GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Evaluation for Potential Inland Aquaculture Site Selection in the George Town Conurbation, Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see enclosed file for comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments	Amendments
1.      Line 27-29: Please include reference	Authors have included reference [Line 29] Naylor, R.L.; Hardy, R.W.; Buschmann, A.H.; Bush, S.R.; Cao, L.; Klinger, D.H.; Little, D.C.; Lubchenco, J.; Shumway, S.E.; Troell, M. A 20-year Retrospective Review of Global Aquaculture. Nature 2021, 591, 551–563.
2.      Line 58-61: Please add references supporting this statement	Authors have included references supporting the statement [Line 57-63]
3.      Line 80-82: As the paper focus on inland aquaculture please add if possible some more references to GIS and aquaculture development in tropical inland waters.	Not many studies undertaken that used GIS for inland aquaculture site selection problem.
4.      Table 2: Please add a column where each criteria score is clearly linked to a supporting reference. Preferably also some text should be added to explain its reasoning behind the suitability score for each criteria and how the criteria was mapped through GIS.	Explanation is included for each criterion as shown in Table 2. [Line 183]
5.      Table 2: Another term than soil quality, a better term that includes slope and elevation	Topography have been replaced with Soil Condition [Line 186]
6.      Line 189: “m” should be “n”?	Authors have replaced it with n. [Line 192]
7.      Line 193: please explain more in detail how the pairwise comparison was done? (eg: who did this?)	Three experts in aquaculture practices were interviewed in the study. Authors have added the sentences in the manuscript [Line 196-200]
8.      Line 219: please describe more in detail how this was done (weighted analysis)	The analysis description has been added in the manuscript [Line 196-200]
9.      Line 221-222: please describe more in detail how this was done (data reclassification)	Authors have added the description in the manuscript [Line 221-224]
10.  Line 242: Why? Is the size not influenced by the species and the methods applied? Any specific species and methods in mind? Please elaborate and make it more clear.	Authors have added the process in the manuscript [Line 239-242]
11.  Figure 3-4: The quality of the maps are too low to be able to see any details and thus comment on. Please improve. It would be valuable with some description of the results contained in each map.	Figure 3-4 have been improved the quality [Line 268-271]
	Protected and built-up areas are used as constraints which will be used at the end of the analysis. Thus, it is still included in the methodology.
13.  Line 303-306: Already explained under methods – delete	Authors have deleted the statement. [Line 300-303]
	Authors placed both figures side by side. [Line 304]
15.  Discussion: The discussion should be expanded and put the results in a context what is happening in the area and also compare the results with other studies	Authors have added the discussion in the manuscript [Line 315-319]
16.  Line 314-316: This text should include more information about what is happening in the investigated area and in Malaysia	Authors have added the information in the manuscript [Line 322-326]
17.  Line 326, citation [21]: Well it is not clear from table 1 that MCE was used in the study 21 - please check	Authors made amendments to citation [24]
18.  Line 335: Topography is the part of the environment – delete	Authors have deleted topography. [Line 337]
	Authors have elaborated the statement [Line 344-347]
20.  Line 375: Please use the same terms throughout the paper. It should be “suitable” not “acceptable”	Authors have amended the terms [Line 378]
21.  Line 376-378: Is this really shown by the study? In that case make that more clear in the results and discussion	This statement has been removed.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with multi-criteria evaluation of site suitability using GIS tool for the selection of potential sites for aquaculture farms. The topic is worthy of research; however, a major revision of the manuscript is needed. In the current state of the manuscript, it is well detailed and almost in the format requested by the journal. The procedure is also well detailed and the results are clear. Some comments need to be addressed in order to consider publication.

General comments

C1. The main concern is that the novelty of the research is not fully clear, since such issue has been already developed in several previous manuscript (also in not quoted literature). If such novelty is not clearly highlighted, the risk is that the manuscript looks more a thesis or a simple case study rather than a research paper.

C2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology used in this study?

C3. Authors could also emphasize particular strengths and limitations of the study for potential applications of their method in other regions, contexts and scales.

C4. For readers involved in aquaculture, what can be learned from this study?

The answer to all these questions should be reflected in the manuscript.

Specific comments

Line 32: What other economic activities? Mention.

Line 37: What environmental pressures?

Line 42: Delete the double space.

Line 45: Insert the author and keep the citation "[9]". Apply in other cases throughout the manuscript.

Line 77: State the table in the text and then place the table.

Line 130: The scope and objectives of the paper should be also clearly presented at the end of the introduction section.

Line 134: Delete the first sentence.

Line 136: Change "square kilometers" to "Km²".

Line 150: Improve the image, it has low quality.

Line 165: Why doesn't Land Use enter in Pairwaise comparison matrix?

Line 165: No constraints are shown in the diagram, why?, what are they?

Line 169-170: What was the resolution size for the rasters?

Line 172-173: Put in a link to the web site for download.

Line 182: Why not standardize on more classes, 5, 10 for example, doesn't 3 classes make it difficult to explain or possibly many of these classes could contain very similar suitable areas? What would be the difference between 3, 5 and 10 classes?

Line 202-203: How many decision-makers determine the comparison matrix? What aggregation method do you use?

Line 202-203: In the case of AHP, how the comparison among criteria is determined?  I mean, for example, how is get the value “1/2” of Soil texture in comparison with Soil pH? And not “1/5” or “1/7”? Is used an expert decision?

Line 202-Table 4: The value "3/2" is not shown as one of the possible values to be used as shown in Table 3.

Line 208: Not the right way to cite.

Line 242-243: Change "hectares" to "ha".

Line 248-249: According to whom?

Line 264, 267 and 291: The figures show very low quality, they need to be improved. The legend is not distinguishable, need scale bar, north arrow, coordinate grid.

Line 301: Change "Ha" to "ha".

Line 311-312: Need to show the existing aquaculture farms, for visual comparison.

Line 321: Not the correct way to cite.

Line 365 (End of the discussion). One important issue in this quality method is evaluating the robustness of results. And I miss a sensitive analysis here. How the results change if the comparison matrix weights change?

Author Response

Comments	Amendments
1.      The main concern is that the novelty of the research is not fully clear since such issues has been already developed in several previous manuscripts (also in not quoted literature). If such novelty is not clearly highlighted, the risk is that the manuscript looks more a thesis or a simple case study rather than a research paper.	Very few study undertaken that use GIS and MCE for aquaculture site selection in Malaysia. Thus, systematic approach used in this study can provide assistance for maximizing sustainability by exploring only suitable sites rather than wasting land for unsuitable site.
2.      What are the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology used in this study?	Advantage – the methodology used provides systematic approach in decision making for site selection problem. Disadvantage – the methodology used based on limited data available for this study.
3.      Authors could also emphasize particular strengths and limitations of the study for the potential applications of their method in other regions, contexts and scales.	The strengths of the study is discussed in line 324-331 and the limitation is presented in line 356-359
4.      For readers involved in aquaculture, what can be learned from this study?	In Malaysia, most aquaculture sites were selected based on availability of land. Thus, land use conflicts and environmental pollution such as wastewater discharge and odor become problem. A systematic approach demonstrate in this study can provide assistance in decision making.

Reviewer 3 Report

This study aims to select potential sites for aquaculture in the George Town conurbation region in Malaysia using multi-criteria evaluation approach. The paper is nicely written, the subject fits in the scope of the Land journal and the results are convincing. I have only minor comments:

1. Please, add “Malaysia” in the title.
2. Table 1 is a good one. Congratulations to the authors!
3. Figure 1. The paragraph discussing Figure 1 reports George Town conurbation and Penang Island. Therefore, they should be located in this figure.
4. I cannot read text and number made available in Figures 3-5. Please, increase the font sizes.
5. In Figure 7, P14, there is room to classify the suitable sites into three categories: < 10 ha, 10-30 ha, and > 30 ha. This will make the map less simple. It will be nice if this figure shows the location of the capitals of the states (I suppose the internal division is state division) as well as the name of the states. Don´t forget the coordinates as well. Same for Figure 6.

I believe the paper is almost ready to be published if the quality of the figures are improved. No other major objections.

Author Response

Comments	Amendments
1.      Please add “Malaysia” in the title.	Authors have added Malaysia in the title [Line 4]
2.      Figure 1. The paragraph discussing Figure 1 reports George Town conurbation and Penang Island. Therefore, they should be located in this figure.	Authors have improved the figure. [Line 153]
3.      I cannot read text and number made available in Figures 3-5. Please, increase the font sizes.	Authors have improved all the figures. Line 267, 271, 295, 297, 303]
4.      In Figure 7, P14, there is room to classify the suitable sites into three categories: < 10 ha, 10-30 ha, and > 30 ha. This will make the map less simple. It will be nice if this figure shows the location of the capitals of the states (I suppose the internal division is state division) as well as the name of the states. Don´t forget the coordinates as well. Same for Figure 8.	Authors have amended the figure. [Line 307]

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved but the english and the presentation of the methodology and the discussion can still be somewhat improved.

Author Response

The authors have improved the English of the manuscript. The methodology is described in Section 2.3 [Line 190 – Line 206]. The discussion has been improved [Line 373-Line 380]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It seems that the authors made a considerable effort in response to the previous comments. Therefore, in order to consider its publication, it is important to address the following minor comments.

General comments

C1. The general comments from the first round were answered, however, they are not reflected in the manuscript, so it is important to do this.

C1. Round 1. The main concern is that the novelty of the research is not fully clear, since such issue has been already developed in several previous manuscript (also in not quoted literature). If such novelty is not clearly highlighted, the risk is that the manuscript looks more a thesis or a simple case study rather than a research paper.

Amendment: Very few study undertaken that use GIS and MCE for aquaculture site selection in Malaysia. Thus, systematic approach used in this study can provide assistance for maximizing sustainability by exploring only suitable sites rather than wasting land for unsuitable site.

C2. Round 1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology used in this study?

Amendment: Advantage – the methodology used provides systematic approach in decision making for site selection problem.

Disadvantage – the methodology used based on limited data available for this study.

C4. Round 1. For readers involved in aquaculture, what can be learned from this study?

Amendment: In Malaysia, most aquaculture sites were selected based on availability of land. Thus, land use conflicts and environmental pollution such as wastewater discharge and odor become problem. A systematic approach demonstrate in this study can provide assistance in decision making.

C2. In general, the maps or figures containing maps are not homogeneous, some have details such as overlapping titles with the maps, different graphic scales, distortion in the figure (flattened horizontally or vertically). Homogenize the maps and use a single style.

Specific comments

Line 1-3: It is recommended to reduce the number of words in the title to 15.

Line 109: Change "steps," to "steps:".

Line 151: The graphic scale is missing. Add "(a)", "(b)", etc., as in Figure 8.

Lines 157: Change "30 x 30 meters" to "30m".

Line 225: Change "reclassification" to "standardization".

Line 238: 10.5 or 10.4? Look at the summary.

Line 272: Why does the graphic scale say "Meters", it should be "kilometers". Figure appears to be distorted, edit and place in dimensions similar to Figure 3. Add "(a)", "(b)", etc., as in Figure 8.

Line 274: Same as previous comment.

Line 300: It is the first time, that something appears referring to a constraint map. The methodology does not show how this map was generated. It is necessary to include a section in the methodology that talks in detail about this result. Add "(a)", "(b)", etc., as in Figure 8.

Line 306: It is important to be consistent in the figures. Homogenize the word “Legend” or “LEGEND” in the maps.

Author Response

The authors have amended the manuscript based on comments and suggestions made by the reviewer (as attached). 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf