Development of Sustainable Coastal Benchmarks for Local Wisdom in Pangandaran Village Communities
, Agung Riyadi 2, Haryanti 2, Ratu Siti Aliah 3, Teguh Prayogo 2, Joko Prayitno 4, Wahyu Purwanta 2, Joko Prayitno Susanto 2, Nida Sofiah 2, Yusuf Surachman Djayadihardja 5, Moch Ikhwanuddin 2, Sri Wahyono 2, Satmoko Yudo 2 and Suhendar I. Sachoemar 2,6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Introduction
- Introduction should consist of results from previous studies (literature review), aim of the study, gap from existing literature (specific contribution), the scope of the study.
- The literature review is merely describing list of definition. Please mention a theoritical framework used for this paper.
2. Method
- The Research location which is Pangandaran as a Regency were not described, it's requires a map of location and limitation of study area
- The technique of analysis were also not explained. Please specify what kind of analysis you are using.
- If necessary, it should raise ethical issues particularly when dealing with human participant.
3. Results and Discussion
- Table and figure numbers should be clearly referred in the body text.
- It is require figures to see the real and fact situation
- The results should correspond to the aim and the scope of the study.
- Data citation should be clearly presented.
- Add more discussion and it should be supported by references. Please make sure the discussion is based on the finding.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is of great interest. Detailed methodological work has been carried out and sufficient surveys have been developed to obtain quality results. The results obtained can be used for decision making in the locality, but also to be replicated as a study in other places.
Below are some suggestions for a better understanding of some sections.
99-100: I advise you to rewrite this sentence. Although it is understood that the quotes are from the authors you mention, it is not easy to read.
169: It occurs the same that in line 99.
Table 3. It should be explained why resource stewardship is included in "ecosystem and resource" and not in "planning and governance". It could be in both, it should be justified.
357: the section "Perception and understanding of planning and governance" can be expanded with the results obtained, emphasising the importance of planning for participation and local knowledge.
The conclusions are well explained. However, they could put more value on the work done in a way that shows how local wisdom can influence decision-making in a locality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The overall manuscript was written poorly.
Table 1 is not cited in the text.
The number of tables is excessive. 16 Tables in a manuscript is too much.
Always use same format somewhere Table and somewhere table. Capital latter or small letter.
Keep same format for Capital latter or small letter throughout the manuscript. For example, full content in Table 3.
|
Criteria |
Sub |
indicator |
parameter |
Discussion is very poor in the MS.
No statistical analysis was conducted in the MS. None of the results and statement tested statistically.
The Likert scale has not been validated in the MS.
Line 280-281 – 16 references [28-44] cited in a single statement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Check carefully before published. Check all the tables headings in the same format. Check the all the citations and references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
