Diverse Perceptions on Eco-Certification for Shrimp Aquaculture in Indonesia
, Yutaro Sakai 1, Gede Suantika 3 and Nobuyuki Yagi 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
BRIEF SUMMARY- BROAD COMMENTS
This manuscript describes the diverse perceptions on eco-certification for shrimp aquaculture in Indonesia. It is a very detailed work. In my review I present some remarks/corrections.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page 1, Lines 25-26: Avoid to write “We” as it sounds selfish. Delete “We identified” and add “were identified” in the end of the sentence, i.e. “Several reasons for….acceptance were identified”.
Page 1, Line 30: Give the full explanation of NGOs, I suppose it is
Non-Governmental Organizations”. Thus, write “...government, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs),….”.
Page 1, Line 42: Write better in the same box “[7, 9]” and not “[7], [9]”. Follow the same in Page 2 (Lines 49, 51, 52, 56, 57, 89-90, 96,), page 3 (Lines 108-109) and Page 12 (Lines 376-377).
Page 1, Line 43: Reduce the space between the words “groups” and “emerged”.
Page 2, Line 75: For two authors, write in the text both names of authors. Thus, replace “Mazur et al” with “Mazur and Curtis”.
Page 3, Line 105: What about “...less that fifty [51]. as long as….”. Correct this point.
Page 4, Line 180: Is this “(Table 3)” wrong? Did you want to write “(Table 1)”? Check it.
Page 4, Line 181: In the final manuscript, take care that the title and its text must be included in the same page. In this case, transfer Line 181 in the beginning of next Page 5.
Pages 6-7. Tables 2-3: In general, the whole Tables with their titles should be included in the same page. For this reason, I propose here to transfer Line 238 in the beginning on next Page 7 and Line 240 n the beginning of next Page 8.
Page 13, Conclusion: As it is a very important part of each work, the authors here should make clear which was the original part of their paper and their new contribution to the science.
Page 13, Lines 454-455: Begin this sentence with “Totally”, delete “we identified” and add “were identified” in the end of the sentence, i.e. “Totally five distinct….to opposite views were identified”.
Page 13, Lines 468-469: Delete “we can identify” and add “could be identified” in the end of the sentence, i.e. “From the results, several key reasons...of national eco-certification could be identified”.
Page 14-18, References: Is it necessary for each publication to write also the doi or the http? If not, delete them, as usually the rest information are enough. In any case, check the instructions of the journal about how to present the references.
Page 15, Lines 576-577: It is better if each reference begins and ends in the same page. In this case, transfer Line 576 in next Page 16..
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your positive feedback. Taking response to your comments, we have organized the points followed by the responses. Your comments have stimulated changes we feel further improved the paper. Should you find the paper requires further clarification or revision, we most certainly stand ready to do so.
The revision
Point 1: Page 1, Lines 25-26: Avoid to write “We” as it sounds selfish. Delete “We identified” and add “were identified” in the end of the sentence, i.e. “Several reasons for…acceptance were identified”.
Response 1: We have rephrased the sentence as you suggested to "Several reasons for stakeholder’s slow acceptance were identified".
Point 2: Page 1, Line 30: Give the full explanation of NGOs, I suppose it is Non-Governmental Organizations”. Thus, write “...government, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs),…”.
Response 2: We have expanded the abbreviation as you suggested.
Point 3: Page 1, Line 42: Write better in the same box “[7, 9]” and not “[7], [9]”. Follow the same in Page 2 (Lines 49, 51, 52, 56, 57, 89-90, 96,), page 3 (Lines 108-109) and Page 12 (Lines 376-377).
Response 3: We have edited the citation format in the text.
Point 4: Page 1, Line 43: Reduce the space between the words “groups” and “emerged”.
Response 4: We have deleted the extra space.
Point 5: Page 2, Line 75: For two authors, write in the text both names of authors. Thus, replace “Mazur et al” with “Mazur and Curtis”.
Response 5: We have replaced it as you suggested.
Point 6: Page 3, Line 105: What about “...less that fifty [51]. as long as….”. Correct this point.
Response 6: This sentence should be continuing, but we mistakenly put the dot after “… less than fifty [51]”. Now, we have removed the dot.
Point 7: Page 4, Line 180: Is this “(Table 3)” wrong? Did you want to write “(Table 1)”? Check it.
Response 7: Yes, that is Table 3. Ideally, the first mentioned table is Table 1. However, we intended to show the 49 statements without repeating it again in the Results section. Therefore, we mention Table 3 in Method section.
Point 8: Page 4, Line 181: In the final manuscript, take care that the title and its text must be included in the same page. In this case, transfer Line 181 in the beginning of next Page 5.
Response 8: We have moved all the titles who have the same issue to be the same page with the body text.
Point 9: Pages 6-7. Tables 2-3: In general, the whole Tables with their titles should be included in the same page. For this reason, I propose here to transfer Line 238 in the beginning on next Page 7 and Line 240 n the beginning of next Page 8.
Response 9: Yes, we transferred those tables as recommended.
Point 10: Page 13, Conclusion: As it is a very important part of each work, the authors here should make clear which was the original part of their paper and their new contribution to the science.
Response 10: Original part of this paper is it has identified the prominent stakeholders’ perceptions of eco-certification and reveal the emphasized reason for slow acceptance of the national eco-certification in Indonesia as one of the countries in the Global South. Also, we have added some explanations in Line 175-188.
The new contribution of our paper to the science has been added in the text in Line 675-686 in Conclusion part as " This study has proven that geographical and socio-cultural differences as the basis for the difference in perceptions between the Global North and Global South also can be applied to eco-certification. There are contrasting perceptions of eco-certification between the Global North and Global South. Because of different geographical locations and fragmented production in Indonesia, stakeholders, in general, are not directly exposed to the global market (except the downstream industries), as a consequence, they were not aware that their export market requires care for sustainability. Furthermore, lack of coordination among stakeholders across value chain exacerbated the flow of information that comes from global market. In addition, the stakeholders in Global North were standard setters who yielded power to set the standards as they wish; whereas, the stakeholders in the Global South were standard takers who had to follow the standard that were set by the Global North. Conducting a study on stakeholders’ perceptions of eco-certification in Indonesia provides some pieces of evidence that there are differences in perceiving eco-certification in the Global South".
Point 11: Page 13, Lines 454-455: Begin this sentence with “Totally”, delete “we identified” and add “were identified” in the end of the sentence, i.e. “Totally five distinct….to opposite views were identified”.
Response 11: We rephrase the sentence to “There were five distinct perspectives identified…” (after revision: Line 636). We cannot use the word “totally” because not all perspectives were identified in the study, we chose five prominent/major perspectives as representation of 57,19% of total explained variance of the response.
Point 12: Page 13, Lines 468-469: Delete “we can identify” and add “could be identified” in the end of the sentence, i.e. “From the results, several key reasons...of national eco-certification could be identified”.
Response 12: We have rephrased the sentence as you suggested to " From the results, several key reasons for the low acceptance of national eco-certification could be identified." (after revision: Line 650-651)
Point 13: Page 14-18, References: Is it necessary for each publication to write also the doi or the http? If not, delete them, as usually the rest information is enough. In any case, check the instructions of the journal about how to present the references.
Response 13: Because we use a bibliography software package, the reference list automatically followed the selected reference style i.e. ACS style as the journal’s preference which includes the DOI. Therefore, we did not check again that in fact, in the manuscript template, the DOI is not necessary. We have deleted all the DOIs in the References section.
Point 14: Page 15, Lines 576-577: It is better if each reference begins and ends in the same page. In this case, transfer Line 576 in next Page 16.
Response 14: The reference list has been fixed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to Authors:
Ref. No.: sustainability-987571
Title: Diverse perceptions of eco-certification for shrimp aquaculture in Indonesia
Overview and general recommendation:
In this manuscript, the authors investigated the different perceptions of national eco-certification of shrimp aquaculture among stakeholders across the value chain in Indonesia using Q-methodology. From this study, the different perceptions of national eco-certification of shrimp aquaculture in Indonesia were identified. The reasons were also analyzed for stakeholders’ slow acceptance of eco-certification. The quantitative approach helps to reveal statistically how several topics are more emphasized than others, and the qualitative approach helps reveal the reasons behind this differentiated emphasis obtained from the quantitative approach. Generally, this kind of study is very helpful for the policymaker to improve stakeholder acceptance of eco-certification. However, for the methods present in this study, some points remain unclear. For the results from those statistical studies, the data shown in Table 2 are not discussed deeply enough. Before accepting this manuscript, the authors should carefully address these points.
comments:
- In the introduction, the authors did not explain clearly enough why to study shrimp aquaculture eco-certification among stakeholders across the value chain in Indonesia. There are already some similar studies conducted in the Global North (i.e. Canada and Europe). Why is it necessary to conduct this study specifically for Indonesia? Any particular difference between Indonesia and the Global north? What is the novelty of this study? Please explain this clealrly.
- In 2.2.1 Generation of a set of statements, for those statements selected, is there any particular criteria for the selection of the statement? In total, forty-nine statements were selected and classified into seven categories. For the number of statements (49) and categories (7), any particular reason?
- For those statistical data shown in Table 2, it might be helpful to explain their physical meanings briefly. In this case, the readers can understand the information shown in Table 2 by themselves and draw their conclusions, without having to read the manuscript. For example, what is Explained variance? What is the meaning of this term?
- The authors mentioned that five perspectives were delineated, which explained 57.19% of the variance. How is this variance determined?
- Some similar studies of eco-certification were conducted in the Global North (i.e. Canada and Europe). How is this study compared to those studies? If the authors can briefly explain the difference between them, it might be helpful for the policymaker to see the whole picture of eco-certification in the whole world.
- There are some small grammar errors in the manuscript. Please do careful proofreading.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your positive and valuable feedback. In this revision, we focused our efforts strongly on the points made. Below, we grouped actions taken in response to your comments, organized under point by point followed by the response. We took seriously and addressed in some way each of your comments. Your comments have stimulated changes we feel further improved the paper. Should you find the paper requires further clarification or revision, we most certainly stand ready to do so.
The revisions
Point 1: In the introduction, the authors did not explain clearly enough why to study shrimp aquaculture eco-certification among stakeholders across the value chain in Indonesia. There are already some similar studies conducted in the Global North (i.e. Canada and Europe). Why is it necessary to conduct this study specifically for Indonesia? Any particular difference between Indonesia and the Global north? What is the novelty of this study? Please explain this clearly.
Response 1:
According to your question, we have divided the question into several important points.
First, the importance to study shrimp aquaculture eco-certification among stakeholders across the value chain particularly about their perception of eco-certification in Indonesia will be explained as follow. The explanation starts with the eco-certification as an intervention in the global market that have potency as a trade barrier for shrimp exporters. Since Indonesia is one of the largest shrimp exporters, this intervention must be taken into account by Indonesia in order to remain competitive in the global market. As a response, the government has harmonized the national certification by adding several standards that lead to environmentally friendly practices. However, the acceptability of the certification among stakeholders is low. This low acceptance will affect competitiveness of Indonesia’s shrimp industries in the global market which further affects the national income. Therefore, it is important to know stakeholder perceptions about the national eco-certification. The detail of the explanation has been written from Line 66-86 in the manuscript text.
Second, the difference between Indonesia and Global North in the context of stakeholders’ perception. We pointed out the geographical and socio-cultural differences as the factors which distinguish stakeholders’ perception of eco-certification. The detail explanation has been included in the text of Line 178-185.
Third, the novelty of the study. Because most research on stakeholder perceptions comes from the Global North, we saw that research on similar themes in the Global South, especially Indonesia, is very limited. Therefore, this study provides new insights regarding the stakeholders’ perceptions from a country in the Global South. This study proved that there were significant differences compared to previous studies in the Global North. Stakeholders in the Global South are not exposed directly to the global market which cause less concern for sustainability compared to the Global North. In addition, the existence of fragmented production of whiteleg shrimp in Indonesia will affect the flow of information distributed across value chain. The lack of coordination among stakeholders causes the uneven distribution of information. Moreover, Global North is a standard setter of eco-certification, while the Global South is a standard taker that must follow standards. The detail of the explanation has been written in Line 675-686.
Point 2: In 2.2.1 Generation of a set of statements, for those statements selected, is there any particular criteria for the selection of the statement? In total, forty-nine statements were selected and classified into seven categories. For the number of statements (49) and categories (7), any particular reason?
Response 2: In Q-methodology, Q-sample was originally derived from the concourse. The concourse is all the relevant statements with the eco-certification found during the literature reviews and interviews. Concourse can be infinitive and vary in number, depending on the research focus. Therefore, each research can have a different number of statements in Q-sample. We should reduce the number of statements that are extracted from the concourse for research purposes. Therefore, we select the statements by:
- Without removing the ideas found from these statements
- repetitive statements are combined into one statement (merging the statement)
- edit the statement by adding some words to become a completed sentence (it mostly happened during the interview when the interviewee answered in a not complete sentence.)
Because the idea of each sentence in the Q-sample can be diverse, to facilitate analysis, the authors categorize the Q-sample according to key areas of interest. Therefore, there is no specific criteria to categorize the Q-sample.
Point 3: For those statistical data shown in Table 2, it might be helpful to explain their physical meanings briefly. In this case, the readers can understand the information shown in Table 2 by themselves and draw their conclusions, without having to read the manuscript. For example, what is Explained variance? What is the meaning of this term?
Response 3: In the results section, we have added the explanation of the statistical data (Line 363-393 as “Table 2 showed the factor loadings of respondents which grouped into five perspectives as well as explained variance, total defining Q-sort, and total Q-sort. Five perspectives were delineated, which the total explained variance of all perspectives was 57.19%. It means that 57.19% of the variation in response (Q-sort) can be explained as patterns. Total defining Q-sort means the number of respondents who have one clear (defined) pattern proved by single factor loading of more than ± 0.40. Perspective 1 (P1) consisted of six respondents, perspective 2 (P2) consisted of eight respondents, perspective 3 (P3) consisted of six respondents, perspective 4 (P4) consisted of three respondents, and perspective 5 (P5) consisted of two respondents. While total Q-sort includes the respondents, who have more than one defined factor loadings and were placed in confounded sort. Most perspectives could be associated with one or more dominant stakeholder groups, except for perspective 5. P1 as supporter by principle, was represented mainly by scientists, P2 as market-oriented supporter, was represented mainly by government officials and associations, P3 as collaborative supporter, was mainly represented by farmers, P4 as ambivalent self-sufficient, was primarily represented by supporting suppliers and P5 as antagonistic business-oriented, was only consisted of an E-NGO and supporting supplier”.
Point 4: The authors mentioned that five perspectives were delineated, which explained 57.19% of the variance. How is this variance determined?
Response 4: The total explained variance was the addition of the variance of all perspectives. In table 2, we can see the explained variance (%) of each perspective, as follows, 16.38%+14.53%+12.16+7.42+6.7 = 57.19%.
Point 5: Some similar studies of eco-certification were conducted in the Global North (i.e. Canada and Europe). How is this study compared to those studies? If the authors can briefly explain the difference between them, it might be helpful for the policymaker to see the whole picture of eco-certification in the whole world.
Response 5: We have added explanation in the end of the conclusion section (Line 675-686) as "This study has proven that geographical and socio-cultural differences as the basis for the difference in perceptions between the Global North and Global South also can be applied to eco-certification. There are contrasting perceptions of eco-certification between the Global North and Global South. Because of different geographical locations and fragmented production in Indonesia, stakeholders, in general, are not directly exposed to the global market (except the downstream industries), as a consequence, they were not aware that their export market requires care for sustainability. Furthermore, lack of coordination among stakeholders across value chain exacerbated the flow of information that comes from global market. In addition, the stakeholders in Global North were standard setters who yielded power to set the standards as they wish; whereas, the stakeholders in the Global South were standard takers who had to follow the standard that were set by the Global North. Conducting a study on stakeholders’ perceptions of eco-certification in Indonesia provides some pieces of evidence that there are differences in perceiving eco-certification in the Global South".
Point 6: There are some small grammar errors in the manuscript. Please do careful proofreading.
Response 6: Experienced scholarly writers have edited this manuscript and are confident about the grammar. We have done our best to rectify the grammatical mistakes.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
ACCEPT IN PRESENT FORM
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments to Authors:
Ref. No.: sustainability-987571
Title: Diverse perceptions on eco-certification for shrimp aquaculture in Indonesia
In the revised version of manuscript, the authors have addressed the questions I have in the previous version. I really appreciate that. The only concern I have so far is the format of reference. Please make sure the format is consistent for all references, like how to write page number, journal name, etc. All of these things should be consistent and meet the requirement of the journal of Sustainability. When reading through the manuscript, there were still some small grammar errors left, like "exist" in Line 511. Before accepting for publication, another round of proofreading is still needed.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
