Coastal Waterfront Transformations, Fishing Structures, and Sustainable Tourism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review this paper. However, I have several suggestions for the improvement of manuscripts, such as the following:

Abstract

1.      Lines 7-10, please, simplify and refine the language for better clarity and readability. Those sentences (especially the second sentence) should be changed or re-written.

2.      Some sentences are complex and could be broken down for better readability. I suggest breaking those sentences (lines 10-19) are lengthy and could be simplified to enhance clarity.

3.      The abstract could benefit from providing a bit more detail on the specific geographical regions or cities studied to give readers a clearer idea of the context.

4.      Please, ensure consistency in terms and phrasing, such as "pairwise locations" (line 10) and "pairwise case studies," (line 14) to avoid confusion.

5.      P. 1 line 16, please consider changing "we." You can use the current study or the current research or researcher. If the manuscript was written by a solo author, then why we?

6.      The abstract lacks details about the methodology employed to achieve the research aim. It would be beneficial to include a brief mention of the research design, or any specific tool used in the research.

7.      I would suggest that the author summarize the implications and may also add limitations in a few sentences, and those sentences should be more specific instead of general.

Introduction

8.      Add more detail about the specific pairwise locations and their relevance. For example, explain why New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Figueira da Foz, Portugal, are relevant for the study.

9.      P. 2 line 46, please consider changing "we." You can use the current study or the current research or researcher.

10.   P.2 lines 59-63, please consider deleting those sentences, which are unnecessary. We can read those sections or titles. Hence, reduce redundancy or avoid repeating terms.

Analytical Mechanism

11.   P.2 lines 73-78, I had hard time to understand please consider rewriting those sentences. You may also break down complex sentences into simpler, more digestible parts. Please, don’t start the sentence with ‘and’.

12.   P. 3 line 102 & P. 4 line 178, please consider changing "we." You can use the current study or the current research or researcher.

Methods and Case Studies: No concern or issues in these sections.

Results and Discussion

13.   Please enhance the transitions to improve the overall flow of the discussion.

Conclusion

14.   The study's contribution to theory needs to be clarified, noticeable, or evident. Please, consider rewriting or improving the sections' implications of the research because it was too short, almost absent (i.e., please add the practical & theoretical implications and limitations).

 

15.   I would like to know what other studies found similar to this study, where they did in their study, and what they explored. I wish the author the best of luck with the revision.             

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are complex, awkward or hard to understand. Hence, please simplfy and refine the language for better clarity and readability.  

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has an interesting topic and should provide a good contribution for the field of tourism. However, there are a number of points to be further explained. 

- The objectives and the background were well-provided and build up the foundation of the study. 

- The research methodology is still insufficient and unclear, regarding how systematically the author selected each sites to be included in the study. This should be further explained. 

- Table 1 is the most important table for the paper. The problem is how do you justify your assessment approach and criteria used to evaluate for each dimension. Please provide systematic and objective guidelines clearly and specifically. 

-The discussion with the past research was still limited. 

- The limitations are many and the author should address more clearly. 

- The practical contributions should be provided based on the stakeholders who may have benefits from this study. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some language editing will be needed. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf