Towards Sustainability: A Framework for Evaluating Portuguese Small-Scale Fisheries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the study is very interesting, although the proposal that the reference framework includes 43 indicators (economy (11), society (9), environment (14), and governance (8)) seems to me to be too much!, I do not consider it to be a simple and replicable methodology “The tool developed seems to adequately address sustainability is SS fisheries providing an easy replicable methodology to be used and compared in different realities” and there are several indicators that, although very interesting, such as the gender ratio of the fishery, are not decisive for its sustainability. Likewise, other parameters could be omitted and thus be or make the analysis simpler. I believe that this should be discussed and, in any case, the indicators should be categorised as necessary and desirable, but 43 indicators are, in my opinion, too many to analyse.

Define the acronyms: DGPM and DGRM since the first time mentioned.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aims to perform a systematic review of the Portuguese literature on the small-scale fishing industry to collect data and develop a framework of contextualized indicators covering the economic, social, environmental, and governance dimensions of small-scale fisheries to assess the sector's sustainability.

General comments on the manuscript are as follows:

Abstract

In the abstract, I recommend the introduction of concrete data that have been analyzed and evaluated.

Introduction

I recommend summarizing the introduction chapter which is quite extensive and reformatting it carefully.

In the text, at line 47, the reference page should be deleted.

Materials and methods

Materials and methods are suggestively designed and coded.

Results

Line 215-223: I recommend that this paragraph be moved to the discussion chapter.

Discussion

The analysis of indicators on the four dimensions (economic, social, environmental, and governmental) taken in the study is fit for purpose, and the centralization and interpretation of existing information, as well as the gaps in the sustainability of the small-scale fisheries sector, are highlighted.

Conclusions

The conclusions are appropriate and include relevant recommendations.

References

References are appropriate

The paper is well-balanced with technical and scientific data on Portuguese small-scale fisheries. Such papers bring important knowledge about fish stocks and sustainable fishing industries.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.       In general, this paper is well researched with new input into the current literature. However, the citation style needs to incorporate into Sustainability household style.

2.       P.2, what is “DGPM” standing for? You need to ensure to provide full name for every abbreviation adopted in the paper, in particular, when you mention it for the first time.

3.       At the end of 1. Introduction, it would be helpful to provide a brief introduction of overall structure of this paper.

4.       P.5, what is “GVA” standing for? You need to ensure to provide full name for every abbreviation adopted in the paper, in particular, when you mention it for the first time.

5.       P.6, what is “IPMA” standing for? You need to ensure to provide full name for every abbreviation adopted in the paper, in particular, when you mention it for the first time.

6.       P.7, “As a member of the European Union, Portugal must also comply with the Common Fisheries Policy and set annual Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and quotas for these species.” You need to address the following two questions: To what extent does Common Fisheries Policy impact on the Portuguese’s fisheries policy? How much exactly is the quota?

7.       P.8, “small-scale fisheries”; “SS fisheries”; “SSF” consistency of overall presentation is so important for a good paper. This comment applies throughout the whole paper.

8.       P.8, “…influence customers to choose local and national fish.” This statement is problematic! How to deficient “local” and “national” fish? To what extent are they different?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All my concerns have been fully addressed. Accept.