Sustainability of Floodplain Wetland Fisheries of Rural Indonesia: Does Culture Enhance Livelihood Resilience?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript depicted the sustainability of flood plain wetlands in rural Indonesia using Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) framework through cross-sectional study to identify the factors contributing adversely the livelihood of the fisherfolks. The manuscript generally well-written and specific comments arose during reviewing are mentioned below.

Comments

The Manuscript is too elaborative, especially about the methods have been used.  

As mentioned in the title “Culture Enhance Livelihood Resilience”, I could not find much analysis which signifies the importance of culture in livelihood enhancement.

Although a lot of analysis and model has been developed but the results don’t really give robust output which can be pinpointed for overall improvement of the livelihood of the fisherfolks of the particular region.

The study is too region specific and the developed model may not be point of reference for the wetland fisheries in any other part of the world.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The current manuscript entitled “Sustainability of Flood Plain Wetland Fisheries of Rural Indonesia: Does Culture Enhance Livelihood Resilience?” by Hidayat et al. deals with questionnaire-based findings on cultural significance with livelihood resilience. This study suggests that human activities had adverse effects on the sustainability of fishing livelihoods in rural Indonesia. Considering the importance of the topic, I found this manuscript valuable and timely. Overall theoretical framework and proposed hypotheses are fine and validated. I only have a few suggestions that would help the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript. I suggest a minor revision. My specific comments are:

1.      When talking about rural fishing, authors should about the pollution problem in such areas of rural Indonesia.

2.      L22: provide the full name of UNESCO.

3.      A flow diagram for data collection and analysis depicting the overall methodological background will be appreciated.

4.      Improve the resolution and quality of all figures. Texts are not visible.

5.      Rewrite the captions of all figures and tables, and extend them to become more informative just 2-3 words captions don’t tell anything about this study and what they are meant for?

6.      L194-206: Should include a NULL hypothesis (H0) too.

7.      Scientific names are not correctly written. Please revise the scientific (Latin) plant species names of all plant species mentioned in the paper, making sure that they are accurate using an official database or plant index (sometimes they are changed and it is difficult to recognize them). You are not using the nomenclature correctly. When citing a plant species name it is useful to report also the botanical authority as provided by official databases, which is useful in case of changes in nomenclature. At the first mention of a plant species in the text use the full Latin name and botanical authority (e.g. Mimosa pigra L.). Please remember that the botanical authority is not written in italic. After the first mention please use the common name or the abbreviated form (e.g. M. pigra) without botanical authority. Also, L. should not be italic.

8.      The standard error is better for survey studies as compared to the standard deviation. Also, provide the number of samples in the caption of tables/figures.

9.      Define all elements of Figure 4 in the caption.

10.   -- > should be changed to à.

11.   Discussion should be supported by relevant and recent studies. Major statements are proofless.

12.   The conclusion can be shortened to <250 words and major parts can be shifted under discussion. Only provide major outcomes and don’t discuss unnecessary things.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

General Remarks:

The paper analyses the impact of environmental changes on fishing livelihoods in South Kalimantan, Indonesia. The authors apply the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) framework.

The paper is not yet ready for publication. 

 

Specific Remarks:

1.       Abstract: The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. The abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. The major conclusions should be included in the abstract. The authors indicate that “The government is recommended to re-evaluate its approach to balancing economic, social and environment in the respective áreas”, it should include to balancing economic, social, environment and cultural in the respective áreas.

2.       The introduction can be improved. The authors should discuss the usefulness/implication of the study and the innovations of the paper in this section. What insights are gained?  Authors should explain: WHY village Danau Bangkau and village Danau Panggang?

The authors should explain the main factors and why floodplain wetlands fisheries are among the most threatened “Despite the long-term efforts put into the conservation of wetlands throughout the globe, the existence of wetlands is continuously a threat due to various factors [5,6] where floodplain wetlands fisheries are among the most threatened [7]”

3.       The literature review is poorly written, what is the research gap of previous studies is unclear.

4.       Materials and Methods: The authors should provide sufficient detail regarding materials and methods: to allow the work to be reproduced by an independent researcher.

5.       Results: The authors should compare the results with other studies, citing bibliographic references.

6.       Insert references of the figures and tables. What is the source of figures and tables?

7.       The limitations and future research direction of this paper should be added at the end of Conclusions.

8.       In my view the wording is sometimes misleading, ambiguous, and many arguments are not well enough supported by references.

9.       The study should take a holistic approach to the assessment of the socioeconomic importance of the region. A full evaluation of Flood Plain Wetland Fisheries of Rural Indonesia cultural ecosystem services.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article discusses an interesting and topical issue. However, small changes need to be made: 

Firstly, the introduction does not adequately define the objectives pursued by the research. 

The bibliography should be relevant and up to date. Therefore, it is recommended to update the references. 

In lines 240 - 245 it does not explain well why this methodology is chosen. Would it be possible to introduce some added advantage that this method brings? 

In the discussion there is hardly any bibliography discussing the results obtained, it would be interesting to increase the number of references.

Finally, the conclusion is too brief and does not describe in detail the main results of this research, nor what it contributes to the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have responded to the concerns raised and I feel the manuscript has been substantially improved following incorporation of the suggestions. Hence, may be accepted for the publication. 

Author Response

Thanks for the  comment: "Authors have responded to the concerns raised and I feel the manuscript has been substantially improved following incorporation of the suggestions. Hence, may be accepted for the publication".

We really  appreciate  it.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have considerably improved the manuscript. Congratulations! 

Author Response

Thanks for the comment: "The authors have considerably improved the manuscript. Congratulations! "

We really appreciate it.