context of ecosystem services (I even consider the introduction too extensive), how ecosystem goods and services may be accounted on the ecocentric (provision) and anthropocentric (demand) sides and describes the general theory regarding natural capital assessments. The manuscript is didactic, good to read for an introductory course on the topic or as a book chapter, but it seems to lack novelty, implementation and validation items for publishing in a journal like Sustainability.

If going into journal publication, I modestly recommend you to make a summary of the introduction, provide a synthesis of the methodological background and relevance and, importantly (what is missing here) invest in presenting a conceptual or real implementation where the framework/methodology is tested and validated (as mentioned, the last stage of the project network ended in 2020).

In my opinion, in its current form, the manuscript misses that final step of presenting its validation in a testing-case, which in my view weakens the possibility of publication in journals of the profile as Sustainability.

 

Kind regards

The reviewer

Author Response

Dear colleague
our paper is intended to be theoretical for some main reasons
1. A paper summarising both the theoretical framework and the results would be, in our opinion, too much complex and long to be presented and to be intelligible.
2. Even if the original project is ended in 2019, the italian Ministry is still financing actions about: as a consequence we are still testing the renewed framework and then summarising information and results about the case studies.
The introduction has been summarised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has the character of a theoretical and methodical paper. It provides a comprehensive, well-structured and legibly written overview focused on ecosystem services, natural capital and sustainable management of marine protected areas. However, the content conceived in this way does not follow from the title of the article. I recommend reworking the title of the article to better reflect its content.
Although this is a methodological and theoretical paper, I would expect greater innovativeness of its content. The literature review describes well-known and many times published general information (although related to the topic of the article). This section needs to be reworked and focused more on the topic of the article - such as the management of MPAs.
The article works well as a basic teaching text. However, it summarizes well-known facts. Its innovative or added value is minimal.
For example, identification of ecosystem services - it is stated which ecosystem services the authors from CICES chose for the "Identification" of ecosystem services MPAs. However, it would be good to at least complement the ways in which the values ​​of these ecosystem services can be ascertained. What affects these values? Will they be the same for all MPAs? Another example is the description of Anthropocentric costs - the authors generally define the term without further obvious use.
Row 453 - P.oceanica - the previous text does not explain what this term means
I recommend reworking the article with new findings or findings.

Author Response

Reviewer #2
“The article has the character of a theoretical and methodical paper. It provides a comprehensive, well-structured and legibly written overview focused on ecosystem services, natural capital and sustainable management of marine protected areas. However, the content conceived in this way does not follow from the title of the article. I recommend reworking the title of the article to better reflect its content.
Although this is a methodological and theoretical paper, I would expect greater innovativeness of its content.
The article works well as a basic teaching text. However, it summarizes well-known facts. Its innovative or added value is minimal.
The title has been modified and the text has been summarised in the initial part.
The literature review describes well-known and many times published general information (although related to the topic of the article). This section needs to be reworked and focused more on the topic of the article - such as the management of MPAs.”

              We added some lines focused on MPA management

“For example, identification of ecosystem services - it is stated which ecosystem services the authors from CICES chose for the "Identification" of ecosystem services MPAs. However, it would be good to at least complement the ways in which the values ​​of these ecosystem services can be ascertained.

 What affects these values? Will they be the same for all MPAs? Another example is the description of Anthropocentric costs - the authors generally define the term without further obvious use.”

              This is explained in par. 5.2.2 Anthropocentric benefits : a) ecosystem services fruition benefits

“Row 453 - P.oceanica - the previous text does not explain what this term means”

The sentence has been removed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Two sides of the same coin: a strong sustainability system  perspective for protected areas management” describes an interesting methodological approach that can be applied to quantify the sustainability of systems through ecocentric, anthropocentric and integrated perspectives. The paper is clear and easily readable.

At current state, the manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revisions.

Minor comments/suggestions follow.

Line 14: Please, enter the exact wording for the acronym MPAs

Lines 70 and 72: Please, change “ [11]” with “De Groot et al. [11]”

Line 138: Please, change “[17]” with “Turner [17]”

Line 249: Please, enter the exact wording for the acronym CISES

Line 263:  Please, change “by [48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53].” with “by various authors [48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53].”

Line 320: Please, change “emissions” with “emissions.”

Line 440: : Please, insert the equation with Microsoft equation

Lines 445-446: Please, change “[32, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 ])” with ““[32, 74-111])”

Lines 490-491: Please, change “[11, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121]” with [11, 117-121]

Line 525: Please, change “[123, 124, 125]” with [123-125]

Author Response

Reviewer #3
“The manuscript “Two sides of the same coin: a strong sustainability system  perspective for protected areas management” describes an interesting methodological approach that can be applied to quantify the sustainability of systems through ecocentric, anthropocentric and integrated perspectives. The paper is clear and easily readable.

At current state, the manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revisions.

Minor comments/suggestions follow.

Line 14: Please, enter the exact wording for the acronym MPAs”

              Done

“Lines 70 and 72: Please, change “ [11]” with “De Groot et al. [11]””

              Done

“Line 138: Please, change “[17]” with “Turner [17]””
              Done

“Line 249: Please, enter the exact wording for the acronym CISES”

              Done

“Line 263:  Please, change “by [48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53].” with “by various authors [48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53].””

              Done

“Line 320: Please, change “emissions” with “emissions.””

              Done

“Line 440: : Please, insert the equation with Microsoft equation”
              I use Linux sorry! We tried to but it creates troubles

“Lines 445-446: Please, change “[32, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 ])” with ““[32, 74-111])””
              Done

“Lines 490-491: Please, change “[11, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121]” with [11, 117-121]”
              Done

“Line 525: Please, change “[123, 124, 125]” with [123-125]”
              Done

This has been changed also in other part of the text

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors incorporated comments into the text. They adjusted the article more towards introducing the topic.
One remark: In order for the title to match the content of the article, I recommend inserting the word "Marine" in front of "protected areas".

Author Response

We changed the title as requested.