Large-Scale Marine Protected Areas by Decree: Lessons Learned from the Creation of the Revillagigedo Marine Park
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with some fascinating developments in State practice and it that sense it represents a contribution to the literature on the subject. Mexican approach toward meeting Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 and the creation of large-scale marine protected areas, as exemplified in the establishment of the Revillagigedo Marine Park, joins other similar cases in Latin American and elsewhere.
Manuscript is well-structured and runs smoothly. Materials and methods employed by the authors seem correct and consistent. Figures enclosed are useful and quite helpful.
My few recommendations to improve the manuscript, as follows:
1) I really believe that authors should use the expression ‘large-scale marine protected area’ and its acronym ‘LSMPA’, instead of ‘large marine protected area (LMPA)’, since the fomer is more often used in the literature;
2) It would be helpful if the authors use square kilometers instead of hectares throughout the manuscript;
3) The authors should also make clear what defines a LSMPA in terms of area protected in their view. Experts diverge on the coverage size so as to consider a LSMPA, varying from larger than 30,000 km² (De Santo, 2013); Davies et al., 2017), larger than 100,000 km² (MPAtlas; Spalding et al., 2013); at least 150,000 km² (IUCN Guidelines) or even larger than 240,000 km² (Toonen et al., 2013);
4) The authors make a slight confusion on lines 144-145. It is not the III United Nations ‘Convention’, but the III United Nations ‘Conference’ on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III, which worked from 1973 to 1982). Moreover, although it has been a consensus more or less from the beginning of the Conference on the definition of exclusive economic zone up to 200 nautical miles, this new maritime area was indeed only recognized and approved at the end of the Conference (10 December 1982) with the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS);
5) Line 250. Authors should be slightly clearer here and use ‘Aichi Biodiversity Target 11’ or ‘Aichi Target 11’. 10 per cent target is also included in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 14.5), resulting from the 2030 Agenda adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015.
Publication is recommended subject to minor revisions pointed out above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
It is necessary to be clearer in the way the decision matrix was built, since it is very difficult to follow the origin of the assigned values. Although the manuscript tries to raise situations referring to the positions of the actors involved, throughout the text there are more personal opinions of the authors than evidence that supports them. That is, assumptions are made that do not have a clear basis either in the literature or in direct fieldwork that can be analyzed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Map is still of low quality, and can be improved aesthetically. Its your decision.
