Strategy for Developing Whiteleg Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) Culture Using Intensive/Super-Intensive Technology in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please check files.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer-1

 

Thank you for the corrections and suggestions given to our articles. The authors really appreciates all corrections and suggestions from the reviewer, and we have made revisions even though they may not be in accordance with the reviewer' expectations. Hopefully, the revisions that have been made can improve the quality of this article. This is an open-access publication, therefore it is very important that articles are written in perfect English.

We, the authors, really hope that our manuscript can be approved by reviewers, and can be published by the Sustainability Journal managed by MDPI.

 

The following adjustments have been made to the paper in response to the reviewer's request:

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors and response Authors

 

• What is the main question addressed by the research?
• Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

 

This research goal is to obtain a strategy for developing a sustainable inten-sive/super-intensive technology in aquaculture in the South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. To achieve this goal, the research question has been focused on: How to get alternative strategies to be considered in determining the development of inten-sive/super-intensive technology whiteleg shrimp culture? Based on the above, it has been determined to prove the hypothesis that the alternative strategies obtained may be used as alternative solutions in the context of decision making regarding the develop-ment of intensive/super-intensive technology whiteleg shrimp culture. This research is significant because it focuses analytically on decision making based on the right method used in actual conditions in one of the whiteleg shrimp production centers in Indonesia, namely South Sulawesi Province to ensure success in intensive/super-intensive tech-nology whiteleg shrimp culture in other regions in Indonesia. (Please see lines 101-113 and  blue tag in manuscript). 

 

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• What is the difference between the respondent and the key person? Explain in every detail the number of Academics, Business, Government, Community and others?

 

One of the studies which also aims to find out strategies for developing whiteleg shrimp farming in Indonesia, namely in Bengkulu Province, Indonesia has been carried out by Nurdiyanto et al. (2019). In this research, it was only conducted at one vannamei shrimp farming company, the focus of the research was on the analysis of the vannamei shrimp farming business, and determining strategies using SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. (https://jurnal.fp.unila.ac.id/index.php/IJSE/article/view/3276/2538). Another study has also been carried out by Husain et al. (2020) in Barru Regency, where one of the goals is to determine a strategy for the development of shrimp farming in Barru Regency, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. As was done by Nurdiyanto et al. (2019), namely conducting a financial analysis and determining the strategy with a SWOT analysis. In addition, this research only focuses on shrimp culture, both tiger shrimp and white shrimp with a traditional technology (https://garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/documents/detail/2121390). This shows that the research we conducted had a wider subject and wider scope because it had more respondents (52 respondents) from various institutions. The methods used are also different, we use the AHP (analytical hierarchy process) method which is preceded by validity and reliability tests on the questionnaires used. This also answers the previous question which shows that our research is classified as an original topic and is very relevant in the field. It is also hoped that this sufficient number of respondents and the institutions from which the respondents come can overcome specific gaps in the field.

 

Subjects, respondents, and key persons refer to humans or individuals who agree to be part of the research. These terms reflect different ways of participating and different relationships between individuals and researchers.

Respondent is a term often used in social science in surveys, individuals are asked to answer structured and semi-structured questions. Usually the respondent conveys the answer to the researcher according to the question; nothing more and nothing less.

Then the term key persons is used for participants in research about social phenomena, and they are asked to answer questions about their skill, knowledge, and experience. The key persons are participants who have the skill, knowledge, and experience related to intensive/super-intensive vannamei shrimp farming technology, policy makers in the development and management of aquaculture both at the central, provincial and local government levels as well as Indonesian Shrimp Farmers Association, and universities/ research institure.

 

There were 52 respondents consisting of 5 respondents from the Central Government Level, 2 respondents from the Provincial Government Level, 20 respondents from the Local Government Level, 18 respondents from Shrimp Farming, 3 respondents from the Research Institute and Fisheries Extension, 2 respondents from University, and 2 re-spondents from the Indonesian Shrimp Farmers Association. (Please see lines 140-144 and blue tag in manuscript).

 

 

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? How about compare with Analytical Network Process?

 

Decision-making problems can become complex due to the involvement of several objectives and criteria. One tool that is suitable for respondents selection or prioritization is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by Thomas L. Saaty. Our research, it involves quality criteria that are difficult to quantify exactly; the assessment can be carried out by one or several decision-makers, and a limited number of respondents, so we choose AHP and develop the methodology.

As with AHP, the Analytical Network Process (ANP) is also a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making tool. The results of research conducted by Pandey and Pitroda (2019) concluded that AHP and ANP are good MCMD tools, as detailed in the following section. Based on the critical literature review of papers the following conclusion can be framed: AHP and ANP are the similar types of conceptual decision-making tools. Both can be used for the decision making whenever there are multiple alternatives present. These techniques can also be used with other techniques to get a precise selection. Regarding projects, both methods can be utilized for selection of projects. The selection using both techniques will give the best selection. AHP and ANP are good decision tools for the selection of projects. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354199648_EVALUATION_OF_ANALYTIC_HIERARCHY_PROCESS_AHP_VS_ANALYTIC_NETWORK_PROCESS_ANP_AS_DECISION_TOOLS_IN_PROJECTS_A_REVIEW).

In addition, AHP is a method that is easier to use and understand and does not require a lot of data when compared to ANP.  ANP is complex to understand and solve by the experts and requires large amount of data.

 

 

• Please include any additional comments on the figures.

 

Analysis using the AHP method is illustrated by a hierarchy, as shown in Figure 2. Decision-making is accomplished through the arrangement, which, according to Saaty [38], is described in the system's structure. The hierarchical function between compo-nents and their impact on the entire system can be studied to determine the priority of decision-making in determining the strategy for intensive/super-intensive technology in whiteleg shrimp culture. It is composed of three levels, each consisting of various elements that will assist the selection of alternatives. From the highest to the lowest, the main targets to be achieved are developing intensive/super-intensive technology, in-fluencing factors, and alternative strategies. (Please see lines 123-124 and blue tag in manuscript).

 

• Please include any additional comments on the tables.

 

Please see 464 and blue tag in manuscript. Explanation of Table 6 already discussed from lines 387-614.

 

• Are the conclusions and recommendations consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

 

Yes, the conclusions and recommendations consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed.

 

• Are the references appropriate?

 

Yes, the references appropriate.

 

 

 

 

Thank you very much.

 

Best regards,

 

Akhmad Mustafa and friends

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study was carried out to obtain a strategy for developing sustainable intensive/super-intensive technology of whiteleg shrimp culture in South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia that can increase production but does not negatively impact the aquatic environment. The manuscript could be considered for acceptance in present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer-2

 

Thank you very much for your appreciation to our manuscript. We still hope that the manuscript we have revised can be corrected again.  Hopefully, the revisions that have been made can improve the quality of this article. This is an open-access publication, therefore it is very important that articles are written in perfect English.

We, the authors, really hope that our manuscript can be approved by reviewers, and can be published by the Sustainability Journal managed by MDPI.

 

 

Thank you very much.

 

Best regards,

 

Akhmad Mustafa and friends

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

Your manuscript is very good, I suggest these minor changes:

1- Improve the map (add geographical coordinates).

2- Lines 159-162: this kind of data analysis is very good and novelty, but I did not understand more details about it. Can you explain more details about it?

 

Thank you kindly, more blessings 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer-3

 

Thank you for the corrections and suggestions given to our articles. The authors really appreciates all corrections and suggestions from the reviewer, and we have made revisions even though they may not be in accordance with the reviewer' expectations. Hopefully, the revisions that have been made can improve the quality of this article. This is an open-access publication, therefore it is very important that articles are written in perfect English.

We, the authors, really hope that our manuscript can be approved by reviewers, and can be published by the Sustainability Journal managed by MDPI.

 

The following adjustments have been made to the paper in response to the reviewer's request:

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors and response Authors

 

• Improve the map (add geographical coordinates).

Geographical coordinates have been added. Other information added to the map includes: map title, scale, legend, and data source. (Please see lines 162-170 and blue tag in manuscript).

 

• Lines 159-162: this kind of data analysis is very good and novelty, but I did not understand more details about it. Can you explain more details about it?

 

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a method for organizing and analyzing complex decisions, using math and psychology. It was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and has been refined since then. It contains three parts: the ultimate goal or problem you’re trying to solve, all of the possible solutions, called alternatives, and the criteria you will judge the alternatives on. AHP provides a rational framework for a needed decision by quantifying its criteria and alternative options, and for relating those elements to the overall goal.

 

Stakeholders or respondents compare the importance of criteria, two at a time, through pair-wise comparisons. AHP converts the evaluations into numbers, which can be compared to all of the possible criteria. This quantifying capability distinguishes the AHP from other decision making techniques.

 

In the final step of the process, numerical priorities are calculated for each of the alternative options. These numbers represent the most desired solutions, based on all users’ values.

 

The data analyzed with AHP is data obtained from the use of a research tool, namely a questionnaire. The questionnaire must be tested first to determine its validity and reliability. Methods for testing the validity and reliability of the questionnaire have been presented in the Materials and Methods section (Please lines 155-161). Interpretation of the results of the validity and reliability tests has been submitted in Results and Discussion  section (Please see lines 302-357).

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you very much.

 

Best regards,

 

Akhmad Mustafa and friends

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Completed corrections.