An Improved Framework of Marine Major Function-Oriented Zoning in Advancing Ecosystem-Based Management
, Qiuming Chen 2 and Xiongzhi Xue 1,3,4,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I thought it was a very good paper. Well structured and interesting.
Author Response
Point 1: I thought it was a very good paper. Well structured and interesting.
Response 1: Thank you for the positive comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations on the work.
I only have 3 possible improvements form a formatting point of view.
In Table 4 appears:
Carrying capacity: Low
Intensity of exploitation: Low
Development pontential: Low and Medium ¿High?
The legend in figure 3 is a bit blurred.
The text at the top of figure 5 isn't visible. Put in dark font please.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We have reviewed the manuscript, paying careful attention to the comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to address all the concerns to the best of our ability. Given below are our responses to each of your comments.
I only have 3 possible improvements form a formatting point of view.
[1] Point 1: In Table 4 appears:
Carrying capacity: Low
Intensity of exploitation: Low
Development pontential: Low and Medium? High?
Response 1: We are sorry that we were unable to understand this comment. Could you please elaborate your concern so that we can address it.
[2] Point 2: The legend in figure 3 is a bit blurred.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have replaced the legend and uploaded high-resolution images with this submission.
[3] Point 3: The text at the top of figure 5 isn't visible. Put in dark font please.
Response 3: We apologize for the lack of clarity in the pictures. We have uploaded a revised figure after addressing this issue.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to the Author
Dear authors,
Please find below my review report.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. This manuscript has potential to publish, however, a revisit is needed before considering for publication. Please see below the comments.
(a) The two first paragraphs of Section 1 need to be further analyzed, highlighting the importance of coastal and marine areas, the conflicts that occur, the land-sea and sea-land interaction etc., in order to place more emphasis on the need for integrated management. You can build on:
1) Rempis and Tsilimigkas (2021) Marine spatial planning on Crete Island, Greece: methodological and implementation issues. Journal of Spatial Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2021.1955025.
2) Douvere, F., 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy, 32, 762–771. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.021
3) Ehler, C. and Douvere, F., 2009. Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management, intergovernmental oceanographic commission and man and the biosphere programme. IOC manual and guides, No 53, ICAM Dossier, No 6. Paris: UNESCO.
4) Kyriazi, Z., 2018. From identification of compatibilities and conflicts to reaching marine spatial allocation agreements. Review of actions required and relevant tools and processes. Ocean & Coastal Management, 166, 103–112. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.018.
5) Rempis, N., Alexandrakis, G., Tsilimigkas, G. and Kampanis, N. (2018) Coastal use synergies and conflicts evaluation in the framework of spatial, development and sectoral policies. Journal Ocean & Coastal Management, 166, 40–51.
(b) Section 4: In section 4 it would be useful to add a subsection where relevant examples of coastal and marine spatial planning in other countries are given.
(c) Moderate English changes required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We have reviewed the manuscript, paying careful attention to the comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to address all the concerns to the best of our ability. Given below are our responses to each of your comments.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript. This manuscript has potential to publish, however, a revisit is needed before considering for publication. Please see below the comments.
[1] Point 1: The two first paragraphs of Section 1 need to be further analyzed, highlighting the importance of coastal and marine areas, the conflicts that occur, the land-sea and sea-land interaction etc., in order to place more emphasis on the need for integrated management. You can build on:
â‘ Rempis and Tsilimigkas (2021) Marine spatial planning on Crete Island, Greece: methodological and implementation issues. Journal of Spatial Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/14498596.2021.1955025.
â‘¡Douvere, F., 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy, 32, 762–771. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.021
â‘¢Ehler, C. and Douvere, F., 2009. Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management, intergovernmental oceanographic commission and man and the biosphere programme. IOC manual and guides, No 53, ICAM Dossier, No 6. Paris: UNESCO.
â‘£Kyriazi, Z., 2018. From identification of compatibilities and conflicts to reaching marine spatial allocation agreements. Review of actions required and relevant tools and processes. Ocean & Coastal Management, 166, 103–112. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.018.
⑤Rempis, N., Alexandrakis, G., Tsilimigkas, G. and Kampanis, N. (2018) Coastal use synergies and conflicts evaluation in the framework of spatial, development and sectoral policies. Journal Ocean & Coastal Management, 166, 40–51.
Response1: Thank you for the suggestion. We have cited the suggested literature after careful reading. We have made the following revision in the manuscript.
“In addition, the conflicts between human development activities and environmental protection have intensified [9,10], because of the intensification of the traditional sea use and the emergence of new coastal and marine uses, as well as environmental changes [11,12]. Therefore, the integration of EBM with MSP-based on conflict resolution [13] processes has emerged as the predominant paradigm for sustainable ocean governance [14–16].” (Lines 45-51 on Page 2).
The results from Douvere, F (2008) were already considered in the previous version,“Thus, concerns regarding the practical implementation of EBM have encouraged a coupling with the MSP framework [21–23]. ” (Lines 57-58 on Page 2 and References #22, Lines 657-658 on Page 28).
[2] Point 2: Section 4: In section 4 it would be useful to add a subsection where relevant examples of coastal and marine spatial planning in other countries are given.
Response 2: We understand the reviewer’s concern and agree with the reviewer that adding relevant examples of coastal and marine spatial planning would expand the context of the discussion. However, the developments and shortcomings of some examples of coastal and marine spatial planning have been elaborated and summarized in section 1: Introduction. Moreover, due to the limitation on perspective discussed and the length of the article, we are unable to add further case comparisons and analysis. Therefore, we chose to not make this change; however, we believe that this helpful suggestion would be integrated in our future study.
[3] Point 3: Moderate English changes required.
Response 3: We have used the services of a Language editing company to enhance the language, especially in the revised sections, to ensure that there are no language-related errors. We have attached the editing certificate from Editage along with the revised manuscript.
We appreciate your positive comments and valuable suggestions that have facilitated the improvement of our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
