Patterns of Mangrove Resource Uses within the Transboundary Conservation Area of Kenya and Tanzania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is much improved.  It now supports what it concludes.

Minor issues:

Table 9 is separated from its heading. 

p 11 Do the authors really want to say that "climate change mediates threats" or that it "increases threats"?  

 

   

Author Response

The responses are found in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a rather important issue related to the environmental value of mangrove ecosystems. It focuses on the gap in agreements for transboundary conservation policies between Keny and Tanzania. 

The manuscript, however, has a few issues that need to be completed, restructured, and revised to make the outcomes scientifically sound. 

1.- The introduction addresses statements that need to be supported either on data or on references. 

e.g., Though the rate of decline may now be less globally....

The real scientific gap for supporting the novelty of the contribution is lacking in this section. 

2.- The objective is rather vague: 

The current study aimed at providing data and information on harvestable mangrove products within the Kenyan side of TBCA; their utilization patterns and drivers of change, in order to contribute to their sustainable utilization.

This does not allow us to judge the soundness of the contribution since any data may be (in)sufficient. 

The methods are rather narrative and not connected one to the other. This sections needs to be better described. 

The results are extremely overloaded with tables, numbers and qualifications, but not clearly connected to the objective. 

In my opinion these data need to be analyzed via multivariate analyses (PCA or DCA) in order to find a pattern of collective perception. 

Discussions and conclusions are therefore disconnected too. 

I kindly invite the authors to reorient their survey to a more clear objective that fills a scientific gap, far a way from a local, although, relevant, study case. 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Make it less narrative. 

Author Response

kindly find the responses in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well written.

In general, the only important issue refers to the lack of details about the results found. Many tables and figures are part of Results but they are very poorly described in the text, giving the impression that they do not contain important information. Authors should describe their results fully. In the process, they might find that some tables and figures could indeed be moved to supplementary material section.

Other minor comments are:

Abstract – (i) it should be included specific information the regarding proposed actions/policies as a result of the study. The last sentence is too vague and does not show any concrete results/proposals.

(ii) as an international journal, the lessons learned/results should be put into a international perspective, e.g., the results could be used or are important for similar environments around the world?

 

Results – there is a general lack of information regarding the result found. In most cases, information is presented in tables but not discussed in text which is insufficient (e.g. table 5 has basically no information in text even tough contains quite a large quantity of information – the same was observed for other tables and figueres.

 

Conclusions – there is a need to address how the results of this study are important globally or to similar situations/habitats.

 

L24-25  Is the following sentence a potential result of the creation of TBCA? If it is, it should be moved to L27 it is not coherent with the rationale “Changing patterns of mangrove use in the areas and accessibility point towards unsustainable utilization and promote illegal activities”.

L37 – Is there a reason for the word “rate” to be italicized?

L38. Full stop symbol missing.

L40-67 – It would likely improve reading flow if this paragraph was split into two or more new paragraphs. (maybe line 53ish)

 

Figure 1c – There is a lighter green color that is not listed in the legend. Please correct.

L147 – Check journal’s rules about citation whether ibid. should be used or not.

L159 – Please clarify what is “systematic random sampling”; usually they are considered two distinct methods. If authors are to maintain such naming for their method, add a brief description and citations.

L162-175 – Add information about how the different groups were selected (firewood sellers, dagaa sellers, fishermen and conservation).

L179 – what is “dagaa-sardines”. Is it placed as a subtitle?

L180 – Data is “cleaned” is an awkward expression. Maybe consolidated?

Table 3 is missing

L206 – Sentence is probably part of table 3 but as it is makes no sense.

L2010-211 – Add detailed information about the “difference in the alternative sources of wood products across the sites”. How were they different? Where was the highest, lowest etc.

L215-216 – Describe other daily used products as wild fish is not the only one.

L220- The same rationale as described above but for weekly basis products.

L220-221 – Clarify the meaning of (and how it refers to table 4) the following: “Other forest products such 220 as medicine and repair timber for houses and boats were extracted as their needs arose.”

Table 5 results need to be fully described.

L236-237; L257-258– Describe in detail how “significant difference between areas where mangrove products were harvested across the study sites”.

L264-265 – Unless authors have more information to describe from table 8 than “Communities within TBCA could correctly identify different mangrove species in their areas, their local names, and the parts of the tree that are used” they should send this table to supplementary material as it is clearly not important.

Table 9 is missing. It is probably not important based on the few pieces of information that was added to the text.

L354 – Italicize Ceriops tagal.

Between L355 and 355 – Probably refers to the missing table 9.

L366 – Describe the differences here and delete figure 7  and add citation.

Delete figure 6 if not necessary as it was not mentioned in text. If is to depict a proposal/results it should be referred as such. Also fully describe the meaning of DPSIR in caption.

Author Response

Kindly find attached the responses in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 The manuscript has been improved but some issues remain.

 1.    All Figures and tables are still insufficiently described in captions. For example, figure 6 (graphic) it reads “Trends in the harvest of mangrove wood products within the TBCA (Kenya)”. Caption lacks information about the contents of the graphic:  there are two lines with information that are not described (deadloads and scores), y axis refers to the the number of products harvested, the period of the graphic shown be described.

Figure 6 (organogram) (numbering is wrong). It reads “DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, Impact and responses) type scheme for TBCA (Kenya)”. Caption should include information saying that DPSIR is a process of evaluation/assessnent of….for….where, when, why.

Another example. Figure 2, caption reads “Mangrove resource use in the study sites in the TBCA (Kenya)”. It should be something like “percentage of responses (yes or no) in relation to the direct use of mangrove resources in the Gazi Bay and Banga area communities (Kenya).

Table 4 – captions are incomplete. Also, information about what is the meaning of scores and rank should be included; why rank goes to 1 to 5 only and why it is necessary if it follows the numbering of the goods themselves (seems to be redundant). Finally, the second part of the table (frequency of use is not well placed in table. It looks like another table within table 4).

2.    Contextualization of the importance of this study for other places should allow readers to understand why its results are important. Therefore, the inclusion of a vague sentence such as in L29-30 is clearly insufficient “The results of the study are important for similar environments around the world.”

               How will the results inform policy makers (or other stakeholders) from places with similar ecosystems? Was the method appropriate? Were the results locally specific or could they be extended to other places?

3.    Information about methods is still insufficient. Authors have included information that does not respond to the question made. The point is that, usually, sampling is based on randomly or systematically distributed samples, but not both together (or at least they cannot be used at the same time). Was sampling initially carried out by some kind of random sampling followed by some systematic process? Please specify, in detail, how the sampling process was performed. How were samples chosen, how were they surveyed.

Minor issues:

L502 – typo for “Th development”.

L500-506 – paragraph formatting needs fixing.

Table 4 - caption formatting needs fixing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript was adequately revised.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor typos.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

 

The work could be considered for publication in the valued sustainability journal if the authors apply the comments and suggestions in the text.

The best

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English Language needs to be improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 “Patterns of mangrove resource uses in the transboundary area of Kenya and Tanzania” conducts a survey of 150 mangrove users in 12 groups.  The groups came to collective conclusions. 15 distinct products were collected from the mangrove of which firewood, fish, building poles, and honey were the most common. The study ranked the “importance” of each product but it is not clear what importance means. The authors are concerned about the possibility some harvesting is not sustainable.

The study provides a good descriptive analysis of what people are collecting from the forest and what the prices are for selected products.    

However, the study does not measure the net revenue (income) the collectors are receiving from harvesting. Perhaps mor importantly, the study does not measure the net revenue per hectare of the mangrove so that one could judge the economic productivity of the mangrove.

The authors state they are concerned about the sustainability of the harvest but there is nothing in their survey design that measures sustainability.

The study falls short of what their goals appeared to be which is to measure the importance of this specific mangrove and to evaluate whether or not it was being managed sustainably.

 

   

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

Please, while the objectives of the study are clearly defined you need to tell us about the need of information expressed by the end-users of your results. In other terms, how useful will be the results of the study for the management and sustainable use of the mangroves studied.

 

Methods

Adequate enough!

 

Results

My observations:

 

"A total of 16 different products were reported to be extracted from mangrove forests in the study area. The most important mangrove product was firewood followed by fisheries resources, building poles, honey, and traditional medicine (Table 2)". 

Table 2 should be Table 3

 

Figure 2:

The illustration of the histograms should be distinctive enough or, where possible, in color

 

Table 6 and Table 7

Below the tables, you wrote: 1US$ = 128 as of 4th March 2023. you should write: 1US$ = 128 Ksh as of 4th March 2023

In table 6, there is no diameter range fr utilization classes Nguzo and Vigingi. Please, provide them

In table 7, in the column of Firewood quantity, you should provide even approximatively, the number of pieces in each category. When talking about pieces, you should also give a mean diameter of them

Complementary observations:

 

 

Mangrove species preference should be analyzed so as to find out whether the difference between species is significant. The authors can therefore derive the risks associated to that selective harvesting of species on biodiversity conservation and depletion of resources. They will then suggest sustainable management and use solutions

The type of uses with respect to the purpose of uses of the different species should also be documented

Discussion

In general, most of the references are outdated (before 2010-2015). Science is dynamic and you need to be up to date

In the section: Use of Mangrove forest products

The local names of species should be followed by their scientific names. 

The references in this section at least are too poor in number and quality. Most of your references are national. Mangroves extend all along the shorelines of Africa. The scientific papers on mangroves are expanding

The other sections of the discussion are acceptable

 

Conclusion

 

The conclusion should present an overview of the results and their implications for the future studies and the conservation of the mangroves

 

Your conclusion is too general 

 

I seldom find reference citation in conclusion. The citation here as well as reference to figures should be removed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

All over the manuscript:

There are some terms or expressions repeated because of lack of attention

There are also some grammatical concerns in the sentences

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

The authors well responded to the reviewing comments. I have an extra explanation for the 2 questions that were somehow unclear! Plz find them below.

Materials and Methods

2.2 Methods

Fig. 1 Plz number them based on letters a-c.

I meant put the numbers or letters on the images/ graphs that where is the 1^st image and where is 2^nd and so on.

-I suggest to the authors put the questions in the order in the supplementary section at the end of the paper with references to the text.

 

I meant put the questionnaire at the end of the text after References with the title of Supplementary.

Author Response

Comment 1: Fig. 1 Plz number them based on letters a-c.

Response: The figure has been edited and each image has been named based on letters a-c as advised

Comment 2: I suggest to the authors put the questions in the order in the supplementary section at the end of the paper with references to the text. 

Response: The questions from the household survey and the Nominal Group Technique discussions have been included in the supplementary section of the paper

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The actual version take into account my comments and recommendations

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English quality is adequate

Author Response

Comment: Minor editing of English language required

Response: The authors have gone through the manuscript and done some editing to improve on the quality of the English