Understanding Factors Affecting Fishers’ Wellbeing in the U.S. Virgin Islands through the Lens of Heuristic Modelling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Considering fishers’ well-being as an indicator of ecosystem health is an innovative way of looking at socio-ecological systems, drawing on an anthropocentric perspective to assess fishers’ investments in ecosystem health and incorporating Traditional/ Local Ecological Knowledge in fisheries management.  The relationships among well-being and ecosystem health are interesting and important for fisheries research and management, particularly what that says about incorporating human dimensions into ecosystem-based management.  Equally important are the findings regarding knowledge (both formal and TEK), commitment to fishing, and support of enforcement of fishery regulations.  There are some publications on the moral economy of Caribbean fishing that could help this paper.

My only critique of the paper is that the text about Principal Components Analysis preceding Tables 2 and 3 fall into the formal category of gobbledygook.  These should be rewritten to highlight the method less and the findings more.  Also, I would suggest moving the survey form to an appendix and referring to questions asked when introducing data derived from those questions.  I realize that some reviewers might think that a sample size of 48 would not be sufficient to draw conclusions, but I don’t have any problems with that.    

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

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 files.

1. General Evaluation:

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable	Responses
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )	The reviewer has not provided clear guidance regarding citation relevancy. However, we believe that the edits have considerably improved the manuscript.
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )	We have included a paragraph more clearly stating the study objectives.
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	We have made improvements to increase clarity – However the reviewer did not provide any specific comments or guidance regarding the presentation of results.
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )	The reviewer did not provide enough guidance regarding this point. However, we have included more citations in the revised version.
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

2. Point by point response to comments and suggestions

Considering fishers’ well-being as an indicator of ecosystem health is an innovative way of looking at socio-ecological systems, drawing on an anthropocentric perspective to assess fishers’ investments in ecosystem health and incorporating Traditional/ Local Ecological Knowledge in fisheries management.  The relationships among well-being and ecosystem health are interesting and important for fisheries research and management, particularly what that says about incorporating human dimensions into ecosystem-based management.  Equally important are the findings regarding knowledge (both formal and TEK), commitment to fishing, and support of enforcement of fishery regulations.  There are some publications on the moral economy of Caribbean fishing that could help this paper.

My only critique of the paper is that the text about Principal Components Analysis preceding Tables 2 and 3 fall into the formal category of gobbledygook.  These should be rewritten to highlight the method less and the findings more.  

Response: This section of the paper is in the Methods section so we do not believe it is the appropriate place for highlighting findings. We believe that the information can be helpful for those looking to understand the methods used in more detail and it is important to allow replicability of the study.

Also, I would suggest moving the survey form to an appendix and referring to questions asked when introducing data derived from those questions.  

Response: We believe having the questions in the table is helpful since we used a large number of variables and it would be potentially difficult to follow if readers have to find the questions in the appendix. If advised by the editor, we could include the survey as an appendix in addition to the table.

I realize that some reviewers might think that a sample size of 48 would not be sufficient to draw conclusions, but I don’t have any problems with that.    

Response: This is good comment and we have added some further clarification in the text to explain that there are about 150 active fishers in the USVI so our sample represents 1/3 of the study population.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper needs significant work. There is no cohesive objective or research question that drives the research and it seems like it's a practice in applying a heuristic model to case study. There is no background or understanding of the theoretical concepts used in this paper (stakeholder perceptions and participation, well-being, ecosystem-based management, governance) and therefore the paper has no merit because it makes no connections to why applying a heuristic model is important to scholarship. The authors need to revisit their purpose for seeking to publish this paper and need to identify the concepts on which it is trying to build. More specific comments are below.

The second sentence of introduction brings in ecosystem-based management, without defining it or a short statement about how it requires stakeholder participation, and then the discussion moves to stakeholder perceptions. There needs to be more a tie between this concepts, or if there is no tie for this paper, the paper needs to focus on well-being- which seems like what it is trying to do upon further reading.

-It is unclear based on the Introduction how the heuristic model addresses the inclusion of stakeholder perceptions or participation in management. Also, well-being is brought into the Introduction but it is unclear how this fits in. Is the goal of the paper to just apply the model to understand relationships or fishers' well-being? Or is the objective to find a pathway to better include stakeholders in management decisions? The first paragraph suggests that the paper will examine stakeholder input, but the model doesn't seem to incorporate that piece.

Methods:

How were the model's variables identified? And how are these variables connected to fishers' well-being? It seems like they arise from Pollnac and Poggie (2008) but it is not explicitly stated in the Methods section. Also, if the objective of the paper is to examine fishers' well-being using this heuristic model, then the Introduction about stakeholder participation and ecosystem-based management does not align with the study done here. If there are connections, they need to be explicitly stated and unpacked briefly in the Introduction and then in the literature review, there needs to be a review of these literatures, how they are connected, and why we, in the social sciences, need another paper about fishers' well-being.

The scales of your survey vary question to question. How was this accounted for quantitatively or used in your analysis and brought into the heuristic model? What are the connections to well-being?

The authors discuss different areas of the USVI, but there is no map for reference to these areas.

The discussion has no interpretation of the findings, it only includes results. What does it mean for fishers' well-being? How does this paper contribute anything to our understanding of these complex systems? Where is the discussion of well-being and why it matters for fishery governance?

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

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 files.

1. General Evaluation:

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable	Responses
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	We have made edits that considerably improved the introduction and more clearly link the objectives of the paper to the theoretical background – EBFM and wellbeing literature in the context of fisheries management
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )	The reviewer has not provided clear guidance regarding citation relevancy. However, we believe that the edits have considerably improved the manuscript.
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	We have included a paragraph more clearly stating the study objectives.
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	We have made improvements to increase clarity – See more specific comments below.
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	We have made improvements to increase clarity – However the reviewer did not provide any specific comments or guidance regarding the presentation of results.
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	The reviewer did not provide enough guidance regarding this point. However, we have included more citations in the revised version.
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )	The reviewer did not provide enough guidance regarding this point. However, we believe the edits based on the reviewer more specific comments considerably improved the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

1. Point by point response to comments and suggestions

This paper needs significant work. There is no cohesive objective or research question that drives the research and it seems like it's a practice in applying a heuristic model to case study. There is no background or understanding of the theoretical concepts used in this paper (stakeholder perceptions and participation, well-being, ecosystem-based management, governance) and therefore the paper has no merit because it makes no connections to why applying a heuristic model is important to scholarship. The authors need to revisit their purpose for seeking to publish this paper and need to identify the concepts on which it is trying to build. More specific comments are below.

Response: We appreciate these comments and we have edited the introduction to address them – see more details below. We believe our edits in response to these comments have helped to improve the manuscript. 

The second sentence of introduction brings in ecosystem-based management, without defining it or a short statement about how it requires stakeholder participation, and then the discussion moves to stakeholder perceptions. There needs to be more a tie between this concepts, or if there is no tie for this paper, the paper needs to focus on well-being- which seems like what it is trying to do upon further reading.

Response: We have added a definition of EBFM in the intro as well as a sentence more clearly connecting the use of heuristic models to understand human dimensions within the context of fisheries management. We have also added more context about wellbeing to the introduction.

-It is unclear based on the Introduction how the heuristic model addresses the inclusion of stakeholder perceptions or participation in management. Also, well-being is brought into the Introduction but it is unclear how this fits in. Is the goal of the paper to just apply the model to understand relationships or fishers' well-being? Or is the objective to find a pathway to better include stakeholders in management decisions? The first paragraph suggests that the paper will examine stakeholder input, but the model doesn't seem to incorporate that piece.

Response: We have added a paragraph at the end of the introduction more clearly stating the objectives of the study and explaining how we are testing the relationships in the heuristic model using a correlation model that was created based on stakeholder data from fisher surveys. We have also added a paragraph more clearly explaining the link to well-being and strengthening support from previous research.

Methods:

How were the model's variables identified? And how are these variables connected to fishers' well-being? It seems like they arise from Pollnac and Poggie (2008) but it is not explicitly stated in the Methods section.

Response: We are unsure if we fully understand this comment. However, we believe that by clarifying the objectives of the study and the use of the heuristic model developed by Pollnac et al. (2008) as a basis to interpret the correlation model which was created based on stakeholder surveys we likely addressed this question.

Also, if the objective of the paper is to examine fishers' well-being using this heuristic model, then the Introduction about stakeholder participation and ecosystem-based management does not align with the study done here. If there are connections, they need to be explicitly stated and unpacked briefly in the Introduction and then in the literature review, there needs to be a review of these literatures, how they are connected, and why we, in the social sciences, need another paper about fishers' well-being.

Response: We believe our edits to the introduction have helped to clarify these questions.

The scales of your survey vary question to question. How was this accounted for quantitatively or used in your analysis and brought into the heuristic model? What are the connections to well-being?

Response: The formula for Spearman’s rho is derived by taking the formula for a product-moment correlation and applying it to ranks rather than raw scores, and thus Spearman’s measure can be interpreted as the product-moment correlation between the ranks on X and the ranks on Y.  The only restriction is that both measures must be at least at the ordinal level of measurement.

The authors discuss different areas of the USVI, but there is no map for reference to these areas.

Response: A map of the USVI has been added as Figure 2.

The discussion has no interpretation of the findings, it only includes results. What does it mean for fishers' well-being? How does this paper contribute anything to our understanding of these complex systems? Where is the discussion of well-being and why it matters for fishery governance?

Response: We respectfully disagree with this comment. The section is called findings and discussion and there is plenty of interpretation of findings and multiple links to well-being and management. Here are some excerpts:

These findings support previous studies that show that aspects relating to the adventure and independence of the fishing job are important for maintaining fishers’ psychological wellbeing, which is referred to in some of the literature as fulfilling the role of “therapy” (Griffith and Pizzini 2002, Pollnac et al. 2011, Seara et al. 2017)….

Fishers with more positive perceptions of the status of fishery resources when compared to 10 years ago scored higher on the wellbeing scale, suggesting that fishers’ wellbeing is directly linked to their perceptions of the health and abundance of fishery resources. This finding emphasizes aspects discussed above since fishers’ wellbeing is directly tied to their ability to continue fishing. Moreover, this provides an important perspective on the potential use of fishers’ wellbeing as an indicator of fishery resource health, which can be useful in more holistic management strategies which seek to implement and evaluate decision-making based on a social-ecological system perspective.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have one main comment that have yet to be addressed in this paper, one which impacts the overall contribution of this scholarship.

(1) In the Introduction, the authors introduce ecosystem-based management and stakeholder participation, but the paper is actually about what factors impact fishers' well-being. Because of the paper's focus, there is little empirical evidence in the scholarship that demonstrates how using a heuristic model in anyway incorporates stakeholder participation into management, ecosystem-based management or otherwise, which is a huge gap in this paper. I think that the authors are not talking about true stakeholder participation and they are just examining the factors that impact well-being and how those factors also influence their perceptions and attitudes towards management [which is not what stakeholder participation is]. The framing of the paper needs to change to engage with the well-being literature and why it is important. Particularly- what does this case study offer that we don't already know? If you do want to use these models or well-being as a framework to incorporate stakeholder participation or knowledge- how did you do that with this study? It's still unclear.

Also, there are terms thrown about in this paper that need to be unpacked or taken out, such as adaptive capacity. This is not a paper that examined adaptive capacity, so while the research may have implications for that concept, it needs to be left in the conclusion and not framed using that term.

Author Response

• In the Introduction, the authors introduce ecosystem-based management and stakeholder participation, but the paper is actually about what factors impact fishers' well-being.

We have removed the one instance of the word “participation” in the intro and abstract and replaced it with “input” – we have also clarified that input from stakeholders is measured as their responses to the survey which is the data used in the correlation model.

• Because of the paper's focus, there is little empirical evidence in the scholarship that demonstrates how using a heuristic model in anyway incorporates stakeholder participation into management, ecosystem-based management or otherwise, which is a huge gap in this paper. I think that the authors are not talking about true stakeholder participation and they are just examining the factors that impact well-being and how those factors also influence their perceptions and attitudes towards management [which is not what stakeholder participation is].

While we appreciate this comment and have used it to further clarify the manuscript, we believe the reviewer is misunderstanding the methodology used. We are nowhere in the manuscript claiming that a heuristic model is a way to incorporate stakeholder participation in management per se – we are using the heuristic model developed and published in 2008 as a basis for testing correlations using stakeholder input (surveys) – correlation model in results, not heuristic - and thus providing information about the human dimensions and stakeholders perceptions of the fishery ecosystem that can then be used in the management process.

• The framing of the paper needs to change to engage with the well-being literature and why it is important. Particularly- what does this case study offer that we don't already know? If you do want to use these models or well-being as a framework to incorporate stakeholder participation or knowledge- how did you do that with this study? It's still unclear.

We have since the first round of revisions added the following paragraph which provides clear evidence from the literature of the importance of using wellbeing as a framework and dependent variable:

There has been a great deal of interest in developing measures of wellbeing. This study highlights the importance of wellbeing as a desirable measure to be used in fishery development and management. The AIAM model indicates that wellbeing is a desirable outcome that should be made an essential part of fisheries anthropic (human) impact assessment. Pollnac and his colleagues have produced several papers illustrating the utility of the model and using a measure of wellbeing (Pollnac et al. 2019, 2014, Seara et al. 2017). Additionally, wellbeing is affected by a large number of sociocultural and economic variables that are impacted by management decisions, making it a suitable measure in this context (Pollnac, et al. 2006). According to Helliwell et al. (2015) there has been an increase in the use of wellbeing as the measure of social progress and a goal of public policy. For example, they write that The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD with 38 member countries) evaluate wellbeing in the process of developing policy standards with the goal of facilitating sustainable economic growth. The measure of wellbeing used in this paper has been adapted from the world happiness reports which have been produced annually since 2012. Individuals in the sample are asked on a scale of from 1 to 10 how happy they are with their life.

We believe it is very clear that the way we are incorporating stakeholder knowledge is by using the results of surveys with fishers to create the correlation model. To further clarify, in the intro we have made the following edit (stressed):

In this study, the Anthropic Impact Assessment Model (AIAM), adapted from Pollnac, et al. (2008) was used as the basis for examining relationships between human variables and their impact on individual and community wellbeing in the U.S. Virgin Islands fisheries from data collected through surveys with commercial fishers, i.e., fisher’s perceptions of the fishery ecosystem.

As far as novelty is concerned, there are no papers that have looked at wellbeing from this lens for the U.S. Virgin Islands, which makes this paper important for supporting the use of human dimensions perspectives in the territory and timely since the U.S. Caribbean is currently transitioning into EBFM. For context, the primary author has presented the results of this study in a meeting of the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council EBFM Technical Advisory Panel and it was well received and has since been used as a reference for incorporation of human dimensions in management decision making processes. We believe that provides evidence of the usefulness of this approach as part of the scientific advice for fisheries management.

Also, there are terms thrown about in this paper that need to be unpacked or taken out, such as adaptive capacity. This is not a paper that examined adaptive capacity, so while the research may have implications for that concept, it needs to be left in the conclusion and not framed using that term.

We have removed the 2 instances where we used the term “adaptive capacity” and replaced it with the following:

Intro: “the ability of fishing communities to adapt to stressors.”

Objectives: “perceived vulnerability to disturbances…”

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript has been much improved since the first draft. Still, there needs to be a tighter connection drawn between now EBFM and well-being. There is a line on page 8 that suggests it will go in this direction, but then the results/discussion and conclusion lack the relevant literature to really tie these two concepts together. Why is it important that EBFM consider human well-being? And how does this heuristic model help to incorporate human well-being into the EBFM framework? If this is the point of the paper, which it still seems it is, this needs to be unpacked with the literature in the Discussion. Right now, the end of the paper just reads as results without a deeper interpretation of what the author('s/s') data means for EBFM or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

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 files.

1. General Evaluation:

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable	Responses
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	()	(x )	( )	( )	We have strengthened the connection between EBFM and fishers/community wellbeing throughout the manuscript – especially in the conclusions.
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( x)	()	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	()	(x )	( )	( )	We have added more examples of direct connections between our main findings and EBFM in the conclusions.
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( x)	( )	()	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )	We believe we provide all the necessary citations to support the manuscript and we have included more citations in the revised version.
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	()	(x )	( )	( )	We have added more examples of direct connections between our main findings and EBFM in the conclusions.

2. Point by point response to comments and suggestions

This manuscript has been much improved since the first draft. Still, there needs to be a tighter connection drawn between now EBFM and well-being. There is a line on page 8 that suggests it will go in this direction, but then the results/discussion and conclusion lack the relevant literature to really tie these two concepts together. Why is it important that EBFM consider human well-being? And how does this heuristic model help to incorporate human well-being into the EBFM framework? If this is the point of the paper, which it still seems it is, this needs to be unpacked with the literature in the Discussion. Right now, the end of the paper just reads as results without a deeper interpretation of what the author('s/s') data means for EBFM or the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Response: Thank you very much for acknowledging the improvements made to the manuscript and thanks for the helpful feedback that allowed us to make such improvements. Regarding the comments about EBFM and well-being, the authors believe that we have cited the appropriate literature to direct the readers to the theoretical basis of EBFM, as well as all the important work that has been conducted in the U.S. Caribbean to support the adoption of this management strategy. We have made an effort in this last revision round to include more specific and explicit information and examples in our paper connecting EBFM and human well-being citing literature relevant for the U.S. Caribbean and elsewhere (see edits made to the conclusions section). We believe this edits have strengthened the paper and made its objectives and practical applications clearer.