Fisheries Co-Management in the “Age of the Commons”: Social Capital, Conflict, and Social Challenges in the Aegean Sea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well-written, clear, and gives robust results.
The scientific content is accurate, balanced, and attractive. The description of the method is used sufficiently. The quality of writing is good, with clearness. The significant value of this work and the importance of its results are essential for developing the strategy for fisheries co-management.
The paper needs some minor changes. For example, it could be interesting to include a results table with the main views/perceptions to be more apparent and obvious to the reader in the section on “Establishing an MPS in Gyaros island” and in other sections if you believe that it is needed.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her constructive criticism which contributed greatly to the improvement of the text. Please note that we have followed the formatting instructions in the document template in order to adhere to the guidelines of the journal. We have also followed the structure recommended in the journal's guidelines. Below we summarise our answer(s) to the first reviewers' questions and suggestions for improvement.
We agree with reviewer 1's suggestion to add tables/figures that would illustrate some of the data used in the text. With this in mind, we have included one (1) overview table and five (5) figures in the new manuscript to illustrate some of the findings and facilitate the reader's understanding.
Reviewer 2 Report
The research deals with a topic of great interest and includes a case study that, in principle, can be very interesting and significant. However, the paper lacks a clear objective, it is not focused on the theoretical body that is widely presented and does not take advantage of the empirical material to reach relevant conclusions that go beyond the merely descriptive.
If the paper is to be supported by theoretical concepts such as EBFM or fisheries co-management, my suggestion is that the paper should focus on the Gyaros co-management committee and the role played by the fishermen. Another approach, even complementary, would be to analyze how the EBFM concepts have been applied in the creation and management of the MPA. From this point on, several questions of great relevance arise: Was there really co-management? Who sought it? What role did the fishermen play? What role did other stakeholders play? Who really led the process of creating the MPA? How were the fishermen represented? Did the process or the institutions linked to the creation of the MPA achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the fishermen? What was positive and what was lacking? What lessons can be learned from this whole process?
The current objective "The aim of this paper is to critically discuss the challenges arising from establishing and operating the MPA on Gyaros Island" is too broad. My impression is that there is enough empirical material to address more specific questions along the lines of the theoretical body. In particular, qualitative material is hardly used. It would be interesting to analyze the fishermen's discourse. Not only with respect to the problems that an MPA implies for them, but fundamentally how they have perceived the constitution process, to know if they have been taken into account, if there have been conflicts or misunderstandings between scientific knowledge and the fishermen's own knowledge, to know how they have participated, etc. The possible conflicts between professional and recreational fishermen are also a very interesting topic.
Another suggestion is to clearly establish the methodology. If there has been a survey, it would be interesting to have information about it, as well as to know the quantitative results. Regarding the qualitative one, it is important to know the number of interviews, the profile of the interviewees, the constitution and purpose of the focus groups, etc.
In short, I am quite sure that there is very valuable material to study a subject that can be of great interest. The theoretical body seems to me adequate (and well treated), but it is necessary to go a step beyond the simple description and to look for an objective and a methodology that manages to link the theoretical body with the empirical material and, from here, to approach an analysis and a discussion that contributes to the current state of the art.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her constructive criticism which contributed greatly to the improvement of the text. Please note that we have followed the formatting instructions in the document template in order to adhere to the guidelines of the journal. We have also followed the structure recommended in the journal's guidelines. Below we summarise our answer(s) to the second reviewers' questions and suggestions for improvement.
We have clarified the main objective of the paper and included two additional specific research objectives that are addressed in the revised manuscript.
In addition, based on the questions posed by reviewer 2, we have strengthened the findings section by making more references to the qualitative material to go beyond the descriptive presentation of the empirical data. We have also added a discussion (along with the conclusions) of the results to broaden the scope of the empirical findings from the Gyaros MPA in the Northern Cyclades.
We have included more qualitative material to explain certain aspects raised by our informants/ interviewees. We agree that a more detailed analysis of fishers' discourse would be interesting to explore what issues an MPA raises for them, how they perceived the process of establishing the MPA and what conflicts exist between professional and recreational fishers. However, we believe that extending this further would go beyond the scope of this paper.
Based on the suggestion of reviewer 2 we have provided a more detailed account of the methodology and sampling methods by population group.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper raises an important and interesting issue of common goods and the challenges linked with their exploitation and protection environmental resources on the example of fishing stocks in Aegean Sea. Authors aims to discuss the problems over establishment and operation of the Marine Protected Area (MPA) on one of the island (Gyaros). Analysis focuses mainly on the conditions of engagement and objectives pursued by the various stakeholders involved in the co-management of fisheries in the studied area.
Information presented in the article synthetise the LIFE+ projects outcomes and is based on qualitative and quantitative empirical material gathered in 2014 and 2018 with the use of interviews, focus groups and participatory research. Although the work is very interesting, comprehensive and mainly well written, it has got some imperfections, which in my opinion, could be improved and increase the overall quality of the presentation.
The manuscript could be structured differently and more clearly according to the Journal’s instruction for authors, namely by dividing it into main sections: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions. Although it is optional I would recommend structuring the paper due to the fact that presented study has rather an empirical character and refers to concrete case. Moreover, the abstract is too long. A concise and factual text is welcomed here. In other words, it should state briefly the purpose of the research, its principal results and major conclusions.
The whole text is dense and rises a lot of interesting issues from many perspectives. Particularly, the second subsection titled „Fisheries co-management in the ‘age of commons” is extensive. In order to increase its clarity I suggest to split it and introduce some subsections concerned: socio-economic role of fisheries in Greece (lines 81-115), theory of commons (148-198), the significance of social capital, governance or co-management of environmental goods (lines 258-294) and knowledge – indigenous and out-siders knowledge (lines 196-257).
The paper lacks typical section focusing on methods and empirical material. In my opinion such section should be made, e.g. beginning from the line 336. The subjection “Establishing an MPA in Gyaros island. The protected area of Gyaros” together with the section “The socioeconomics of areas adjacent to the protected area: Syros and Andros” ought to go afterwards as a part of the case study and Material and Methods section. Suggested results section can be introduced beginning from the line 394.
As for methodological part of the work, Authors stated that “survey data were collected on the basis of a geographically stratified probability sampling of residents who responded to a structured questionnaire”. In the light of this, I understand that one of the method of a random sampling was utilised and the sample used is representative for the total population of Syros and Andros islands? If so, please clarify what strata were distinguished within the study population (based on what characteristics?). Is this stratified sampling somehow linked with a sample division described later on in the text (lines 387-390)? Are each sample’s subgroups representative for a given population’s category? Now this is not clear. As it was mentioned professional and recreational fisheries represent a small group of population living on both island (about 3-4%). According to other estimates raised in the article however, these numbers are bigger (about 4-10%) - what was mentioned in the text they amounted to “about half of the respondents per area are related to fishing activity either professionally or recreationally” and elsewhere: “professional fishers and recreational fishers are over-represented in this population sample”. Knowing this, what estimations or assumptions were taken into account within a sampling procedure? It is not clear also what registers of islands’ inhabitants and fisheries were used for the sampling procedure?
Moving to the empirical part of the article, from what Authors declarations, the study was based on a rich empirical (both quantitative and qualitative) material. But now this is not particularly visible and understandable for a reader. The text uses often generalisations or summaries but does not sufficiently presents/illustrates them with the analyses of quantitative research data (e.g. figures and tables can be used to illustrate a level of cooperation among fishers and present various attitudes towards environmental resources, including the way of environment management of Gyaros island) and by respondents’ citations (exceptions here are lines 425-427, 443-446, 491-492 but not all fit properly as support of the results). An appropriate empirical illustration of the findings in the study is very important because of its objective, which is about depicting different perspectives, arguments, attitudes towards Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) and the conflicts related to it. Therefore, in the results section the perspectives/positions on implementing EBFM of each stakeholders’ category (i.e. professional fishers, recreational fishers and islands’ inhabitants) should be presented in a clearer way by using more detailed analysis of gathered data. The case of monk seal interestingly reflects here a conflict of different groups over environmental resources and presents a competition between the economic, social and environmental values. Authors should much more highlight this fact when analysing the case (line 475). Moreover, the results on respondents’ attitudes to Gyaros seem to be ambiguous and perhaps inconsistent. For example, local residents perceive this island as abandoned area that should be utilised more effectively. But on the other hand the large proportion of them are in favour of environment protection (i.e. fishing restriction). What to think about that? Do Authors have any interpretation here? Now it seems to me that when Authors presenting the findings obtained, it is not so easy for the readers to get to know what each stakeholder’s category do think on the issue but is especially hard to find out on what grounds, which factors are behind given attitudes. It is also worth paying attention to the fact that in the results section the NGOs’ perspective was not raised but it seems to be important for the case analysed and highlighted also by Authors in the abstract and conclusions.
One of the major shortcomings of the article is lack of discussion. In the first part of it there is quite an extensive analysis of social theories and arguments of various authors’. However, this considerations are not clearly linked with the second part of the paper, especially when it comes to the interpretations of findings. I suggest to discuss them more (a critical discussion, after all, was one of the main study’s aim) and confront with theoretical considerations made earlier in the text (namely: asymmetric knowledge and power relations – barely mentioned in the second part, management of the commons and social capital). To put it in another way, Authors should discuss their results and show how the material gathered can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context here. I would advise Authors also to provide possible limitations of their work. Future research directions may also be mentioned in the discussion.
And last but not least, conclusions must begin with an exact indication of the study’s aim and mention its geographical area. Now it is not clear what the text is about (there is only a following sentence “…different population groups and stakeholders on both islands..”). Another thing is that the references are not need in this section but the main research results should be placed instead of.
Minor comment: The size and type of font must be unified in the whole text.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her constructive criticism which contributed greatly to the improvement of the text. Please note that we have followed the formatting instructions in the document template in order to adhere to the guidelines of the journal. We have also followed the structure recommended in the journal's guidelines. Below we summarise our answer(s) to the third reviewers' questions and suggestions for improvement.
We agree with reviewer 3's suggestion to add tables/figures that would illustrate some of the data used in the text. With this in mind, we have included one (1) overview table and five (5) figures in the new manuscript to illustrate some of the findings and facilitate the reader's understanding.
At the suggestion of Reviewer 3, we have divided the theoretical discussion into three subsections: a) Reflections on the theory of the commons b) The meaning of social capital: valorising the knowledge of locals and outsiders c) The meaning of social capital: embedding the co- management of environmental goods. This division helps the reader to understand the main points of the theoretical framework of the paper.
Furthermore, based on the structure suggested by reviewer 3, we have restructured the whole paper accordingly.
Based on the suggestion of reviewer 3, we have provided a more detailed account of the methodology and sampling methods by population group.
As suggested by reviewer 3, we have developed a discussion in the final section of the paper and named the Discussion and Conclusions section to critically address the involvement of various stakeholders in the MPA and the sustainability of the MPA. We have also included certain limitations of this research.
Moreover, we shortened the abstract (to less than 200 words) as suggested by reviewer 3 (and the journal's guidelines).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The objectives of the work are now well stated but should be more closely linked to the results and discussion. I think the key is to be able to answer the questions raised in the introduction.
The discussion-conclusions section should focus on linking the results with the theoretical body. In the current version, the first three paragraphs are a review of the theory on MPA management that should appear in the theorical discussion (probably in section 2.3).
Still no information about Gyaros co-management Committee. In my opinion this institution is key in this process and there is not enough information about it. Especially about the role played in it by the fishermen and whether they felt represented in it.
Another important question (recent and serious) is why in September 2022 the Ministry of Environment jeopadise the efforts of the Committee.
In my opinion, in this section, the implications of the fact that professional fishermen are (apparently) against the reserve should be emphasized. Including the political pressure they may have exerted.
On the other hand, the opinions of the NGOs appear but the source of these opinions is not identified.
In summary, I believe that this is a very interesting case of analysis with a lot of information available as a result of an important work, but the information still needs to be properly organized.
Author Response
We would like to thank again the Reviewer 2 for the constructive comments which improved considerably our manuscript.
In relation to the specific comments and suggestions made we would like to mention the following:
First, we decided to keep the first three paragraphs of the Discussion and Conclusion section as they allow us to summarise the theoretical discussion and relate it to the specific case study of Gyaros MPA.
Second, we have added information about the Gyaros Co-Management Committee and included a brief discussion on its operation. However, we prefer not to expand further on the co-management committee as this is a topic of another paper.
Third, regarding the recent decision by the Ministry of Environment to remove the licence requirement for fishing in the zone around Gyaros Island, we agree with the reviewer that it raises important questions about the sustainability of the Gyaros MPA. In this context, we have added a comment to the concluding part of the paper, stressing that only assumptions can be made in relation to the recent developments. All in all, this is an interesting topic for future research.
Finally, the views of the NGOs mentioned in the text are based on the data collected during the participatory research and the co-management committee meetings.
Please note that the references were formatted following the template of the journal and Map 1 have been updated.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for all of the corrections made in the manuscript. I have only two minor things. First, please put the units (i.e. %) in the figures' body or below them (in the titles). Second, unfortunately it seems that a more detailed analysis of the methodological design of the research (Papadopoulos et al. 2018a.) is unavailable for the readers. Maybe there is another Authors' publication with a sufficient description of this issue?
Best regards,
Reviewer 3
Author Response
Regarding the comments and suggestions of the Reviewer 3 we would like express our appreciation and mention the following:
First, we have proceeded as suggested and put the units in the figures’ titles.
Second, we made available the link to Papadopoulos et al. 2018 where the methodological design of our research is presented in more detail.
Please note that the references were formatted following the template of the journal and Map 1 have been updated.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have taken into consideration the proposed changes and I consider that it can be published in its current form.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments and appreciation of our research.
