Resource Efficiency and Environmental Impact Assessment Method for Small-Scale Producers: A Case Study of Pond and In-Pond Raceway System Production for Growing Nile Tilapia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well designed.

I suggest to show the curve of expected profit in the next years.

I also suggest o show the pros and cons of rearing monoculture or polyculture

The filteration system and strategies for disease control should be elucidated.

Minor revision of English language and grammar check 

Author Response

Comments:

The manuscript is well designed.

(1) I suggest to show the curve of expected profit in the next years.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion.

This study primarily focuses on presenting tools for assessing resource utilization and environmental impacts. It demonstrates their application through case studies involving both conventional pond systems and IPRS for tilapia production. Additionally, the researchers conducted a preliminary financial analysis, beginning with the determination of expected net profits based on selling prices and production volumes for the academic year. In order to simplify the analysis, a reference point was established, ensuring that the minimum net profit remains consistent on an annual basis. The expected profit curve for upcoming years, as suggested by the reviewer, is of significant interest, but outside the primary scope of this study. It is intriguing and warrants further investigation in the upcoming research project.

(2) I also suggest to show the pros and cons of rearing monoculture or polyculture.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The pros and cons are shown on Page 10 Line 345 as follows:

“Monoculture and polyculture are both efficient fish farming methods. Each method possesses unique advantages and disadvantages. Monoculture, despite its advantages such as higher productivity, easier management of feeding and harvesting, consistent growth rates, and specialization in niche markets, is susceptible to risks such as pests, diseases, and market fluctuations. However, polyculture, while it does effectively use resources and manage waste, is less productive than monoculture methods. Nevertheless, it offers benefits such as organic pest management and enhanced biodiversity.”

Also, in terms of monoculture and polyculture the research’s case study of a pond and IPRS system has been described on Page 11 Line 399 as follows:

“Rearing tilapia in both pond systems and IPRSs allows for a choice between monoculture and polyculture. In particular, an IPRS facilitates both approaches in the same pond by isolating a tilapia monoculture within specific cells in the IPRS rearing area, while enabling cohabitation with other aquatic species, like white shrimp, outside these cells. This practice effectively reduces expenses while enhancing productivity and generating additional income from shrimp sales during the tilapia growth phase. Alternatively, various fish species can be concurrently reared in separate cells within the system.”

(3) The filtration system and strategies for disease control should be elucidated.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this concern. As suggested, the filtration system and strategies for disease control have been elucidated on Page 11 Line 377 as follows:

“The raceway was designed with a sloped bottom at the head-end to facilitate the movement of fish waste, such as feces and uneaten feed, acting as a filtration system. This arrangement allows for the convenient removal of debris from the pond which is connected to the sludge suction tank, providing the opportunity to repurpose waste as valuable “biological fertilizers” for plant cultivation. This facilitates a sustainable process of nutrient utilization. Within IPRSs, fish are densely contained in raceways, making them highly susceptible to rapid disease outbreaks. Nevertheless, these systems facilitate the prompt identification of disease indicators, thereby enabling more rapid confinement in comparison to larger ponds. Eliminating lifeless or deceased fish is a simple task that helps to decrease the spread of infections. Moreover, the use of medicated feed can effectively control diseases in fish that are still consuming food, thereby improving disease management techniques within the system [40].”

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report of article sustainability-2728289

In brief, the manuscript titled “Resource Efficiency and Environmental Impact Assessment Method for Small-scale Producers: A Case Study of Pond and IPRS Production for Growing Nile Tilapia”

(a) is an important and exciting work;

(b) provides a promising methodological combination of REVAC and CF for GHG mitigation;

(c) applies the research materials solidly;

(d) fits the journal’s scope and standards.

General findings related to the manuscript:

The manuscript is a promising scientific work, focusing on a methodological development that can be useful for GHG mitigation/reduction at the company level. The manuscript can provide a helpful and scientifically interesting method for both the practical and the academic field. However, there are some adjustable points in the text. Before publication, these points should be addressed, and the authors should build the solutions in the text.

The detailed comments following the structure of the paper are presented in the following:

1. Introduction

1a.

Since the entire work has a solid practice orientation (Which is really good!), the academic aspects of the manuscript remain a bit in the background, as well as the potential linking points to significant CO2 reduction models, applied worldwide. Please introduce the GHG protocol and the three important scopes of the protocol briefly. Please place the research in the GHG protocol scope system. (The proposed improvement strategies of the manuscript has probably the most important connections to scope 1 and/or 2.) 

1b.

Please briefly introduce some existing scientific models on the strategy level related to GHG mitigation and sustainability risk reduction in the manuscript and address where the proposed novelty of REVAM and CF integration can support these models. Please refer to at least the following publications or more.

https://journals.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/index.php/penzugyiszemle/article/view/1175/603

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.01.004

In which Scopes of the Carbon Accounting Map can the proposed REVAM-CF method provide effective GHG mitigation strategies based on the described case study?

1c.

“Table 2” is a good summary of resource management tools. Please briefly introduce the collected methods or the most important benefits of the selected studies in the text. It is correct that the author provides Table 2, but it is not correct that there is no introduction in the text related to the records of the table. Help the reader with a short interpretation of the records in the text.

1d.

Some references may be wrong or swapped in “Table 2”. Some remarks:

-       Carbon footprint + DEA [28]: This reference should point to the wrong element of the reference list, but at least the link of [28] is not working in the reference list;

-       LCA + DEA [24] can not be identified based on the given data in the reference list.

-       Etc.

Please carefully check the content of the table and the related elements of the reference list.

4.1 Improvement strategy

2a.

Please describe in which segment(s) of the Carbon Accounting Map can the company be supported mostly by the proposed improvement strategies.

5. Discussion

3.a

The discussion section should be developed by linking the research results more effectively to the existing practice and theory-related literature. Otherwise, the entire paper is standing alone in the scientific universe. In the whole discussion section, there are only three refs; please reconsider the problem of missing linkages in this section.

In general:

The reviewer would like to congratulate the manuscript; it will be an excellent paper soon, for sure, after addressing the topics related to the introduction and discussion sections. The most important thing is that the mid-section of the manuscript is correct; the other parts' development can be done quickly.

Overall proposal:

The manuscript has significant potential; although, the manuscript requires revision. The reviewer suggests major revision before publication.

Author Response

Comments:

In brief, the manuscript titled “Resource Efficiency and Environmental Impact Assessment Method for Small-scale Producers: A Case Study of Pond and IPRS Production for Growing Nile Tilapia”

 (a) is an important and exciting work;

(b) provides a promising methodological combination of REVAC and CF for GHG mitigation;

(c) applies the research materials solidly;

(d) fits the journal’s scope and standards..

General findings related to the manuscript:

The manuscript is a promising scientific work, focusing on a methodological development that can be useful for GHG mitigation/reduction at the company level. The manuscript can provide a helpful and scientifically interesting method for both the practical and the academic field. However, there are some adjustable points in the text. Before publication, these points should be addressed, and the authors should build the solutions in the text.

The detailed comments following the structure of the paper are presented in the following:

1. Introduction

1a.

Since the entire work has a solid practice orientation (Which is really good!), the academic aspects of the manuscript remain a bit in the background, as well as the potential linking points to significant CO2 reduction models, applied worldwide. Please introduce the GHG protocol and the three important scopes of the protocol briefly. Please place the research in the GHG protocol scope system. (The proposed improvement strategies of the manuscript has probably the most important connections to scope 1 and/or 2.).

Response:   We thank the reviewer for pointing out this concern. As suggested, the GHG protocol has been introduced on Page 1 Line 38 as follows:

“The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) is a widely recognized global standard used by both the public and private sectors to calculate and report greenhouse gas emissions. It categorizes these emissions into three scopes that assist in determining the carbon footprint of individuals or companies: Scope 1 focuses on direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, Scope 2 deals with indirect emissions from purchased electricity or energy consumption, and Scope 3 encompasses all other indirect emissions throughout a company's value chain.”

Also, the research in the GHG protocol scope system has been added on Page 6 Line 181 as follows:

“The goal of the framework is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, specifically focusing on Scopes 1 and 2. Furthermore, this particular framework also deals with the management of resources linked to acquired purchased products and services within Scope 3.”

1b.

Please briefly introduce some existing scientific models on the strategy level related to GHG mitigation and sustainability risk reduction in the manuscript and address where the proposed novelty of REVAM and CF integration can support these models. Please refer to at least the following publications or more.

https://journals.lib.uni-corvinus.hu/index.php/penzugyiszemle/article/view/1175/603

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.01.004

In which Scopes of the Carbon Accounting Map can the proposed REVAM-CF method provide effective GHG mitigation strategies based on the described case study?

Response: We thank the reviewer for their comments. Briefly introduce some existing scientific models on the strategy level related to GHG mitigation and sustainability risk reduction and the proposed novelty of REVAM and CF integration can support these models on Page 6 Line 184 as follows:

“Furthermore, numerous research studies have put forth models that can be used to decrease GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions. The initial step involves evaluating the present level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, similar to established frameworks such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), or Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) [36]. These models facilitate the process of assessing and evaluating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by providing a comprehensive comparison of emissions within organizations across various scopes. Next, employing the Sustainability Impact and Effects Analysis model, operating strategies are formulated [37]. This model is utilized in risk management to aid companies in designing sustainable product development plans. Subsequently, continuous monitoring and evaluation of performance are conducted to enhance it.

Therefore, these purpose-driven models (REVAM and CF) significantly contribute to enhancing environmental impact management, aiding the established models [36,37]. By enhancing their ability to rapidly scan and analyze resource utilization and greenhouse gas emissions during the initial phase of business operations, these models can improve our understanding of resource impacts, identify key areas for operational enhancements, and pinpoint significant emission sources. Combining these purpose-driven models with the exemplified models offers a comprehensive approach that could significantly mitigate risks and foster increased sustainability in business operations.”

1c.

“Table 2” is a good summary of resource management tools. Please briefly introduce the collected methods or the most important benefits of the selected studies in the text. It is correct that the author provides Table 2, but it is not correct that there is no introduction in the text related to the records of the table. Help the reader with a short interpretation of the records in the text.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this concern. A short introduction to describe Table 2 has been added on Page 5 Line 159 as follows:

“In the criteria table, that the methods/tools represented by a light circle symbol in each criterion indicate that small-scale producers can use these to assess both resource use efficiency and impacts. Furthermore, they can readily employ and obtain practical recommendations. However, those marked labeled with half-dark and dark circles indicate a greater level of complexity in their operation, leading to more intricate outcomes as a result of the involvement of experts to interpret the results. For instance, the LCA and Input Output (IO) analysis model has three half-dark and one dark circle, indicating that this tool possesses abundant data, is relatively simple to analyze, and offers valuable insights, but can only evaluate impact in a specific dimension.”

1d.

Some references may be wrong or swapped in “Table 2”. Some remarks:

- Carbon footprint + DEA [28]: This reference should point to the wrong element of the reference list, but at least the link of [28] is not working in the reference list;

- LCA + DEA [24] can not be identified based on the given data in the reference list.

- Etc.

Please carefully check the content of the table and the related elements of the reference list..

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this error. The references in “Table 2” were edited as follows:
- Row 13: LCA + DEA [29]

- Row 16: Carbon footprint + DEA [31]

- Row 17: LCA and Input Output (IO) analysis [30]

4.1 Improvement strategy

2a.

Please describe in which segment(s) of the Carbon Accounting Map can the company be supported mostly by the proposed improvement strategies.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this concern. A "Carbon Account (or Greenhouse Gas Accounting)" is a method employed to measure emissions in order to improve our understanding of strategies for reducing emissions. The aim of this study is to use the guidelines outlined in the "GHG Protocol" to calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for all emission scopes. The section of the Carbon Accounting Map pertaining to the proposed improvement strategies has been added on Page 17, Line 539, as stated below.

 “Therefore, improvement strategies were previously introduced that are aimed at reducing GHG emissions across different scopes. This involved decreasing the energy and fuel consumption through the adoption of biofuels (Scope 1), and reducing electricity usage via shutdowns (Scope 2) or loss minimization (Scopes 1 and 2). To address the environmental impacts, changes in feeding practices, utilization of weighing equipment, adoption of alternative raw materials, and incorporation of closed-system fish farming technologies were implemented within Scope 3.”

5. Discussion

3a.

The discussion section should be developed by linking the research results more effectively to the existing practice and theory-related literature. Otherwise, the entire paper is standing alone in the scientific universe. In the whole discussion section, there are only three refs; please reconsider the problem of missing linkages in this section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their comments. As pointed out by the reviewer I already add more refs and about the missing linkage of the existing practice and theory-related literature in the discussion section. The discussion has been rewritten on Page 17 line 551 as follows:

“Balancing production demands with environmental concerns, especially amid amplified climate change challenges, is crucial. All sectors are under increasing pressure to boost production efficiency and reduce raw material use for sustainability. In particular, in agriculture, small-scale farmers facing resource limitations need specialized tools for efficient resource management and environmental impact reduction to attain sustainability. The study introduces a framework focusing on resource efficiency and environmental impact for small-scale producers, by proposing the combined REVAM and carbon footprint method. The objective was to provide a method for conducting a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization efficiency and environmental impact within the agricultural sector to allow small-scale producers to identify critical areas that utilize resources without generating value, facilitating the identification of areas with significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, leading to improvements in resource utilization and a reduction in GHG emissions.

The results from both the pond system and IPRS (Figures 5 and 6) indicate that the rearing process, particularly fish feed (F), exhibited the highest waste ratios, at 20.20% and 4.75%, respectively, surpassing all other processes and resources. Despite not holding the highest MI value, the rearing process demonstrated a notable waste ratio (red bar graph). Therefore, REVAM not only guides improvements in areas with high MI values but also identifies waste in other areas, contributing to an overall improvement in resource use efficiency.

The REVAM analysis commences by identifying the process with the highest MI value to pinpoint critical areas for improving resource use through financial indicators. Subsequently, it prioritizes resource enhancement based on the percentage of waste from the bar chart. Lastly, it addresses the process with the highest GHG emission value to minimize environmental impacts.

The application of REVAM in tandem with a carbon footprint analysis for the reduction of waste, resource optimization, and GHG emission minimization within diverse agricultural activities, as presented in Section 3, underscores the significance of contextual factors in waste and loss generation for activity classification. Natural environmental variables, such as mortality rates, waiting times, and uncontrollable excess yields, substantially impact agricultural and aquacultural processes [53]. By consolidating non-machine resource usage into the results presented within the process box, a comprehensive analysis of resources can be conducted, and the origins of waste can be specifically clarified.

The rearing process, driven by the high EF value fish feed used, contributed the most to GHG emissions. Consistent with LCA studies on tilapia farming, feed emerges as a major environmental impact factor [54,55]. Emissions are not solely dependent on the amount; the type of resource used is equally crucial [56]. Different resources or processes for the same product yield can induce different environmental impacts. The recommendations for enhancing resource use include setting operational guidelines for resource control, improving feeding efficiency (e.g., feeding control in bucket cages) [57], exploring alternative resources (e.g., eggshells instead of quicklime, adjusted fish feed formula), and transitioning to closed-system aquaculture to reduce environmental impacts [58,59].

Moreover, the case study involved tilapia production in both ponds and the IPRS innovation. In addition, in order to enhance the study’s utility, the financial feasibility of raising 1 tonne of tilapia in both systems was analyzed, incorporating calculations of the NPV and payback period, alongside assessments of resource efficiency and environmental impact. This analysis aims to offer as preliminary guidance for adopting new aquaculture innovations, based on data from the 2020 Fisheries Economics Group and model farms. The findings revealed that the IPRS exhibited a lower cost for each tonne of fish than the traditional pond system, owing to generating higher annual income due to a threefold increase in production and the maintenance of an average fish weight of 1 kilogram, resulting in an enhanced selling price. However, the system had a higher installation cost, leading to extended payback and investment periods. Nonetheless, it offered opportunities to enhance product quality and production capacity for foreign markets. With a 30% revenue increase, the IPRS showed comparable payback and investment periods compared to traditional ponds. The detailed results are shown in Table 7.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Actually, this is non-conventional manuscript, however it introduces interesting knowledge regarding, it has non-normal manuscript structure.

·        For example, the section is not balanced “introduction is very long with subheadings and discussion is very short without citation,

·        Some parts of the methods could be introduction.

·        Some parts of the result have references.

My suggestion to the authors to withdraw this paper and separate it for two manuscripts the first is a review and the second discuss the current aim. Know the reader could be lost in this manuscript half of it is a review paper and the other is original article.

Some suggestion could be considered.

Line 1: indicate the type of the article.

Line 48: could you indicate the full name of “SDG” in the introduction.

Line 51: revise “CO2e” and check along the MS.

Usually add comma before “which”.

Line 181: the number less than 10 could write in letters, also remove the bold font “and”.

Line 336-339: this is an introduction about “In-Pond Raceway System (IPRS)” which could be included above with more details.

Table 7. could be a word table not a figure.

Also, Table 7 could be in the results.

The discussion is very poor and mis the citation and comparison.

Conclusion is very long; it could be a take home message.

Moderate

Author Response

Comments:

Actually, this is non-conventional manuscript, however it introduces interesting knowledge regarding, it has non-normal manuscript structure.

(1) For example, the section is not balanced “introduction is very long with subheadings and discussion is very short without citation,

- Some parts of the methods could be introduction.

- Some parts of the result have references.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion.

- The Introduction is lengthy because the researcher aims to ensure readers understand the background and reasoning behind the combined application of REVAM and Carbon footprint. Therefore, it provides detailed insights from the literature review relevant to this integration.

- As the proposed method (a combination of REVAM and Carbon footprint) requires an understanding of the traditional REVAM step, the researchers have included an explanation of the proposed idea along in the "Method" section for clarity and comprehension.

- In Section 4.1, references are included because "Improvement Strategies" represent the final step of REVAM. Once critical resource utilization areas and GHG emissions are identified, actionable recommendations for enhancing resource efficiency in operations will be proposed.

(2) Line 1: indicate the type of the article.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this error. As suggested, the type of the article was changed to "Article".

(3) Line 48: could you indicate the full name of “SDG” in the introduction.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The full name "Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13" has been added to the introduction on Lines 55 and 56.

(4) Line 51: revise “CO₂e” and check along the MS.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this error. The technical terms "Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e)" has been fixed along the manuscript as suggested.

(5) Usually add comma before “which”.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this error. All comma before “which” has been added. However, some sentences were cut comma out by MDPI's English editor during the editing process.

(6) Line 181: the number less than 10 could write in letters, also remove the bold font “and.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this concern. The number on Line 217 and 225 has been rewritten to "five steps" as recommended and the bold font "and" has been changed to regular font.

(7) Line 336-339: this is an introduction about “In-Pond Raceway System (IPRS)” which could be included above with more details.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their comments. As suggested, more information about "In-Pond Raceway System (IPRS)" has been added in Page 11 Line 377 as follows:

“The raceway was designed with a sloped bottom at the head-end to facilitate the movement of fish waste, such as feces and uneaten feed, acting as a filtration system. This arrangement allows for the convenient removal of debris from the pond which is connected to the sludge suction tank, providing the opportunity to repurpose waste as valuable “biological fertilizers” for plant cultivation. This facilitates a sustainable process of nutrient utilization. Within IPRSs, fish are densely contained in raceways, making them highly susceptible to rapid disease outbreaks. Nevertheless, these systems facilitate the prompt identification of disease indicators, thereby enabling more rapid confinement in comparison to larger ponds. Eliminating lifeless or deceased fish is a simple task that helps to decrease the spread of infections. Moreover, the use of medicated feed can effectively control diseases in fish that are still consuming food, thereby improving disease management techniques within the system [40].

(8) Table 7. could be a word table not a figure. Also, Table 7 could be in the results.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Table 7 has been changed to a word table and moved to "result" section as suggested.

(9) The discussion is very poor and mis the citation and comparison. Conclusion is very long; it could be a take home message.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. As pointed out by the reviewer of the very poor discussion and containing errors in citation and comparison. The discussion has been rewritten on Page 17 line 551 as following:

“Balancing production demands with environmental concerns, especially amid amplified climate change challenges, is crucial. All sectors are under increasing pressure to boost production efficiency and reduce raw material use for sustainability. In particular, in agriculture, small-scale farmers facing resource limitations need specialized tools for efficient resource management and environmental impact reduction to attain sustainability. The study introduces a framework focusing on resource efficiency and environmental impact for small-scale producers, by proposing the combined REVAM and carbon footprint method. The objective was to provide a method for conducting a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization efficiency and environmental impact within the agricultural sector to allow small-scale producers to identify critical areas that utilize resources without generating value, facilitating the identification of areas with significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, leading to improvements in resource utilization and a reduction in GHG emissions.

The results from both the pond system and IPRS (Figures 5 and 6) indicate that the rearing process, particularly fish feed (F), exhibited the highest waste ratios, at 20.20% and 4.75%, respectively, surpassing all other processes and resources. Despite not holding the highest MI value, the rearing process demonstrated a notable waste ratio (red bar graph). Therefore, REVAM not only guides improvements in areas with high MI values but also identifies waste in other areas, contributing to an overall improvement in resource use efficiency.

The REVAM analysis commences by identifying the process with the highest MI value to pinpoint critical areas for improving resource use through financial indicators. Subsequently, it prioritizes resource enhancement based on the percentage of waste from the bar chart. Lastly, it addresses the process with the highest GHG emission value to minimize environmental impacts.

The application of REVAM in tandem with a carbon footprint analysis for the reduction of waste, resource optimization, and GHG emission minimization within diverse agricultural activities, as presented in Section 3, underscores the significance of contextual factors in waste and loss generation for activity classification. Natural environmental variables, such as mortality rates, waiting times, and uncontrollable excess yields, substantially impact agricultural and aquacultural processes [53]. By consolidating non-machine resource usage into the results presented within the process box, a comprehensive analysis of resources can be conducted, and the origins of waste can be specifically clarified.

The rearing process, driven by the high EF value fish feed used, contributed the most to GHG emissions. Consistent with LCA studies on tilapia farming, feed emerges as a major environmental impact factor [54,55]. Emissions are not solely dependent on the amount; the type of resource used is equally crucial [56]. Different resources or processes for the same product yield can induce different environmental impacts. The recommendations for enhancing resource use include setting operational guidelines for resource control, improving feeding efficiency (e.g., feeding control in bucket cages) [57], exploring alternative resources (e.g., eggshells instead of quicklime, adjusted fish feed formula), and transitioning to closed-system aquaculture to reduce environmental impacts [58,59].

Moreover, the case study involved tilapia production in both ponds and the IPRS innovation. In addition, in order to enhance the study’s utility, the financial feasibility of raising 1 tonne of tilapia in both systems was analyzed, incorporating calculations of the NPV and payback period, alongside assessments of resource efficiency and environmental impact. This analysis aims to offer as preliminary guidance for adopting new aquaculture innovations, based on data from the 2020 Fisheries Economics Group and model farms. The findings revealed that the IPRS exhibited a lower cost for each tonne of fish than the traditional pond system, owing to generating higher annual income due to a threefold increase in production and the maintenance of an average fish weight of 1 kilogram, resulting in an enhanced selling price. However, the system had a higher installation cost, leading to extended payback and investment periods. Nonetheless, it offered opportunities to enhance product quality and production capacity for foreign markets. With a 30% revenue increase, the IPRS showed comparable payback and investment periods compared to traditional ponds. The detailed results are shown in Table 7”

Furthermore, as suggested, the conclusion has been shortened as follows:

 “Here, we provided a practical resource management strategy to reduce GHG emissions in agriculture, especially among smallholder farmers. It advocates merging REVAM and carbon footprint analyses to aid smallholders in improving resource efficiency and meeting environmental objectives and consumer demands.

The study makes a contribution to this research field by adapting a waste identification method from industry to agriculture and merging GHG emission calculations with the Muda Index to track non-value-added resource use. Additionally, it evaluates the environmental impact of IPRS aquaculture, guiding technology adoption for improved production and market expansion in regions valuing standardized farming and environmental responsibility.

Aside from its academic value, the studied tool has practical applications as a guideline for small-scale producers in assessing resource efficiency and environmental impacts. This was illustrated through a case study on aquaculture with an IPRS, which is crucial for export-oriented production control. If adopted within the agriculture and food industry's value chain, this tool could empower small-scale producers to independently calculate their carbon footprint, potentially aiding in future carbon credit management within the supply chain. However, the study's CI and MI values primarily reflect resource costs for customers rather than the overall operational expenses. It is crucial to note that these findings are based on a single location and the Department of Fisheries, which might vary in real-world applications due to data inputs, location-specific features, and other factors. Additionally, the financial feasibility analysis, spanning three years, serves as a comparative reference for technology adoption to improve aquaculture efficiency and address environmental concerns.

Future research should include labor as a crucial resource that might lead to resource wastage during production, prompting the inclusion of additional indicators for com-prehensive resource utilization to lead towards optimal efficiency.”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Second review report of article sustainability-2728289

The reviewer is pleased to note that the paper improved significantly, and the comments were addressed by the author well. Based on significant changes in the text, the overall scientific merit of the paper developed. The most important is that the key problems are solved well. In general, the reviewer appreciates the efforts of the author in reworking the paper.

Overall proposal:

The reviewer suggests publishing the paper in its present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

For the huge efforts of the authors in preparing this manuscript and subsequent analysis, as well as improving the revised version and responding to the reviewer comments, I have to accept this paper; however, its not follow the guidelines of a normal article, such as writing a round six-page introduction with several subtitles and many details in materials and methods could be in the introduction (it is not a description of the experiment; it is a general definition of IPRs).