Analysis of the Management of Protected Areas in Galapagos: 60 Years after Its Declaration as a National Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzes the type and quality of management in the marine reserve and national park of the Galapagos Islands. To this end, the authors apply a methodology already implemented in other protected areas. This methodology is very useful for obtaining, in a rapidly reproducible manner, information on key aspects of the management of an area, integrating the entire "socioecosystemic" dimension. From there, the most limiting aspects of management are detected, depending on the case. With respect to the Galapagos Islands, which as a protected area is a global benchmark, the authors have been able to highlight that management is generally good with some weaknesses, especially in the process of stakeholder participation (especially the fishing sector and managers), leading to a series of specific recommendations.

Both the procedure (although already dealt with in other studies) and the results and subsequent recommendations applicable  are of interest for management on a global scale and, therefore, I think that this study is of interest and acceptable for this Journal.

Nevertheless, I would like to present a series of improvements that I think should be considered:

1)In the introduction more information could be provided and developed, on an empirical basis, what it implies at the "socioecosystemic" level to have a good score in the methodology presented. That is to say, to support with bibliography some empirical cases that demonstrate that a good or that a good or bad score in the indicators studied affect the “socioecosystemic” level of the protected areas.

2) Line 46. When talking about the importance of the "Social Factors", it would be good to explain the most important ones.

3) Line 86 "an intermediate" is repeated in error.

4) It would be worthwhile to develop a little more in the introduction the "bottom-up" and "top-down" planning models.

5)Line 127-131: The methodology of this work, published earlier, could be explained and developed more in the introduction being the explanation more concise in the methodological part.

6) Figure 2 could indicate the areas comprising the NP and RM.

7) Line 378-382: Explain better and with empirical data from other studies what the change of focus implies, in the conservation model, from a "traditional" perspective to one based on "ecosystem services".

8) I would make Figure 4 larger and with a more explanatory caption.

 

9) Lines 460-463: Justify and better demonstrate the proven advantages of the "proactive management scenario".

Author Response

Coment 1) In the introduction more information could be provided and developed, on an empirical basis, what it implies at the "socioecosystemic" level to have a good score in the methodology presented. That is to say, to support with bibliography some empirical cases that demonstrate that a good or that a good or bad score in the indicators studied affect the “socioecosystemic” level of the protected areas.

We appreciate your input. In the introduction, this justification appears between lines 113 and 121. We have reinserted the concept of socioecosystem in this paragraph to reinforce the idea and make it clearer.

2) Line 46. When talking about the importance of the "Social Factors", it would be good to explain the most important ones.

OK, we have included them..

3) Line 86 "an intermediate" is repeated in error.

Thank you so much, we have changed it.

4) It would be worthwhile to develop a little more in the introduction the "bottom-up" and "top-down" planning models.

We have expanded it, thank you very much.

5) Line 127-131: The methodology of this work, published earlier, could be explained and developed more in the introduction being the explanation more concise in the methodological part.

Thank you very much for your input. After consideration, we have decided to keep the methodology exclusively in the corresponding section, as it seems easier for the reader to understand.

6) Figure 2 could indicate the areas comprising the NP and RM.

Thank you, we have modified the map and included one that provides relevant information for the study (the delimitation of the protected areas and their level of protection).

7) Line 378-382: Explain better and with empirical data from other studies what the change of focus implies, in the conservation model, from a "traditional" perspective to one based on "ecosystem services".

We have supplemented the information with other cases.

8) I would make Figure 4 larger and with a more explanatory caption.

Thank you very much, we have modified it.

9) Lines 460-463: Justify and better demonstrate the proven advantages of the "proactive management scenario".

We have supplemented the information with other cases.

Comments 1. In the introduction more information could be provided and developed, on an empirical basis, what it implies at the "socioecosystemic" level to have a good score in the methodology presented. That is to say, to support with bibliography some empirical cases that demonstrate that a good or that a good or bad score in the indicators studied affect the “socioecosystemic” level of the protected areas.

Response 1. We appreciate your input. In the introduction, this justification appears between lines 113 and 121. We have reinserted the concept of socioecosystem in this paragraph to reinforce the idea and make it clearer.

Comments 2.  Line 46. When talking about the importance of the "Social Factors", it would be good to explain the most important ones.

Response 2. OK, we have included them.

Comments 3. Line 86 "an intermediate" is repeated in error.

Response 3. Thank you so much, we have changed it.

Comments 4. It would be worthwhile to develop a little more in the introduction the "bottom-up" and "top-down" planning models.

Response  4. We have expanded it, thank you very much.

Comments 5. Line 127-131: The methodology of this work, published earlier, could be explained and developed more in the introduction being the explanation more concise in the methodological part.

Response  5. Thank you very much for your input. After consideration, we have decided to keep the methodology exclusively in the corresponding section, as it seems easier for the reader to understand.

Comments 6. Figure 2 could indicate the areas comprising the NP and RM.

Response  6. Thank you, we have modified the map and included one that provides relevant information for the study (the delimitation of the protected areas and their level of protection).

Comments 7. Line 378-382: Explain better and with empirical data from other studies what the change of focus implies, in the conservation model, from a "traditional" perspective to one based on "ecosystem services".

Response  7. We have supplemented the information with other cases.

Comments 8. I would make Figure 4 larger and with a more explanatory caption.

Response  8. Thank you very much, we have modified it.

Comments 9 Lines 460-463: Justify and better demonstrate the proven advantages of the "proactive management scenario".

Response 9. We have supplemented the information with other cases.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review the manuscript entitled, “Analysis of the management of protected areas in Galapagos: 60 years after its declaration as a National Park.”

The destination site is fascinating, and this study would be a rare example of this context.

I have some comments.

 

1. Overall, the similarity rate was high because one author’s thesis was summarized and revised for publication. In this case, I suggest adding additional information about the author’s thesis in the Acknowledgement. This will clarify the high similarity rate with one particular source and prevent any doubts.

 

2. Abstract

The purpose, data information, method, results, and implications should be presented in brief. More specific research procedures and terms should be presented in abstract.

 

3. Introduction

The purpose, the objectives, and the contributions can be highlighted in the final paragraphs in introduction.

 

4. Literature review

Please provide important concepts in your model and present conceptual and operational definitions. These definitions and explanations of concepts and variables in the proposed model can be beneficial for readers.

 

5. Scale

More specific explanations regarding the measurement items and scales should be clearly noted on pages 6-10.

 

6. Measurement items

Without more clear explanations, pages about measurement items are very long.

 

7. Figure 2.

The map is too small to understand.

Overall, the figures should be enlarged and present important information.

 

8. Figure 3

I am not sure about whether Figure 3 shows any meaningful information. For examples, what does 1 point means in “social-ecosystem” in Figure 3? If the meaning is “No.”, what does it mean “0” in Figure 3?

 

9. Table 3

What does it mean Table 3? Why do you suggest “topics evaluated with indicators adapted from methodologies?”

 

10. Table 4

What are “Management Scenarios?”

 

11. Figure 4

The letter size and the figure is small.

 

12. Results

The results are not well presented. The most information are descriptive. But I feel like the design of measurement items, research procedures, and writing are not suitable for research papers and are not ready for publications for Sustainability. The manuscript should be revised very seriously.

 

13. Results and discussion

Results and discussion should present the contents separately. Please interpret the results and describe them and then discuss theoretical and practical implications.

 

14. Conclusions and recommendations.

Please present limitations and future research recommendations and then present synthesized conclusions.

Author Response

 

Comments 1. Overall, the similarity rate was high because one author’s thesis was summarized and revised for publication. In this case, I suggest adding additional information about the author’s thesis in the Acknowledgement. This will clarify the high similarity rate with one particular source and prevent any doubts.

Response 1. We have included the doctoral thesis as a reference at the beginning of the article. We believe it is better to do it this way because this way anyone interested can access the publication.

Comments 2. Abstract. The purpose, data information, method, results, and implications should be presented in brief. More specific research procedures and terms should be presented in abstract.

Response 2. You are right, we had not included information on the objectives and the data used.

Comments 3. Introduction. The purpose, the objectives, and the contributions can be highlighted in the final paragraphs in introduction.

Response 3. We have checked and this information appears in the final paragraph of the introduction (lines 136-141). Thank you very much.

Comments 4. Literature review. Please provide important concepts in your model and present conceptual and operational definitions. These definitions and explanations of concepts and variables in the proposed model can be beneficial for readers.

Response 5.The main concepts of the article are the 4 elements analysed (managing body, public participation, planning and implementation phases). Their description has been expanded in the methodological section.

Comments 5. Scale. More specific explanations regarding the measurement items and scales should be clearly noted on pages 6-10.

Response 5. Thank you very much for the warning. We have checked this information and it is explained in point 3 of the methodology ("Assessment of indicators: score from 1 to 3 points"), between lines 217-223.

Comments 6. Measurement items. Without more clear explanations, pages about measurement items are very long.

Response 6. We have separated the results from the discussion, as suggested below, so the article has been restructured.

Comments 7. Figure 2. The map is too small to understand. Overall, the figures should be enlarged and present important information.

Response 7. Thank you, we have modified the map and included one that provides relevant information for the study (the delimitation of the protected areas and their level of protection).

Comments 8. Figure 3. I am not sure about whether Figure 3 shows any meaningful information. For examples, what does 1 point means in “social-ecosystem” in Figure 3? If the meaning is “No.”, what does it mean “0” in Figure 3?

Response 8. We have changed the figure, the axis was wrongly configured and was not well understood. Thanks for the warning. The graph represents what rating (1, 2 or 3) each of the indicators has obtained.

Comments 9. Table 3. What does it mean Table 3? Why do you suggest “topics evaluated with indicators adapted from methodologies?”

Response 9. You are right, the table was confusing and did not provide substantial information for the article, so it has been deleted.

Comments 10. Table 4. What are “Management Scenarios?”

Response 10 Thank you very much for the warning. We have checked this information and it is explained in point 4 of the methodology ("Definition of five possible management scenarios: expert criteria"), between lines 238-250.

Comments 11. Figure 4. The letter size and the figure is small.

Response  11. Thank you very much, we have modified it.

Comments 12. Results. The results are not well presented. The most information are descriptive. But I feel like the design of measurement items, research procedures, and writing are not suitable for research papers and are not ready for publications for Sustainability. The manuscript should be revised very seriously.

Response 12. After carefully reading your comments, we have carefully reviewed our article and have decided to separate discussion results, as you suggest. This, together with the other changes and improvements made, we believe will considerably enhance the quality of the paper.

Comments 13. Results and discussion. Results and discussion should present the contents separately. Please interpret the results and describe them and then discuss theoretical and practical implications.

Response 13. After carefully reading your comments, we have carefully reviewed our article and have decided to separate discussion results, as you suggest. This, together with the other changes and improvements made, we believe will considerably enhance the quality of the paper.

Comments 14. Conclusions and recommendations. Please present limitations and future research recommendations and then present synthesised conclusions.

Response  14. We have modified the structure of the section.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revision.

I believe this research setting is very interesting and the manuscript is invaluable. However, overall, I am not sure about the results and especially figures. Please add more clear information.

 

Data source information is not well described as below in abstract. Could you incorporate specific research methodology terms and include information about sampling techniques and data collection methods? All information should be specifically described in method as well.

“Data were obtained through interviews with key stakeholders 28 and DPNG managers, and literature sources.”

 

 

Figure 3.

Table 2 and Figure 3 should be matched.

I do not think that evaluation in Table 2 may not visualized like Figure3.

In Table 2, a Liker scale was used where the numbers 1, 2, and 3 each evaluate different aspects rather than indicating a degree of agreement or intensity. However, the graph represents these numbers as if they were ordinal data, indicating levels in Figure 3.

In figure 3, the color is noted, but I am not sure about the score.

Or, where is the results of Table 2?

If I misunderstand, please explain more clearly in the manuscript.

 

 

Figure 4,

Could you note of the 0, 1, 2, 3? What are the meaning of the numbers? Please add a note.

 

Author Response

Comments 1. Data source information is not well described as below in abstract. Could you incorporate specific research methodology terms and include information about sampling techniques and data collection methods? All information should be specifically described in method as well.
“Data were obtained through interviews with key stakeholders 28 and DPNG managers, and literature sources.”
Response 1. Thank you for your comment, we have expanded this section.

Comments 2. Figure 3.
Table 2 and Figure 3 should be matched. I do not think that evaluation in Table 2 may not visualized like Figure3.
In Table 2, a Liker scale was used where the numbers 1, 2, and 3 each evaluate different aspects rather than indicating a degree of agreement or intensity. However, the graph represents these numbers as if they were ordinal data, indicating levels in Figure 3.
In figure 3, the color is noted, but I am not sure about the score.
Or, where is the results of Table 2?
If I misunderstand, please explain more clearly in the manuscript.
Response 2. Table 2 does represent ordinal values, where 1 is the least unfavorable situation and 3 is the most optimal, as indicated in the first paragraph of Step 3 of the methodology. For ease of understanding, the paragraph explaining this has been moved to Step 2 of the methodology, along with the description of the indicators. Thus, Step 3 focuses on the sources of information for rating each indicator from 1 to 3.

Comments 3. Figure 4. Could you note of the 0, 1, 2, 3? What are the meaning of the numbers? Please add a note.
Response 3. We have expanded the information on the figure 4

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your revision based on the comments. 

I think some parts cannot be revised in this stage. I would like to recommend this manuscript for publication.