A Critical Approach to Existing Management Perspectives in Scuba Diving: A Step in Defining Ecological Carrying Capacity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo comment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of the English language required
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file “sustainability-2637096_reviewer_1_2_3_revision”.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of the manuscript "A critical approach to existing management perspectives in scuba diving: a step in defining ecological carrying capacity"
The MS represents a review and analysis of existing publications on the issue of sustainable development of the recreational diving industry in various coastal areas around the world. It is thought that the paper is interesting and relevant, and the results of the analysis conducted show that overall, both stakeholders and other participants in the process see the necessary measures for the sustainable development of diving within the framework of ICZM philosophy. The methodological approach to the analysis and selection of articles is not objectionable. The MS can be accepted for publication with minor changes:
Comments:
Figure 2 - Distribution of the body of literature analyzed (data from 1993 to 2021) - is not very informative, as it seems to indicate the localization of the authors of the articles. However, an article published by European diving specialists or authors from the USA may be dedicated to conservation or development of diving sites in another part of the world. It is unclear how the authors of the review took this into account or if they did at all. It might make sense to create an inset for the Southeast Asia region, as otherwise it is too small and poorly distinguishable.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file “sustainability-2637096_reviewer_1_2_3_revision”.
Comments 1:
Figure 2 - Distribution of the body of literature analyzed (data from 1993 to 2021) - is not very informative, as it seems to indicate the localization of the authors of the articles. However, an article published by European diving specialists or authors from the USA may be dedicated to conservation or development of diving sites in another part of the world. It is unclear how the authors of the review took this into account or if they did at all. It might make sense to create an inset for the Southeast Asia region, as otherwise it is too small and poorly distinguishable.
Response 1:
Agree, that is not very informative. We analyzed the locations where different studies/experiments took place and this is the information contained in the cartogram and in the text (page 5 “The results show that the largest number of identified case studies were in the United States of America (USA, e.g., Florida, California, and Hawaii), closely followed by Australia and Spain (Figure 2).”).
Accordingly, the comment, we have revised the text above figure 2 and the legend of figure 2 as can be seen in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThrough bibliometric analysis, the authors discussed the impact of scuba diving on the environment, sorted out the management methods of diving, and put forward relevant suggestions. This is an excellent paper that provides a scientific basis for reducing the environmental impact and management of scuba diving.I suggest that the author make some minor changes before the paper is accepted for publication.
1. In the methods section, the author needs to supplement the time range of literature search.
2. In the results section, the second paragraph of 3.1, it is suggested that the author only describe the trends in diving management, without citing references.
3. In the first 4 sentences of part 4.4, it is recommended to supplement references, if there are references to relevant materials.
4. Some references in the paper need to mark the author information rather than the serial number of the document. Such as, Section 4.5, the sixth line of the second paragraph, reference to reference 81; Section 4.6, paragraph 1, line 9, reference to 85.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file “sustainability-2637096_reviewer_1_2_3_revision”.
Comments 1:
In the methods section, the author needs to supplement the time range of literature search.
Response 1:
We present this information in the first paragraph of the methods chapter “Between September 2020 and April 2021, a screening of the databases…As the study was not immediately finished a new screening with similar methodology in early 2023 helped to update the results with no significant changes.”.
Comments 2:
In the results section, the second paragraph of 3.1, it is suggested that the author only describe the trends in diving management, without citing references.
Response 2:
Disagree. The authors' idea is to demonstrate that there is similarity in the results obtained with others worldwide, however, there are new results within this study.
Comments 3:
In the first 4 sentences of part 4.4, it is recommended to supplement references, if there are references to relevant materials.
Response 3:
Agree. We added reference [19] – K. Dimmock and G. Musa, "Scuba Diving Tourism System: A framework for collaborative management and sustainability," Marine Policy, vol. 54, pp. 52-58, Apr 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.008.
Comments 4:
Some references in the paper need to mark the author information rather than the serial number of the document. Such as, Section 4.5, the sixth line of the second paragraph, reference to reference 81; Section 4.6, paragraph 1, line 9, reference to 85.
Response 4:
Agree. We proceed with the change in the file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
