Promoting Stakeholders’ Support for Marine Protection Policies: Insights from a 42-Country Dataset
, Minh-Phuong Thi Duong 2, Manh-Cuong Nguyen 3, Noah Mutai 3, Ruining Jin 4,*, Phuong-Tri Nguyen 5, Tam-Tri Le 1,6 and Quan-Hoang Vuong 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The current study aimed to provide preliminary evidence on factors (e.g., socio-demographic factors, country income level, and perceived impacts of marine and coastal ecosystems) that affect stake-holders’ endorsement of a policy centered on preserving marine and coastal ecosystems.
Authors are invited to revise the manuscript according to the following remarks:
1. Abstract : Add the originality/ value.
2. Introduction: at the end of this section, author should add the structure of the paper (exp: the paper is presented as follow: the second section.............., the 3rd section............. etc.)
3. Theoritical farmework: ( Theoretical foundation and assumption)
- Author must update the literature review, with new recent cited reference research papers (i.e. Sustainability MDPI, ScienceDirect, Springer Nature databases). We can help author to read this sudy: Luigi, A. ; Mohsen, B. ; Xihui, C. ; Concetto, P. V. Knowledge spillovers and technical efficiency for cleaner production: An economic analysis from agriculture innovation},Journal of Cleaner Production 2021,320, 128830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128830
- The comparative theoritical analysis studies in this subject can help your findings (It is recommended to add significant studies published in theses databases).
3. Assumptions/ Hypotheses: Explain your research hypotheses with the theoritical farmework.
4. Variable Selection and Rationale : (The final dataset has 709 respondents in total and is available in Mendeley Data).
- Snowball sampling + the poll was promoted on MaCoBioS's so-219 cial media sites : Discribe your arguments to use these two tools to colleact your data information from your sample? Why?
- Variables : Control variables+ Mediating variables : explain them in simple table?
5. Statistical Models:
- ????????????????????? ~ ??????(?,?) (1.1) and Model (1.2) : Provide theoritical reference authors hwo used this models?
- The logical network of Model 1 is shown in Figure 1: Is not clear?
6. Analysis and Validation: The Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) : Why authors used this statistical technique and SmartPLS or other psychology techniques statistical test not used?
7. Pareto-smoothed importance sampling leave-one-out (PSIS-LOO) : This test can be resolved alos using SmartPLS/ Amos?
8. https://osf.io/etm7p/ (DOI: 336 10.17605/OSF.IO/ETM7P) : delete and add in the reference section.
9. Results:
- R : "Vigorous Calisthenics"? Explain!!
- Figure 2. Model 1’s PSIS plot. (not good presented, try to modify the size)
- Table 2. Estimated results. ( add source+ statistical software).
- All tables : ( Idem)
- Fig. 4 + Fig .5 + Figure 7. Posterior distributions of Model 1’s intercepts. : ( In appendix)
10. Discussion : Add your Hypotheses validation (supported/No) in simple table.
11. Recommendations (origianl value of this study)?
12. Reference: Join all cited reference papers to this section according to Sustainability reference model.
-
G Luck
Moderate edititing english lanaguage are required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Greetings!
First and foremost, we'd like to extend our sincere gratitude for the invaluable feedback you provided on our initial submission. In response to your comments, we have carefully made revisions and endeavored to enhance the quality of our paper.
Please find attached the revised manuscript, where we have detailed the changes made in accordance with each of your suggestions. We hope these amendments meet your expectations and contribute to a more polished version of our work.
Should you have any further queries or require additional clarifications as you review the changes, please do not hesitate to get in touch. We eagerly await your feedback and are committed to ensuring that the final version of our paper is of the highest caliber.
Once again, thank you for your time and expert insights.
Looking forward to your response.
Warm regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the paper looking forward on how to persuade stakeholders to get more involved in such research areas. This study tries to provide evidence on various factors (like socio-demographic, country income level, perceived impacts of marine and coastal ecosystems etc) that affect stakeholders’ endorsement of preserving marine and coastal ecosystems. For this reason the Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) is applied that is of interest using a dataset of 709 stakeholders from 42 countries as generated by MaCoBioS research project funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020. My points of concern are:
- In the model construction and relying on MaCoBios study and data why do we refer to snowball sampling? Obviously due to the difficulties approaching stakeholders. But this is done by MaCoBios and I assume we refer to a non-probabilistic framework. Then how representative is the sample to generalize for the population of interest
- In the model construction and in Table 1 Age is NA. Why? It is provided in the original data and a groped mean can be easily estimated.. This is really important and it can not be ignored.
- Age and the other variables (measured in Likert scale) numerical?
- In the statistical models and in specification (1.1) how can be sure of normality for such constructed variables?
- Why the parameters are having subscripts the variables and not a number? β1, β2 etc.
- If a variable is distributed normally with mean μ and variance σ2. Not standard deviation
- Even more in the specifications of lines 244-249 can we assume normality for the parameters? Is there any error term that normality is to be checked. Obviously in the BMF this may differ but in such a specification it is necessary
- In Figure 1 could we have a SEM set up with the significance of the network's elements?
In line 310 is it an LR test?
- In Table 2 how is Age used as it is NA in Table 1?
- In Table 2 are stdev standard errors?
- In Table 2 what about the signs and the magnitudes of gender and education?
- The gender variable in the original project consists of 360 female, 336 male, 11+2 unclear answers
- In Figure 5 we refer to autocorrelation plots. How is this possible in cross-sectional data?
- The limitations in lines 461-468 refer to another study from which the data are used here. Even more skewness is mentioned to be expected but normality is assumed throughout the paper
- In the conclusions and in the last paragraph (lines 483-489) "Based on the research findings, we suggest that policymakers can promote stakeholders’ support for ocean and coastal preservation policies by promoting awareness and knowledge of the stakeholders. Moreover, we also suggest that environmental-protection related content information should highlight the importance of the ocean and coastal ecosystems to increase the absorption of information endorsing policies centered on preserving the ocean and coastal ecosystems"
What is new, and why do we need such a research to come up that policymakers can promote stakeholders’ support for ocean and coastal preservation policies by promoting awareness and knowledge of the stakeholders.
A minor point: in lines 140 - 145 where the three research questions are I suggest to use RG1. RQ2 abd QQ3 in the beginning of each question.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Greetings!
First and foremost, we'd like to extend our sincere gratitude for the invaluable feedback you provided on our initial submission. In response to your comments, we have carefully made revisions and endeavored to enhance the quality of our paper.
Please find attached the revised manuscript, where we have detailed the changes made in accordance with each of your suggestions. We hope these amendments meet your expectations and contribute to a more polished version of our work.
Should you have any further queries or require additional clarifications as you review the changes, please do not hesitate to get in touch. We eagerly await your feedback and are committed to ensuring that the final version of our paper is of the highest caliber.
Once again, thank you for your time and expert insights.
Looking forward to your response.
Warm regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2523608
Title: Promoting stakeholders' support for marine protection policies: Insights from a 42-country dataset
This study endeavors to examine the factors (e.g., socio-demographic factors, country income level, and perceived impacts of marine and coastal ecosystems) that affect stakeholders’ endorsement of a policy centered on preserving marine and coastal ecosystems. To do this, the author employed Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) on a dataset of 709 stakeholders from 42 countries.
My comments are as follows: 1) I noticed that the novelty of this paper is not described. Please provide it in the introduction section. The authors should highlight why this study is important. 2) There is a need to do a more rigorous and systematic literature review. 3) I would like to suggest that authors should update introduction section in order to highlight the academic frontier of the research, the references of the recent year(s) need to be referenced (i) https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewGLCE3202762. (ii) https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewGLCE3202560 (iii) https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewGLCE3202670. 4) you can consider including the research hypothesis. 5) The authors have only presented the findings, with no explanation of their economic reasoning. Do these findings validate or disprove the current policy framework? Are any new policy measures planned as a result of the findings? Discussion of the findings, which is conspicuously absent here, is meant to spark debate on policy. If the results don't offer anything new in terms of theory or policy, then a simple comparison with the literature won't prove their originality. 5) Policy implications should be explained further. 6) It would be appropriate to indicate future research directions and limitations of this at the end of the conclusion section just before references.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Greetings!
First and foremost, we'd like to extend our sincere gratitude for the invaluable feedback you provided on our initial submission. In response to your comments, we have carefully made revisions and endeavored to enhance the quality of our paper.
Please find attached the revised manuscript, where we have detailed the changes made in accordance with each of your suggestions. We hope these amendments meet your expectations and contribute to a more polished version of our work.
Should you have any further queries or require additional clarifications as you review the changes, please do not hesitate to get in touch. We eagerly await your feedback and are committed to ensuring that the final version of our paper is of the highest caliber.
Once again, thank you for your time and expert insights.
Looking forward to your response.
Warm regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your effort to provide good revision quality.
1. Literature review: Must be improved more. ( section 2: Literature review and methodology)
2. (Model Construction and research results) : to be Section 3.
3. Discussion: (section 4): Take consederation to revise the form of paraphraphs ( each paragraph is composed to 5 lines max).
Minor edititing english lanaguage revision required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have enriched the literature review in the introduction as per your suggestion and marked these changes in green in the revised manuscript. We look forward to your re-review and welcome any further comments.
Best regards,
Ruining
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have efficiently revised the manuscript as per my comments. Therefore, it can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable to our revision process. Thank you once again for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.
Best regards,
Ruinin
