The Coastal Future We Want: Implications of Coastal People’s Perceptions on Satoumi Actions and Sustainable Development in Northeastern Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for submitting your article titled "The Coastal Future We Want: Investigating the Needs for Developing Satoumi and Policy Implications for Sustainable Coastal Management in Northeastern". I have reviewed your manuscript and have several comments and suggestions for improvement:

1. The article needs more elaboration on why Japan's Satoumi concepts work for Taiwan. The authors should provide a better understanding of why this model is suitable for Taiwan and whether there were any adaptations made for the Taiwanese context.
2. The authors should include supplementary material for the survey dataset. 
3. It is not clear from the manuscript whether the questionnaires were delivered in-person or electronically. Authors need to clarify this and discuss any limitations this may have had on the results.
4. Figure 3 is missing a heading and caption. The authors need to provide a clear title and caption to guide the reader through the figure.
5. The study area needs more description, including population size, to better understand the study results. The authors should provide a more detailed overview of the study area to contextualize the findings better.
6. The conclusion requires revisions as it ends abruptly. The authors need to provide recommendations for future research in this area, and summarize the article's main points.
7. The authors need to provide more discussion of the rankings and related categories. The finding that study participants did not rank alien species removal high is important and could be better contextualized to how this differs from other societies globally who may place a high priority on the removal of invasive/alien species.
8. The references are currently insufficient. The authors need to cite more women and Satoumi scholars, such as Berque and Matsuda (2013), Cetinkaya (2009), and Sakurai et al. (2017).

Overall, the manuscript has potential, but requires significant revisions to improve the clarity and quality of the research. The recommendation is revise and resubmit. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments, and carefully proofread the manuscript to minimize errors. Please see the attachment to find our revision according to the comments. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Report

The manuscript entitled “The Coastal Future We Want: Investigating the Needs for Developing Satoumi and Policy Implications for Sustainable Coastal Management in Northeastern Taiwan” contributes the knowledge in the field of sustainable coastal management. Satoumi is the key approach for coastal sustainability that combines the traditional knowledge, modern science, and the contributions of varying stakeholders to sustain the desired state of coastal zones through adaptive management. Although the similar works have been conducted, but in this manuscript, authors have involved the local residents and communities to facilitate the development of a holistic Satoumi implementation strategy.

General Comments

The authors have followed the questionnaire survey and quantitative analysis methods to investigate the perceptions of fishing community residents in the study area regarding Satoumi activities. The authors have tried to write the manuscript in a satisfactory way covering all sections. But I have suggested some points to improve the work.

Specific Comments

Please revise the manuscript title in more effective way for readers. Title should be precise and clearly convey the concept of conducted work.

In abstract please add major research findings and also add future work in the final stage of the abstract.

Please add more specific keywords related to the study.

In introduction section, the sentences are unnecessarily too long, please rewrite the sentences precisely and also add latest literature. References are not given according to journal guidelines.

Objective statement at the end of introduction should be clearly defined for easy understanding of readers about conducted work.

Authors need to revise the methodology section; it seems like literature review. Please split methodology in different sections as authors have followed the questionnaire survey and quantitative analysis methods to investigate the perceptions of fishing community residents in the study area regarding Satoumi activities.

Presentation of results is satisfactory

Discussion section is divided in different sections, its good. Please add more recent references to support findings of the study.

Rewrite the conclusion section precisely, summarizing the main points. Please remove the references from conclusion. At the end, future research work should be given in conclusion section.

The reference list is not formatted according to the journal guidelines.

More proofreading of the manuscript is advised to remove typographical mistakes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments, and carefully proofread the manuscript to minimize errors. Please see the attachment to find our revision according to the comments. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review report

I have carefully read and analysed the paper. It is about the study of the perception of the coastal communities in Taiwan about the policies and initiatives for Satoumi approach.

Abstract – explicitly indicate what is SDG for readability

L44 – sentence “The Satoyama…” is really long, please break it up for readability, the same could be said about other sentences such as “In the…” in L191

Introduction – please provide a clear explanation what is Satoumi and what is the difference between Satoumi and Satoyama

Table 2 – I suppose it should be F1, F2, F3 and F4 for the table rows, and not F1, F2, F1, F2

Table 4 - SDGs Perceptions (SDG) should be moved to the left part of the table

Page 9 – delete ‘Insert Table 5 here’ caption

Discussion – the Authors previously stated that this survey has taken a lot of inspiration from the ‘Satoumi Manual of Japan'. It would be greatly beneficial for this paper, if the results and conclusions from the Japanese survey would be compared with results in this study.   

Author Response

Dear reviewer, We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments, and carefully proofread the manuscript to minimize errors. Please see the attachment to find our revision according to the comments. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf