Policy Review and Regulatory Challenges and Strategies for the Sustainable Mangrove Management in Zanzibar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the study – regulatory protection and conservation of mangrove forests in Zanzibar – is relevant and interesting. Mangrove forests are biodiversity hotspots with significant value for local communities as well.

While the structure of the paper is mostly clear, the method section could be improved as it is currently not completely clear which data collection and data analysis techniques were specifically used. For instance, what was the exact purpose of the focus group discussions? Were the results analyzed with specialized software? Did the coding happen by more than one researcher separately so that results could be compared and discussed to reach a consensus? What topics were selected for the semi-structured interviews? The interview scenario could be added as an appendix. Also clarify if the study relies on two (focus groups and literature review) or three (focus groups, interviews and literature review) data collection methods. Explain the role of each of these methods in answering the research question.

Also, the discussion section contains several sections that are actually results from the desk research and focus groups and should be moved to the results section.

When making statements about the behavior, attitudes and opinions of local communities, it is not always clear which of these statements are based on the focus groups, on previous studies, or reflect the personal interpretation of the researchers. Please check this carefully.

It would be interesting to provide a visual presentation of the timeline to highlight key policy actions as well as the evolution of mangrove forests in Zanzibar for the study period.

It may also be interesting to have a look at the approach followed by other countries when managing mangrove forests to look for similarities or to be inspired to take future actions.

I would also recommend checking the text carefully as I noted several linguistic issues. For example (not complete list): (p2) rapid settlements’ developments' subsequent effects; (p2) Although, (the) Convention on Biological Diversity; (p5) The information gap from the review of literature were supplemented from the primary; (p5) Semi-structured interview was used to guide interview.

 Specific comments

Abstract: also add a reference to more recent policies from the past 50 years

P2 first paragraph: I would remove the sentence referring to the SDGs as this lacks specifics and is superfluous.

P3 paragraph 3: ten species of what?

P3 paragraph 4: the support of local communities also plays a key role in mangrove conservation

P4 paragraph 2: Although tourism accounts for around 25% of Zanzibar's income, it does not meet the economic needs for the coastal communities. Is there a role for asking contributions from tourists through a tourist tax, diving tags,… to help manage biodiversity in Zanzibar as is done in other regions?

P4 section 2.2: are these villages the same as the wards mentioned later? What do they surround?

P10: please add evidence to support the following statement ‘The discovery of the synthetic tannic materials helped to prevent further degradation of the mangrove by reducing the exploitation and use of mangrove barks.’

P12: please add evidence to support the following statement ‘Also, logging bans enacted to combat illegal logging in mangrove forests have had little effect.’

Reference list: please check the completeness of all references. I noticed that page numbers are frequently missing

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: While the structure of the paper is mostly clear, the method section could be improved as it is currently not completely clear which data collection and data analysis techniques were specifically used. For instance, what was the exact purpose of the focus group discussions? Were the results analyzed with specialized software? Did the coding happen by more than one researcher separately so that results could be compared and discussed to reach a consensus? What topics were selected for the semi-structured interviews? The interview scenario could be added as an appendix. Also clarify if the study relies on two (focus groups and literature review) or three (focus groups, interviews and literature review) data collection methods. Explain the role of each of these methods in answering the research question. 

• Three data collection methods were used; P4 section 2.2 pargraph 3 (FGDs), P4 section 2.2 paragraph 4 (interviews) and P4 section 2.2 paragraph 5 (literature review)
• Two data analysis techniques were applied; P5 section 2.4 paragraph 1
• The purpose of the FGDs; P4 section 2.2 paragraph 3
• The number of participants in a FGD is small and therefore the results were not analysed with any specialized software; however, the authors were invoved in analysis and interpretation of the data.
• Topics selected for the semi-structured interviews; P4 section 2.2 paragraph 4
• The interview scenario could be added as an appendix; p19
• The role of the methods in answering the research question; P5 section 2.2 paragraph 1.
• Appendix 1 was added in p21-22

 Point 2: Also, the discussion section contains several sections that are actually results from the desk research and focus groups and should be moved to the results section.

Response 2: Any results wrongly placed in the discusion sections were removed to result sections.

Point 3: When making statements about the behavior, attitudes and opinions of local communities, it is not always clear which of these statements are based on the focus groups, on previous studies, or reflect the personal interpretation of the researchers. Please check this carefully.

This was revised; those from literature review were referenced, those from either interviews or FGDs were reported as from such. The interpretation of the author(s) is also clear.

Point 4: It would be interesting to provide a visual presentation of the timeline to highlight key policy actions as well as the evolution of mangrove forests in Zanzibar for the study period..

Response 4: Table 1 (p10) and Table 2 (p12) were added.

Point 5: It may also be interesting to have a look at the approach followed by other countries when managing mangrove forests to look for similarities or to be inspired to take future actions..

Response 5: This was placed under recommendations, section 4.4, p15 and p16.

Point 6: I would also recommend checking the text carefully as I noted several linguistic issues. For example (not complete list): (p2) rapid settlements’ developments' subsequent effects; (p2) Although, (the) Convention on Biological Diversity; (p5) The information gap from the review of literature were supplemented from the primary; (p5) Semi-structured interview was used to guide interview.

Response 6: Most of these were deleted during the reorganization of the paper as recommended by the reviewers. The entire manuscript was checked for such erros and rectified accordingly.

Specific comments

Abstract: also add a reference to more recent policies from the past 50 years

Response : added.

P2 first paragraph: I would remove the sentence referring to the SDGs as this lacks specifics and is superfluous.

Response : removed.

P3 paragraph 3: ten species of what?

Response : Refer to p3, last paragraph. The paragraph was shifted to study area as it was recommended by another reviewer. The paragraph now is rephrased (Ten mangrove species have been documented around the bays and beaches of Unguja and Pemba)

P3 paragraph 4: the support of local communities also plays a key role in mangrove conservation

Response : added; p3 paragraph 1.

P4 paragraph 2: Although tourism accounts for around 25% of Zanzibar's income, it does not meet the economic needs for the coastal communities. Is there a role for asking contributions from tourists through a tourist tax, diving tags,… to help manage biodiversity in Zanzibar as is done in other regions?

The suggestion was added; p14 paragraph 2.

P4 section 2.2: are these villages the same as the wards mentioned later? What do they surround?

Response : A ward is comprised of several villages! The statement ‘Both study areas are surrounded by five wards’ was deleted; rephrased to avoid the confusion.

P10: please add evidence to support the following statement ‘The discovery of the synthetic tannic materials helped to prevent further degradation of the mangrove by reducing the exploitation and use of mangrove barks.’

Response : A reference was provided; p11 paragraph 2.

P12: please add evidence to support the following statement ‘Also, logging bans enacted to combat illegal logging in mangrove forests have had little effect.’

Response : A reference was provided; p13 paragraph 1.

Reference list: please check the completeness of all references. I noticed that page numbers are frequently missing

Response : The whole manuscript was checked.

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations for your contribution. I suggest to include graphical support for readers, e.g. a timeline showing the main events, mangrove species, policies, etc. , that would be very helpful.

English is not my mother tongue, however it looks to me that verbosity is present in some paragraphs, please double check.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Congratulations for your contribution. I suggest to include graphical support for readers, e.g. a timeline showing the main events, mangrove species, policies, etc. , that would be very helpful.

 Response 1: Tables of major events and year were added in the manuscript. Table 1 shows major events before independence and the table 2 shows events after independence and revolution of 1964. Refer to p10 and p12.

Table 1. Policy and regulatory frameworks that led to the conservation of mangroves during the colonial era.

Table 2. Policy and regulatory frameworks that led to the conservation of mangroves after independence in 1963

Point 2: English is not my mother tongue, however it looks to me that verbosity is present in some paragraphs, please double check.

Response 2: this was cross-checked and changes made where necessary tthroughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled “Policy and Regulatory Challenges and Strategies for Sustainable Mangrove Management in Zanzibar: a review” portrays the state and spatio-temporal variation of Zanzibar’s mangroves during a period of time of almost two centuries. The authors choose a humanistic rather than a scientific approach, which, however, is totally in line with the scope of the MDPI journal Sustainability. While my personal interest in mangroves is from an ecological perspective, I found the manuscript interesting. However, I have two major recommendations for improvements as well as a formal issue, which should be addressed by the authors in a major revision.

1) The introduction is very long and actually is explaining aspects which belong to other sections of the manuscript. For example, on P3 there is a paragraph listing tree species which are present in the mangroves of Zanzibar, this paragraph should be moved to the study area section. In fact, the introduction anticipates many aspects, which are presented later in the results and discussion section. I recommend to remove these redundancies from the Introduction, and instead use the Introduction to put the local study on the mangroves of Zanzibar into a broader context, comparing the present research with studies on mangrove development over time in other parts of the world, and showing analogies and differences of these case studies to Zanzibar. In general, for a review paper the references given in the Introduction are very few!

2) The authors talk repeatedly about destruction/decline and regeneration/increase of mangroves on Zanazibar during the study period since the 1840s. As a first result I would like to see how mangrove area changed over time. If there are no quantitative data available, which I assume, changes could probably be visualized by historical maps, aerial photographs and in more recent times by satellite imagery (see for example Gosh et al. 2015 in MDPI Diversity for the Indian Sundarbans) to give the reader a more tangible view of actual mangrove area variation during the last two centuries.

3) From a formal point of view the chronology of the references has to be checked: for example, in the running text reference [12] is missing and the next reference following [15] is 21! Please adjust and check the whole ms for consistency, there might be more such cases. Furthermore, consequently use the MDPI citation style, on P3 there is a citation “(Arielle 2016)”. Please change accordingly.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

The manuscript entitled “Policy and Regulatory Challenges and Strategies for Sustainable Mangrove Management in Zanzibar: a review” portrays the state and spatio-temporal variation of Zanzibar’s mangroves during a period of time of almost two centuries. The authors choose a humanistic rather than a scientific approach, which, however, is totally in line with the scope of the MDPI journal Sustainability. While my personal interest in mangroves is from an ecological perspective, I found the manuscript interesting. However, I have two major recommendations for improvements as well as a formal issue, which should be addressed by the authors in a major revision

Point 1: The introduction is very long and actually is explaining aspects which belong to other sections of the manuscript. For example, on P3 there is a paragraph listing tree species which are present in the mangroves of Zanzibar, this paragraph should be moved to the study area section. In fact, the introduction anticipates many aspects, which are presented later in the results and discussion section. I recommend to remove these redundancies from the Introduction, and instead use the Introduction to put the local study on the mangroves of Zanzibar into a broader context, comparing the present research with studies on mangrove development over time in other parts of the world, and showing analogies and differences of these case studies to Zanzibar. In general, for a review paper the references given in the Introduction are very few!

 Response 1:

1. a) The literature regarding mangrove species found in Zanzibar was removed from the Introduction and taken to the Study Area. P3 last paragraph.
2. b) The redundancies in the Introduction section were also removed and placed in their respective sections, i.e., Results and Discussion.
3. c) Under Recommendations, success stories are presented which is what Zanzibar should do in the conservation of its mangroves.
4. d) more references were added in the Introduction section.

Point 2: The authors talk repeatedly about destruction/decline and regeneration/increase of mangroves on Zanazibar during the study period since the 1840s. As a first result I would like to see how mangrove area changed over time. If there are no quantitative data available, which I assume, changes could probably be visualized by historical maps, aerial photographs and in more recent times by satellite imagery (see for example Gosh et al. 2015 in MDPI Diversity for the Indian Sundarbans) to give the reader a more tangible view of actual mangrove area variation during the last two centuries.

Response 2: Information added; P6 section 3.3 pargraph 3.

Point 3: From a formal point of view the chronology of the references has to be checked: for example, in the running text reference [12] is missing and the next reference following [15] is 21! Please adjust and check the whole ms for consistency, there might be more such cases. Furthermore, consequently use the MDPI citation style, on P3 there is a citation “(Arielle 2016)”. Please change accordingly.

Response 3: The chronology of the references was checked and corrected accordingly thoroughout the manuscript.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision has addressed my concerns regarding this study: the method is clearly described and motivated. Also, the structure of the text is now in line with expectations.

Author Response

Point 1: if the study started in 1890, how can it mention protection from 1840?

Response: This study started to investigate from 1890s and not 1840s. There was typing error. The statement was also rephrased to read: The study found that, before Zanzibar became a British protectorate in 1890, forests were communally managed with the guidance of forest guardians, Chiefs and elders.

Point 2: Mangroves store more carbon than any other forest on Earth—it is c. 3-5 times as much organic carbon as tropical upland forests -- this is per unit, not total

Response: This was corrected accordingly.

Point 3: The entire list of international convention has to be revised, for example, CITES doesn't directly protect mangroves, or species found in mangrove ecosystems, it conditions their international trade to permits or prohibits their trading. How this protects mangroves is dependent on national policies.

Response: This section was revised accordingly, refer to p2. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 In the revised version of the manuscript "Policy and Regulatory Challenges and Strategies for Sustainable Mangrove Management in Zanzibar: a review" the authors reasonably addressd my concerns raised in the first round of review. In additon, the authors made further changes and amendments to improve the manuscript, so, from my point of view the ms sigificantly improved and can now be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Point 1: if the study started in 1890, how can it mention protection from 1840?

Response: This study started to investigate from 1890s and not 1840s. There was typing error. The statement was also rephrased to read: The study found that, before Zanzibar became a British protectorate in 1890, forests were communally managed with the guidance of forest guardians, Chiefs and elders.

Point 2: Mangroves store more carbon than any other forest on Earth—it is c. 3-5 times as much organic carbon as tropical upland forests -- this is per unit, not total

Response: This was corrected accordingly.

Point 3: The entire list of international convention has to be revised, for example, CITES doesn't directly protect mangroves, or species found in mangrove ecosystems, it conditions their international trade to permits or prohibits their trading. How this protects mangroves is dependent on national policies.

Response: This section was revised accordingly, refer to p2. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx