Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors. Your study is very important for understanding the relationships between socioeconomic factors and natural resources abundance. But you say that "Insights gathered during the study indicate that while privatization has streamlined resource distribution, it intensifies overfishing and deepens socioe-conomic divisions." Ok. But you actually did not show it in the paper. I'm a fish biologist and did not see any information about fish resources and evidence of overfishing. Please put relevant information about that, such as fish abundance data in the study area (in total numbers or biomass, or in numbers or biomass per square unit, or CPUE values ), the fish biological data which can be used in evidencing overfishing (age structure, growth, maturation rate, etc), data on the level of fisheries pressure (number of fishermen, boats, gillnets, traps, etc), and statistic relationships between fisheries pressure and fish data. Without that, you can not say that privatization intensifies overfishing.

     

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please see the attachment

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study delves into the intricacies of the L3S mechanism, highlighting its significance in guiding inland fisheries management. This study reveals 20 different categories of stakeholders,This classification aids in discerning potential conflicts, cooperation, and synergies. This study calls for a harmonious blend of historical insights and modern governance with a central focus on stakeholder collaboration and community involvement. It has social significance to a certain extent. The logic of the paper is more reasonable, the method is more accurate, and the classification method is more novel, but for the article, there are some issues:

1. The background needs to be elaborated in more detail.

2. The source of the map in Figure 1 is not clear. You should explain it in the text or make a clear statement in the figure.

3, Figure 2 should be consistent with the rest of the picture font.

4, line321 indent error, line 484 missing punctuation

5. Since the discussion part is vague, it is more reasonable to add another part to propose specific measures.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability-2697313

The Paradox of Privatization in Inland Fisheries Management: Lessons from a Traditional System

The paper examines the L3S system for privatized management of inland fisheries in OKI Regency, Indonesia. Historically, L3S auctioned fishing rights while integrating customary practices like fish sanctuaries. However, modern L3S has intensified fishing, marginalizing local communities. Through stakeholder analysis, the study identified 20 actors with interests in L3S, categorizing them based on influence and dependence. Key players like the Regency Fishery Office have high stakes in economic, ecological, and social outcomes. Subjects such as fishery extensions have limited influence despite dependence. The stakeholder linkage map revealed cooperation but also potential conflicts between entities. Auction privatization, while ensuring regulated usage, has promoted overexploitation driven by commercial interests. This challenges sustainability and equity. Recommendations include fostering stakeholder collaboration, integrating traditional knowledge, emphasizing community participation, and reviving practices like sanctuaries. Balancing economic growth and conservation is critical for the L3S system. Overall, the paradoxes of privatization highlight the importance of holistic, equitable resource management. Some concerns need to be addressed or clarified before the manuscript can be considered for publication in the journal.

Major comments:

1.     The introduction could provide more background on the study site and context of inland fisheries in the region. What is the importance of this system locally?

2.     In the methodology, how were stakeholders selected for interviews and focus groups? Was there any bias in selection?

3.     The results rely heavily on qualitative data. Were any quantitative surveys or biological sampling conducted to support the perceptions reported?

4.     There is limited discussion of the specific regulations and policies governing the L3S system. More details on the legal framework would help readers understand it.

5.     How does the L3S system account for seasonality and annual variability in water levels and fish populations? Does management change across seasons?

6.     What indicators are used to assess the sustainability and equity of the system? The criteria for evaluation could be more explicit.

7.     More perspective from the commercial entities involved would provide a more balanced view. Their incentives and constraints are not fully captured.

8.     How do conflicts among stakeholders get resolved under L3S? Does it have conflict resolution mechanisms?

9.     The historical origins of the system are discussed, but less on how it has evolved. More on the trajectory over recent decades would be useful.

Minor comments:

1.     Line 109-111, the sentence of “As an actor, understanding stakeholders is considered to explain why privatization, which conceptually aims to prevent the destruction of natural resources, has done the opposite.” is confusing. Please modify it.  

2.     Line 194-196, the sentence of “Users are community groups affected by policy. used a water body for various economic and social purposes.” is also confusing. Please modify it.

3.     The format of references should be unified.

4.     The authors should check and correct grammatical errors in their MS before submitting the revision.

 

I would like to see the revised manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You completed good  work. The manuscript is significantly improved.  

Author Response

Thank you for your input and appreciation.

Warm regards,
Author

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors answered my questions.

Some minor errors：During the proofreading stage, the author should pay attention to the font capitalization and italics in the reference section.

Author Response

Thank you for your input and appreciation. We will ensure that your concerns regarding improvements to the writing in the bibliography section will be addressed.

Warm regards,
Authors