Establishing a Marine Protected Area in the Waters Surrounding Dokdo: Necessity and Legality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Abstract requires improvement

2. Similarity index is very high (22%), requires to reduce 

1. 3. While the conclusion provided in the text makes a compelling case for designating Dokdo as a marine protected area; there are some potential drawbacks and areas of improvement in the argument:

1. Lack of Counterarguments: The conclusion does not address potential counterarguments or concerns that may arise from designating Dokdo as a marine protected area. Providing a balanced discussion by acknowledging and addressing potential drawbacks or opposition would strengthen the argument.
2. Complexity of Diplomatic Relations: The conclusion mentions the need for coordination and cooperation with Japan to avoid conflicts, but it does not delve into the complex nature of diplomatic relations between South Korea and Japan, which could pose significant challenges.
3. Legal Framework: While the conclusion touches on international law, it could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the legal framework, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and how it applies to the situation in Dokdo. A more thorough exploration of the legal aspects would bolster the argument.
4. Specific Action Steps: The conclusion talks about the need for South Korea to coordinate with Japan but lacks specific action steps or recommendations for how this coordination should occur. Providing concrete steps for diplomatic engagement would make the conclusion more actionable.
5. Environmental Impact Assessment: While the focus is on diplomatic and legal aspects, the conclusion could benefit from a brief discussion of the need for environmental impact assessments before designating an area as a marine protected area. This would underscore the commitment to sustainability.
6. Economic Considerations: There is no discussion of potential economic impacts on fishing or other activities that might be restricted or affected by the establishment of a marine protected area. Addressing the economic aspects, even briefly, would provide a more comprehensive view.
7. Citation of Sources: The conclusion mentions events and legal cases but lacks proper citations or references to support these claims. Including specific citations would enhance the credibility and reliability of the argument.

English is good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some comments in the text of the paper that should be revised:

- The abstract should provide information about all parts of the work. But only the topic and the general result are mentioned. Therefore, the summary is not indicative of all aspects of the work done.

- The value of a scientific article is based on valid references. It is necessary to do better referencing in some cases. For example, in lines 21-27, although they express theoretical content, they are expressed without reference.

- Please check the sentence in lines 134,135: "... 248 countries have designated marine protected areas as of 2022".

- ...

But, I studied the paper. The submitted file is more like a report than an article. This text can be sent to decision-makers and planners in South Korea and Japan to make decisions about the protection of the study area. From a scientific point of view, it is also a descriptive report that deals with the characteristics of the region and existing laws. Therefore, no new ideas come to the reader in the study. Neither the specific methodology used nor its results can be useful for the readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. However, despite various advantages, it has a number of disadvantages, which I will try to name:

1. The abstract should start with the purpose, then name the methodology and then briefly describe the main conclusion;

2. The introduction requires significant improvement, as it is necessary to present the relevance of the research, the purpose, what research gap the author plans to close, the research question and a few sentences about the methods.

3. A theoretical part is needed because there is no theoretical presentation now. Authors can use the following source for inspiration: Burksiene, V., & Dvorak, J. (2020). Performance management in protected areas: Localizing governance of the Curonian Spit National Park, Lithuania. Public Administration, 5, 105-24.

4. The methodological part or at least the description of the methods is missing.

5. There is absolutely no information about why this case was chosen and why it is important for science to know. There is an adequate description of Dokdo, but it is important what the motives of the study are, the selection criteria and the like.

6. I think some information is redundant, like for example 2.3, because it is not clear why it is necessary to talk about tourism here if it is not the main focus of the manuscript.

7. It is better to exchange section 3 with section 2, because it is important to learn about protected areas in Korea first, and then about Dokdo.

8. Lack of discussion.

9. Conclusions lack policy implications.

10. No connection with the focus of the journal - Sustainability. 

All the best

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

You have implemented all the recommendations which were asked. I believe that your manuscript can be published in the Sustainability journal.

All the best