Cross-National Analysis of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Frameworks: Collaboration, Conservation, and the Role of NGOs in Australia, Germany, Seychelles, and England

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for the author's working on the MSP frameworks, effective development of marine economy should be coherent to the national cultural, traditional, economic, and administrative structure. Althogh there are different modes in MSP M&E,  the frameworks demonstrate progress in balancing marine sustainability and development but require stronger coordination, more inclusive stakeholder engagement, and structured NGO integration to address their respective limitations. 

Following are waiting for improving and consideration to the authors.

1. Figure 1 is not completed in good logical order and not clearly graph drawing.
2. Suggestion how to strengthen cross-nation coordination between economic development and conservation.
3. How to formalize NGO's role in monitoring and evaluation when misalignment with government.

Author Response

Comment 1. Figure 1 is not completed in good logical order and not clearly graph drawing.

Figure 1 clarity – The figure has been fully redesigned with larger text, shorter arrows, and clearer structure to improve readability and logical flow.

Comment 2.  Suggestion how to strengthen cross-nation coordination between economic development and conservation.

Cross-national coordination – We added new content in Section 4.1 discussing regional MSP Coordination Hubs, Shared Marine Charters, and alignment with international frameworks (UNESCO IOC, AU Blue Economy).

Comment 3. How to formalize NGO's role in monitoring and evaluation when misalignment with government.

Formalizing NGO roles in M&E – Section 4.3 now outlines specific institutional mechanisms (MoUs, national councils, independent audits, reconciliation forums) for embedding NGOs in evaluation systems

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. Below are my suggestions.
The article is written in very good English and presents the formal and legal conditions in selected countries regarding Marine Spatial Planning.

The aim of the work, as defined in the abstract, was difficult to not achieve (given its high degree of generality). 
Ergo, the conclusions, without any statistical support, are highly debatable and contribute little to the development of science. They also remain solely in the realm of not entirely justified postulates.
Identifying common elements of regulations in individual countries, without reference to the effectiveness of implemented solutions, also does not generate a significant contribution to the development of science.

I would strongly suggest to use Systematic Literature Review or Bibliometrics and thoroughly rethinking the content of the article, emphasising its novelty and contribution to science.

Kind Regards

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. Below are my suggestions.
The article is written in very good English and presents the formal and legal conditions in selected countries regarding Marine Spatial Planning.

The aim of the work, as defined in the abstract, was difficult to not achieve (given its high degree of generality). 
Ergo, the conclusions, without any statistical support, are highly debatable and contribute little to the development of science. They also remain solely in the realm of not entirely justified postulates.
Identifying common elements of regulations in individual countries, without reference to the effectiveness of implemented solutions, also does not generate a significant contribution to the development of science.

I would strongly suggest to use Systematic Literature Review or Bibliometrics and thoroughly rethinking the content of the article, emphasising its novelty and contribution to science.

Kind Regards

REPLY:

1. Aim too general / contribution unclear – The Abstract and Introduction have been reframed to focus explicitly on NGO integration in MSP monitoring and evaluation.
2. Lack of systematic evidence – We conducted a systematic literature review (PRISMA protocol) and bibliometric mapping (VOSviewer) of 312 articles, narrowing to 70 included studies. Section 2.4 (Methods) now describes this process.
3. Effectiveness link – Results and Table 5 now explicitly connect governance/legal features with reported effectiveness outcomes.
4. Conclusions too general – Section 6 has been rewritten to emphasize NGO integration as a predictor of MSP success, bridging descriptive governance with outcome-based evidence.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for an interesting manuscript! Please consider the following suggestions, large and small:

• Please say more about why these specific four countries were selected. Surely, more than these four countries are "characterized by a robust maritime economy and have a historical inclination towards sea management,  while concurrently being in an advanced stage of MSP implementation."
• England and the United Kingdom are not interchangeable terms. England is a part of the United Kingdom, which refers to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Please be more specific and consistent as to whether you are referring to England or to the United Kingdom. 
• The text in Fig. 1 is too squashed and difficult to read.
• In the title, please mention that the article focuses on Australia, Germany, Seychelles and the United Kingdom. It could be as simple as saying "Cross-National Analysis of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Frameworks: Collaboration, Conservation, and the Role of NGOs in Australia, Germany, Seychelles and the United Kingdom"
• Please refrain from using abbreviations as authors; for example, "GOV. UK." should probably be Government Digital Service, as that is the name of the agency that produces the content for the gov.uk website.
• It would be better if the conclusion were more flushed out and if the abstract provided more insights into the offered conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you for an interesting manuscript! Please consider the following suggestions, large and small:

• Please say more about why these specific four countries were selected. Surely, more than these four countries are "characterized by a robust maritime economy and have a historical inclination towards sea management,  while concurrently being in an advanced stage of MSP implementation."
• England and the United Kingdom are not interchangeable terms. England is a part of the United Kingdom, which refers to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Please be more specific and consistent as to whether you are referring to England or to the United Kingdom. 
• The text in Fig. 1 is too squashed and difficult to read.
• In the title, please mention that the article focuses on Australia, Germany, Seychelles and the United Kingdom. It could be as simple as saying "Cross-National Analysis of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Frameworks: Collaboration, Conservation, and the Role of NGOs in Australia, Germany, Seychelles and the United Kingdom"
• Please refrain from using abbreviations as authors; for example, "GOV. UK." should probably be Government Digital Service, as that is the name of the agency that produces the content for the gov.uk website.
• It would be better if the conclusion were more flushed out and if the abstract provided more insights into the offered conclusions.

REPLY: 

1. Case study selection – Section 2 expands justification, highlighting diversity of governance traditions (federal, centralized, SIDS), developed vs developing contexts, and varying NGO roles.
2. England vs UK distinction – We clarified that the study focuses specifically on England, while noting devolved frameworks for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
3. Figure 1 readability – Redesigned with larger fonts, clear spacing, and simplified text.
4. Title precision – Revised to: Cross-National Analysis of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Frameworks: Collaboration, Conservation, and the Role of NGOs in Australia, Germany, Seychelles, and the United Kingdom (England).
5. References – Institutional citations updated (e.g., GOV.UK replaced with Government Digital Service, United Kingdom).
6. Abstract & Conclusion – Expanded to summarize comparative findings (e.g., Seychelles’ NGO co-leadership vs. Germany’s federal fragmentation) and emphasize the novel contribution of NGO integration.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, the article is closer to popular literature than to scientific work. Please accept my positive review as a vote of confidence for the future.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my questions and for providing a much-improved manuscript!