Deep-Sea Dilemmas: Evaluation of Public Perceptions of Deep-Sea Mineral Mining and Future of Sri Lanka’s Blue Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aimed to understand the public perceptions and Willingness to Pay for seabed conservation in Sri Lanka. A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) based approach was used to assess the public preferences for seabed conservation, collecting data from 630 respondents across Sri Lanka using a pre-tested self-administered structured survey. Conditional Logit (CL) and Random Parameter Logit (RPL) models were employed for analysis of data. The research method is correct and the conclusion is reliable. The following comments are for reference only.

 

1. It is suggested to supplement the schematic diagram of the research area. This study focuses on the protection of underwater mining in Sri Lanka. It is recommended to supplement the mineral distribution map and its relationship with the environment in the region. It is also recommended to supplement the spatial characteristics of the sources of the survey sample data.
2. It is suggested to supplement the spatial factors of root causes of and harmful Impacts of Deep Sea Mining. Both natural endowment factors and investigated human factors can affect human willingness to pay, and it is recommended to provide additional explanations in the analysis.
3. It is suggested to extract the main conclusions and list them in sections.

Author Response

Authors are thankful for the valuable comments of the reviewers that improved the overall quality of the manuscript. All the revisions suggested have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. In addition to these, authors are willing to comply with any additional revisions suggested by the reviewers and the editorial board to further improve the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 1

General Comments

This study aimed to understand the public perceptions and Willingness to Pay for seabed conservation in Sri Lanka. A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) based approach was used to assess the public preferences for seabed conservation, collecting data from 630 respondents across Sri Lanka using a pre-tested self-administered structured survey. Conditional Logit (CL) and Random Parameter Logit (RPL) models were employed for analysis of data. The research method is correct and the conclusion is reliable. The following comments are for reference only.

 

Response

The authors are highly grateful for the valuable comments of the reviewers.

 

• Comment 1

It is suggested to supplement the schematic diagram of the research area. This study focuses on the protection of underwater mining in Sri Lanka. It is recommended to supplement the mineral distribution map and its relationship with the environment in the region. It is also recommended to supplement the spatial characteristics of the sources of the survey sample data.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. We added a map indicating the sampled districts as “Supplementary Figure 1”, as suggested by the reviewer. The mineral distribution map of Sri Lanka has been developed by the Survey Department of Sri Lanka and any user has to purchase it from them. Therefore, authors do not have copyright permission to include the mineral distribution map as an annexure publicly. The authors apologize for this restriction.

 

• Comment 2

It is suggested to supplement the spatial factors of root causes of and harmful Impacts of Deep-Sea Mining. Both natural environment factors and investigated human factors can affect human willingness to pay, and it is recommended to provide additional explanations in the analysis.

 

Response

We included two figures indicating the spatial variation of root causes and harmful impacts at the district level, as Supplementary Figures 2 and 3. In addition, the relevant sections in the results and discussion were improved.

 

• Comment 3

It is suggested to extract the main conclusions and list them in sections.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. The conclusion section was modified as follows after considering the comments of all the reviewers.

 

“5. Conclusions

The findings revealed a significant public support for seabed conservation, with a mean WTP ranging between LKR 1,067.86 and LKR 3,532.02. The RPL model provided a more realistic value of LKR 3,532.02 for WTP. Young, female, and educated individuals, with low-income levels, demonstrated a strong influence on the perceptions and WTP. However, financial constraints among respondents highlighted the need for government support or alternative funding mechanisms to support sustainable seabed management. It was evident that when the awareness of deep seabed mining is limited, respondents tend to denote a strong curiosity to learn more and a growing concern on its impacts. Participants emphasized the necessity for stringent regulations and collective action by community groups and government institutions to ease these impacts and protect the marine environment.

 

The necessity of both regulatory and market-based incentives and policy tools to promote sustainable seabed management in Sri Lanka has been underscored by the findings. Integrating these evidence-based preferences into policy design will ensure that conservation interventions are financially inclusive, socially acceptable, and ecologically effective. Public education campaigns should be implemented across the country, especially in coastal and rural areas, to raise awareness and foster greater community engagement. In addition, policy decisions should be made in consultation with stakeholders to account for their perspectives and needs. Providing financial incentives and subsidies for sustainable practices, especially to low-income groups, was recognized as a way to enable more equitable participation.

 

In line with the national priorities, legal and regulatory structures, the proposed policy measures can be operationalized within Sri Lanka’s existing blue economy and coastal resource management frameworks, particularly through national agencies. Implementation can be integrated into ongoing national seabed conservation plans and marine spatial planning initiatives. Potential barriers such as limited funding allocations, lack of transparency, fragmented institutional coordination and weak enforcement capacity must be acknowledged in this process. A phased approach involving public-private partnerships, effective institutional and expert network, data sharing mechanism, targeted budgetary allocations, capacity-building of enforcement agencies, as well as the establishment of multi-stakeholder governance platforms is recommended. Further research especially involving underrepresented communities and strengthening institutional capacity through training, technology, and collaboration are recommended to sustain the seabed conservation in Sri Lanka, while allowing for responsible blue economic activities.”

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study tackles a critical gap in understanding non-market values for marine ecosystems in a Global South context. Below are specific suggestions to strengthen the paper for publication.
1.Methodological Clarity and Robustness:
(1)Sampling Representativeness: The manuscript should explicitly discuss the limitations of the sampling strategy (e.g., urban/rural imbalance, age distribution) and its potential impact on WTP estimates. Consider adding a subsection acknowledging these constraints and their implications for generalizability.
(2)Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) Design: Provide more detail on how attributes and levels were selected (e.g., stakeholder consultations, literature review). Include robustness checks (e.g., model sensitivity tests, alternative specifications) to validate results.
(3)Data Analysis: Clarify the handling of protest bids and zero responses. Discuss how these were addressed in the WTP calculations and whether sensitivity analyses were performed.
2.Policy Translation and Practical Relevance:
(1)The policy recommendations (Section 5) currently lack direct linkage to empirical findings. Explicitly connect each recommendation to specific results (e.g., "Given the higher WTP among coastal communities, targeted outreach programs should prioritize...").
(2)Include a discussion on feasibility: How might these policies be implemented within Sri Lanka’s existing governance frameworks? Address potential barriers (e.g., funding, enforcement) and propose actionable steps.
3.Structural and Language Improvements:
(1)Abstract: Reframe to emphasize the study’s unique contribution (e.g., "first WTP assessment for seabed conservation in Sri Lanka") and key quantitative findings.
(2)Introduction: Sharpen the research gap by contrasting Sri Lanka’s context with existing studies from other regions.
(3)Results and Discussion: Merge these sections to improve narrative flow. Discuss unexpected findings (e.g., low WTP in certain demographics) and explore potential reasons (e.g., awareness gaps, economic constraints).
(4)Language: While generally clear, some technical passages (e.g., DCE methodology) could be simplified for broader accessibility. For example:
Original: "The latent class model accommodated preference heterogeneity via covariates."
Revised: "We used a latent class model to explore how preferences varied across groups (e.g., income, proximity to coast)."
4.Engagement with Literature:
(1)Expand the discussion to compare findings with recent WTP studies from comparable developing nations (e.g., Blue Economy initiatives in Southeast Asia).
(2)Cite interdisciplinary sources (e.g., marine ecology, environmental justice) to strengthen arguments about conservation urgency and equity.
5.References:
Add 3–5 recent publications (2020–2024) on deep-sea mining governance and non-market valuation in developing economies to demonstrate engagement with current debates.
Overall: The paper addresses a vital issue and has strong potential for impact. With revisions focusing on methodological transparency, policy relevance, and clearer communication, it could make a significant contribution to marine conservation literature and practice. We encourage you to address these points and resubmit.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript addresses a compelling and timely topic, and the core research is valuable. However, the clarity and precision of the English language could be improved to enhance readability and scholarly impact. Below are specific observations and suggestions:
1.Sentence Structure and Clarity:
(1)Several sentences are overly complex or contain multiple clauses, which can obscure key points. For example, in the methodology section, sentences describing the sampling approach could be simplified for better comprehension. Consider breaking long sentences into shorter, more direct statements.
(2)Technical terms (e.g., "Discrete Choice Experiments," "WTP estimation") are sometimes used without sufficient contextual explanation, which may challenge readers outside the immediate field. Briefly defining these terms upon first use would improve accessibility.
2.Conciseness and Redundancy:
(1)Occasional redundancy (e.g., repetitive phrasing in the literature review and discussion) dilutes the argument’s impact. For instance, similar points about Sri Lanka’s policy gaps are reiterated across sections. Consolidating these ideas would strengthen conciseness.
(2)Passive voice is overused in some sections (e.g., "It was observed that..." instead of "We observed that..."). Active voice would enhance engagement and clarity.
3.Terminology Consistency:
(1)Inconsistent terminology (e.g., "seabed conservation," "deep-sea ecosystem protection," "marine habitat preservation") appears throughout. Standardizing key terms in the introduction and adhering to them consistently would avoid confusion.
(2)Acronyms (e.g., DCE, WTP) are occasionally introduced without full definitions. Ensure all acronyms are spelled out at first mention.
4.Transitions and Flow:
(1)Transitions between sections (e.g., from results to discussion) are abrupt. Adding brief bridging sentences (e.g., "These findings align with prior studies on X, as discussed below...") would improve logical flow.
(2)Paragraphs in the discussion section sometimes lack clear topic sentences, making it difficult to follow the argument’s progression.
5.Grammar and Syntax:
(1)Minor grammatical errors (e.g., subject-verb agreement, article usage) are present but infrequent. A thorough proofread for these issues is recommended.
(2)Syntax issues occasionally arise in complex sentences, such as misplaced modifiers (e.g., "Based on surveys conducted in coastal regions, the data revealed..." instead of "Data from surveys conducted in coastal regions revealed...").
Recommendations:
(1)Professional Editing: Consider engaging a copyeditor or using language-editing tools (e.g., Grammarly, Hemingway Editor) to refine syntax, grammar, and flow.
(2)Read-Aloud Test: Authors are encouraged to read the manuscript aloud to identify awkward phrasing or convoluted sentences.
(3)Targeted Revisions: Prioritize revising the methodology, results, and discussion sections for clarity, as these are critical for conveying the study’s rigor and implications.
The research content is strong and addresses an important gap. With targeted language improvements, the manuscript’s accessibility and persuasive power will be significantly enhanced. We appreciate the authors’ work and look forward to seeing a revised version.

Author Response

Authors are thankful for the valuable comments of the reviewers that improved the overall quality of the manuscript. All the revisions suggested have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. In addition to these, authors are willing to comply with any additional revisions suggested by the reviewers and the editorial board to further improve the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2

General Comments

The study tackles a critical gap in understanding non-market values for marine ecosystems in a Global South context. Below are specific suggestions to strengthen the paper for publication. Overall: The paper addresses a vital issue and has strong potential for impact. With revisions focusing on methodological transparency, policy relevance, and clearer communication, it could make a significant contribution to marine conservation literature and practice. We encourage you to address these points and resubmit.

 

Response

The authors are highly grateful for the valuable comments of the reviewers. We have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewer 2.

 

Methodological Clarity and Robustness:

• Comment 1

Sampling Representativeness: The manuscript should explicitly discuss the limitations of the sampling strategy (e.g., urban/rural imbalance, age distribution) and its potential impact on WTP estimates. Consider adding a subsection acknowledging these constraints and their implications for generalizability.

 

Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the limitations in representativeness of our sample and its implications for the generalizability of the Willingness to Pay (WTP) estimates. We have added the following paragraph in the ‘Discussion’ to explicitly address these limitations as suggested by the reviewer.

 

“The study had several limitations that should be acknowledged. Although the study employed a proportionate random sampling strategy to capture the views of diverse stakeholders involved in the management and usage of Sri Lanka’s coastal belt, certain limitations regarding sampling representativeness must be acknowledged. The age structure of the sample was slightly skewed towards younger respondents as the majority (55.4%) fell within the 20–30 age group. This age distribution reflects both the higher willingness to participate in field surveys and higher levels of their educational attainment. The older coastal residents, who generally have stronger livelihood dependencies on coastal and marine resources, may assign different economic values to conservation interventions that could potentially result in different WTP estimates.

 

Even though the sampling covered ten major coastal districts, representation of urban, peri-urban and rural populations was not balanced. The urban and per-urban residents often have more exposure to seabed conservation campaigns and environmental education, which in turn can translate into pro-conservation preferences and a higher stated WTP. The rural counterparts and small-scale fisher households, who may be more sensitive to livelihood trade-offs, were less represented in the sample. The educational composition of the sample was also relatively skewed toward highly educated respondents. Higher educational attainment is generally associated with higher environmental awareness, better risk perception, and willingness to contribute in some form to conservation, which could lead to upward-biased WTP estimates. A greater female participation was evident in the sample, which may reflect growing environmental engagement among women. The reliance on self-reported data introduces potential biases, such as social desirability bias and respondents’ limited understanding of seabed mining, which could influence their answers. However, the use of CL and RPL models effectively captures both observed and unobserved heterogeneity in preferences, offering strong insights into public attitudes toward seabed conservation. Additionally, the cross-sectional design captures perceptions at a single point in time, without accounting for changes in awareness or attitudes over time. Future research should address these gaps by incorporating longitudinal data, larger and more diverse samples, and qualitative methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.”

 

• Comment 2

Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) Design: Provide more details on how attributes and levels were selected (e.g., stakeholder consultations, literature review). Include robustness checks (e.g., model sensitivity tests, alternative specifications) to validate results.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. The following paragraphs were added under section 2.3 in the methodology and section 3.6 in the results.

 

Under the methodology,

“2.3. Designing of the Choice Experiment

The choice experiment design focused on five key attributes, namely extraction of minerals, deterioration of seawater quality, destruction of biodiversity and habitats, monitoring and regulation, and price. The selection of attributes and levels for the Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) followed a structured, multi-step process in order to ensure both statistical rigor and policy relevance. First, an extensive literature review was conducted, focusing on seabed and deep-sea mining, marine ecosystem valuation, and blue economy governance, particularly in the Sri Lankan context [10, 37, 45]. A series of stakeholder consultations, including focus group discussions and key informant interviews with academics, experts, government officials, and fisheries cooperative representatives, were used to refine and validate the attributes and set attribute levels to ensure contextual relevance. Each attribute was assigned with specific levels: for instance, extraction of minerals had levels of 0%, 10%, and 30%, while deterioration in seawater quality ranged from 0% to 30%. Monitoring and regulation addressed governance levels, ranging from the current state to more stringent regulations and improved community participation. The price attribute represented the annual WTP for reducing environmental impacts, with levels set at Sri Lankan Rupees (LKR) 100, LKR 250, and Rs. 500 (Table 1). A fractional factorial design was then generated to create efficient, orthogonal choice sets.”

 

Under the results,

“3.6 Parameter Estimation of the Choice Experiment using CL and RPL

The utility model for attributes of seabed mining was constructed based on the Random Utility Function to understand the public perception on sea bed mining, as shown in Equation 6.

(6)

Where i = 1, 2, 3 ..., 630 (the sample size is 630)

 

The CL and RPL models were compared, with RPL showing a better fit (Log-likelihood = 1065.21 vs. 1017.36) and capturing preference heterogeneity. WTP estimates were observed to be stable across coding methods and after excluding outliers. Checks for attribute dominance confirmed a balanced attribute design, supporting the reliability and validity of the DCE results.”

 

• Comment 3

Data Analysis: Clarify the handling of protest bids and zero responses. Discuss how these were addressed in the WTP calculations and whether sensitivity analyses were performed.

 

Response

The authors welcome the suggestion. The following paragraph was added into the methodology, as suggested by the reviewer.

 

“2.5.    Data Analysis

All data were entered into STATA adhering to quality control procedures. The data from the DCE was analysed using the econometric models: Random Parameter Logit (RPL) model and Conditional Logit (CL) model, as described above. The RPL model, suitable for capturing differences in individual preferences, was used alongside the CL model, which assumes uniform preferences, for comparison. These analyses enabled to estimate the pub-lic’s WTP for various seabed mining attributes, highlighting key areas for conservation and impact reduction. During the WTP estimation, protest bids were identified through follow-up questions, adhering to the standard stated preference valuation practices. Protest bids which indicated refusal to pay due to certain reasons such as governance or trust and other reasons were excluded from the WTP estimation in the dataset. Genuine zero bids, where respondents explicitly indicated unwillingness to pay or inability to pay were retained in the analysis to avoid upward bias in WTP estimates. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by comparing model results with and without protest bids to assess their effect on parameter estimates and marginal WTP values. The significance and direction of coefficients remained stable across these specifications, which indicated that the exclusion of protest bids did not affect the robustness of the results.”

Policy Translation and Practical Relevance:

• Comment 4

The policy recommendations (Section 5) currently lack direct linkage to empirical findings. Explicitly connect each recommendation to specific results (e.g., "Given the higher WTP among coastal communities, targeted outreach programs should prioritize...").

 

Response

The following paragraph was added into the discussion to address this concern.

“These outcomes suggest that targeted public education and awareness campaigns on seabed conservation should prioritize younger, more educated individuals as key catalysts for broader societal engagement. Given the higher WTP expressed by these groups, they can easily be mobilized as early adopters and advocates for sustainable seabed management. The lower-income segments, despite demonstrating positive attitudes, indicate a need for financial incentive mechanisms such as subsidies, grants or other blended finance instruments to enable their equitable participation in seabed conservation initiatives. The strong preference for stricter regulatory frameworks and reduced extraction levels underscores the importance of introducing more transparent and enforceable incentives and governance mechanisms, complemented by meaningful community participation.”

 

• Comment 5

Include a discussion on feasibility: How might these policies be implemented within Sri Lanka’s existing governance frameworks? Address potential barriers (e.g., funding, enforcement) and propose actionable steps.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. The following revisions were incorporated to address this concern.

“The necessity of both regulatory and market-based incentives and policy tools to promote sustainable seabed management in Sri Lanka has been underscored by the findings. Integrating these evidence-based preferences into policy design will ensure that conservation interventions are financially inclusive, socially acceptable, and ecologically effective. Public education campaigns should be implemented across the country, especially in coastal and rural areas, to raise awareness and foster greater community engagement. In addition, policy decisions should be made in consultation with stakeholders to account for their perspectives and needs. Providing financial incentives and subsidies for sustainable practices, especially to low-income groups, was recognized as a way to enable more equitable participation.

 

In line with the national priorities, legal and regulatory structures, the proposed policy measures can be operationalized within Sri Lanka’s existing blue economy and coastal resource management frameworks, particularly through national agencies. Implementation can be integrated into ongoing national seabed conservation plans and marine spatial planning initiatives. Potential barriers such as limited funding allocations, lack of transparency, fragmented institutional coordination and weak enforcement capacity must be acknowledged in this process. A phased approach involving public-private partnerships, effective institutional and expert network, data sharing mechanism, targeted budgetary allocations, capacity-building of enforcement agencies, as well as the establishment of multi-stakeholder governance platforms is recommended.”

 

Structural and Language Improvements:

• Comment 6

Abstract: Reframe to emphasize the study’s unique contribution (e.g., "first WTP assessment for seabed conservation in Sri Lanka") and key quantitative findings.

 

Response

The abstract was modified as follows, based on the valuable suggestion of the reviewer.

“Seabed mining has gained wide attention under the blue economy concept, offering economic opportunities while posing significant environmental risks. In Sri Lanka, where mining of seabed resources is growing, understanding public perceptions and preferences for seabed conservation remain crucial to ensure sustainable resource management. Therefore, this study represents the first empirical assessment of public preference and Willingness to Pay (WTP) for seabed conservation in Sri Lanka.”

 

• Comment 7

Introduction: Sharpen the research gap by contrasting Sri Lanka’s context with existing studies from other regions.

 

Response

The authors are grateful for the valuable suggestion. The following sections were added into the introduction.

 

“Uhlenkott et al. [24] found that a damage inflicted 44 years ago in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (North East Pacific region) still possess a low biodiversity and visible mining tracks, which proves that deep sea ecosystems are fragile and often slow to recover. Similarly, Hilmi et al. [25], has highlighted that the ecological disruptions in marine ecosystems are long lasting, suggesting that protecting blue carbon habitats and ocean floor biodiversity is urgent. From the justice and legislative aspect, many coastal and low income communities are highly vulnerable, since they depend on marine resources and have fewer legislative tools to adapt when damage occurs [26]. Policymakers should therefore integrate marine ecology insights and environmental justice into seabed mining regulations to ensure both ecological sustainability and fairness.

 

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) emphasizes that the blue economy paradigm provides a sustainable development framework for developing countries, ensuring equitable access to marine resources, while promoting conservation efforts [27]. However, Sri Lanka faces several key challenges such as weak enforcement and limited resources, which hinder sustainable resource management. Strengthening the legal framework, improving monitoring, and allocating resources to enforce existing laws are crucial steps toward sustainable economic growth in the blue economy [28]. Integrating ecosystem service valuation into policies can support informed decision-making and ensure that resource extraction does not compromise marine biodiversity or community livelihoods. The National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plan (NBSAP) of Sri Lanka has already recognized the prime importance of environmental valuation, aligning with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, to promote the sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services [29].

 

As underscored by Tyllianakis and Ferrini [30], several developing countries in Southeast Asia have the tendency to actively promote blue economic initiatives as part of their broader sustainable development strategies. These initiatives emphasize the significance of expanding investments in ocean-based industries and integration of environmental conservation goals with economic growth objectives. Such initiatives can enhance both ecological resilience and economic opportunities, particularly in coastal and island nations. A recent study conducted by Gourvenec et al. [31] has highlighted the importance of well-connected systems that balance economic development with the protection of marine ecosystems to ensure sustainability in blue economy. Meanwhile, Martínez-Vázquez and Milán-García [32] have pointed out that weak governance structures, lack of reliable data, and poor coordination among key actors continue to hinder the progress toward effective management of marine ecosystems. These insights are highly important for developing nations, where the growth of marine sectors such as deep-sea mining should be directed by clear, evidence-based, and accountable governance practices.

 

Ecosystem valuation offers a framework to assess the environmental costs of seabed mining, enabling informed decision-making. Marine ecosystems deliver provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services [33]. However, these services often remain undervalued in traditional economic analyses. Globally, valuation studies have highlighted the trade-offs between seabed mining and ecosystem services. For instance, Barbier [34], has demonstrated the importance of quantifying ecosystem services in marine policy making, ensuring that economic activities align with sustainability goals. By integrating ecosystem service valuation into environmental impact assessments (EIAs), policymakers can better understand the full scope of costs associated with seabed mining [35].

 

Therefore, recognizing the economic value of marine ecosystems is critical to sustainable resource management. A recent study has posited that incorporating ecosystem service valuation into seabed mining policies ensures that the environmental costs are internalized, reducing the likelihood of unsustainable practices [36]. As emphasized by Yu et al. [37], non-market valuation methods are highly beneficial for developing countries to assess the broader impacts of deep-sea mining, ensuring that decisions reflect ecological and social considerations alongside economic factors. Mejjad & Rovere [38] have pointed out that even though ocean industries support economic development, they but often fail to consider the environmental and social impacts of resource extraction. Therefore, employment of non-market valuation methods can help to recognize the real worth of deep-sea ecosystems and support better policy choices in developing nations.”

 

• Comment 8

Results and Discussion: Merge these sections to improve narrative flow. Discuss unexpected findings (e.g., low WTP in certain demographics) and explore potential reasons (e.g., awareness gaps, economic constraints).

 

Response

We are grateful for the comment. However, the author guidelines of the journal have instructed to maintain the results and discussion sections separately. Therefore, the authors had to adhere to the author guidelines. However, the relevant sections were expanded based on the valuable suggestions of the reviewer.

 

• Comment 9

Language: While generally clear, some technical passages (e.g., DCE methodology) could be simplified for broader accessibility. For example:

Original: "The latent class model accommodated preference heterogeneity via covariates."
Revised: "We used a latent class model to explore how preferences varied across groups (e.g., income, proximity to coast)."

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. All such instances were revised to the best ability of the authors, with the support of a professional English language editor.

Engagement with Literature:

• Comment 10

Expand the discussion to compare findings with recent WTP studies from comparable developing nations (e.g., Blue Economy initiatives in Southeast Asia).

 

Response

The comment is welcome. The following paragraph was added into the discussion section, as suggested by the reviewer.

 

“According to the estimates of CL and RPL models, the WTP for seabed conservation among studied population ranged from LKR 1,067.86 (3.52 USD) to LKR 3,575.94 (11.78 USD). A recent study conducted in China has reported WTP values ranging from 172.43 CNY (27.4 USD) to 216.20 CNY (34.3 USD) for marine conservation [53]. Meanwhile, another study conducted in South Korea has revealed WTP values ranging from 100 KRW (0.09 USD) to 152 KRW (0.14 USD) for seabed conservation [54]. Furthermore, local tourists had denoted a WTP of 2.65 USD for mangrove restoration at the Rekawa Coastal Wetland in Sri Lanka, while foreign tourists had expressed a WTP of 11.40 USD [55]. Relative to the published Southeast Asia-region studies, WTP for seabed conservation estimated in this study is at least on par with, and possibly higher than, much of the existing evidence. This suggests that the perceived value of seabed conservation among the Sri Lankan community is comparatively strong. This may be due to the higher awareness of seabed ecosystem services, greater perceived threat, or effective framing of the conservation scenario in our survey.”

 

• Comment 11

Cite interdisciplinary sources (e.g., marine ecology, environmental justice) to strengthen arguments about conservation urgency and equity.

 

Response

The authors welcome the comment. Following multidisciplinary references were added into the manuscript to strengthen the literature review aspects.

 

• Gourvenec, S., Dbouk, W., Sturt, F. & Teagle, D.A.H. Pathways to a blue economy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2025, 77, 101570.
• Hilmi, N., Chami, R., Sutherland, M. D., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Lebleu, L., Benitez, M. B., & Levin, L. A. The role of blue carbon in climate change mitigation and carbon stock conservation. Frontiers in climate. 2021, 3, 710546.
• Martínez-Vázquez, R.M. & Milán-García, J. Challenges of the blue economy: Evidence and research trends. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2021, 33, 61.
• Mejjad, N., & Rovere, M. Understanding the impacts of blue economy growth on deep-sea ecosystem services. Sustainability. 2021, 13, 12478.
• O’Neill, B. F., Schneider, M. J., & Lozano, A. G. Toward a critical environmental justice approach to ocean equity. Environmental Justice. 2025, 18, 90-99.
• Tyllianakis, E., & Ferrini, S. Personal attitudes and beliefs and willingness to pay to reduce marine plastic pollution in Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2021, 173, 113120.
• Uhlenkott, K., Meyn, K., Vink, A., & Martínez Arbizu, P. A review of megafauna diversity and abundance in an exploration area for polymetallic nodules in the eastern part of the Clarion Clipperton Fracture Zone (North East Pacific), and implications for potential future deep-sea mining in this area. Marine Biodiversity. 2023, 53, 22.
• Yu, T., Liu, R., & Jin, Y. Toward ecosystem-based deep-sea governance: a review of global approaches and China’s participation. Marine Development. 2025, 3, 1.

References:

• Comment 12

Add 3–5 recent publications (2020–2024) on deep-sea mining governance and non-market valuation in developing economies to demonstrate engagement with current debates.

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. Following recent references were added into the manuscript.

 

• Gourvenec, S., Dbouk, W., Sturt, F. & Teagle, D.A.H. Pathways to a blue economy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2025, 77, 101570.
• Hilmi, N., Chami, R., Sutherland, M. D., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Lebleu, L., Benitez, M. B., & Levin, L. A. The role of blue carbon in climate change mitigation and carbon stock conservation. Frontiers in climate. 2021, 3, 710546.
• Martínez-Vázquez, R.M. & Milán-García, J. Challenges of the blue economy: Evidence and research trends. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2021, 33, 61.
• Mejjad, N., & Rovere, M. Understanding the impacts of blue economy growth on deep-sea ecosystem services. Sustainability. 2021, 13, 12478.
• O’Neill, B. F., Schneider, M. J., & Lozano, A. G. Toward a critical environmental justice approach to ocean equity. Environmental Justice. 2025, 18, 90-99.
• Tyllianakis, E., & Ferrini, S. Personal attitudes and beliefs and willingness to pay to reduce marine plastic pollution in Indonesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2021, 173, 113120.
• Uhlenkott, K., Meyn, K., Vink, A., & Martínez Arbizu, P. A review of megafauna diversity and abundance in an exploration area for polymetallic nodules in the eastern part of the Clarion Clipperton Fracture Zone (North East Pacific), and implications for potential future deep-sea mining in this area. Marine Biodiversity. 2023, 53, 22.
• Yu, T., Liu, R., & Jin, Y. Toward ecosystem-based deep-sea governance: a review of global approaches and China’s participation. Marine Development. 2025, 3, 1.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Sentence Structure and Clarity:

• Comment 13

Several sentences are overly complex or contain multiple clauses, which can obscure key points. For example, in the methodology section, sentences describing the sampling approach could be simplified for better comprehension. Consider breaking long sentences into shorter, more direct statements.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. All such instances were revised to the best ability of the authors, with the support of a professional English language editor.

 

• Comment 14

Technical terms (e.g., "Discrete Choice Experiments," "WTP estimation") are sometimes used without sufficient contextual explanation, which may challenge readers outside the immediate field. Briefly defining these terms upon first use would improve accessibility.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. Such instances were addressed as much as possible and all abbreviations were listed under the declaration section.

Conciseness and Redundancy:

• Comment 15

Occasional redundancy (e.g., repetitive phrasing in the literature review and discussion) dilutes the argument’s impact. For instance, similar points about Sri Lanka’s policy gaps are reiterated across sections. Consolidating these ideas would strengthen conciseness.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. All such instances were revised with the support of a professional English language editor.

 

• Comment 16

Passive voice is overused in some sections (e.g., "It was observed that..." instead of "We observed that..."). Active voice would enhance engagement and clarity.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. All such instances were revised with the support of a professional English language editor.

Terminology Consistency:

• Comment 17

Inconsistent terminology (e.g., "seabed conservation," "deep-sea ecosystem protection," "marine habitat preservation") appears throughout. Standardizing key terms in the introduction and adhering to them consistently would avoid confusion.

 

Response

All such instances were carefully revised. Seabed conservation was maintained throughout the methodology.

 

• Comment 18

Acronyms (e.g., DCE, WTP) are occasionally introduced without full definitions. Ensure all acronyms are spelled out at first mention.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. All abbreviations were introduced at the first mention and were listed under the declaration section.

Transitions and Flow:

• Comment 19

Transitions between sections (e.g., from results to discussion) are abrupt. Adding brief bridging sentences (e.g., "These findings align with prior studies on X, as discussed below...") would improve logical flow.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. All such instances were revised with the support of a professional English language editor.

 

• Comment 20

Paragraphs in the discussion section sometimes lack clear topic sentences, making it difficult to follow the argument’s progression.

 

Response

All such instances were revised with the support of a professional English language editor.

 

Grammar and Syntax:

• Comment 21

Minor grammatical errors (e.g., subject-verb agreement, article usage) are present but infrequent. A thorough proofread for these issues is recommended.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. The support of a professional English language editor was employed to address such concerns.

 

• Comment 22

Syntax issues occasionally arise in complex sentences, such as misplaced modifiers (e.g., "Based on surveys conducted in coastal regions, the data revealed..." instead of "Data from surveys conducted in coastal regions revealed...").

 

Response

The support of a professional English language editor was employed to address such concerns.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript on the topic "Deepwater Dilemmas: Public Perceptions of Deepwater Mining and the Future of Sri Lanka's Blue Economy" is technically competent, has great practical significance for the region and corresponds to the discipline of the journal.

Comments:
the topic of the manuscript now looks like a journalistic one, that is, not scientific, but the journal is scientific. Therefore, I propose to change the title and enter the word "Research...."

Clearly highlight the scientific and research novelty

Formulate conclusions with clearer figures and recommendations, as this is done in the "abstract" section

Do the research results indicate interaction with a group of people, did the authors comply with the requirements of the "Informed Consent Statement" section?

Any research article describing a study involving humans should contain this statement. Written informed consent for publication must be obtained from participating patients who can be identified (including the patients themselves). Please state "Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper" if applicable. You might also add “Not applicable” for studies not involving humans.

Author Response

Authors are thankful for the valuable comments of the reviewers that improved the overall quality of the manuscript. All the revisions suggested have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. In addition to these, authors are willing to comply with any additional revisions suggested by the reviewers and the editorial board to further improve the manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3

General Comments

The submitted manuscript on the topic "Deepwater Dilemmas: Public Perceptions of Deepwater Mining and the Future of Sri Lanka's Blue Economy" is technically competent, has great practical significance for the region and corresponds to the discipline of the journal.

 

Response

The authors welcome the valuable comments of the reviewer.

 

• Comment 1

The topic of the manuscript now looks like a journalistic one, that is, not scientific, but the journal is scientific. Therefore, I propose to change the title and enter the word "Research...."

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. The title of the manuscript was revised as “Deep-Sea Dilemmas: Evaluation of Public Perceptions on Deep-Sea Mineral Mining and the Future of Sri Lanka’s Blue Economy” based on the comment of the reviewer.

 

• Comment 2

Clearly highlight the scientific and research novelty.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. Please note that we incorporated several new paragraphs into the introduction section based on the comments of all the reviewers. In addition to the sections added to highlight the knowledge gaps in literature, the following paragraph was revised to emphasize the rationale for this study.

 

“Failures in incorporating ecosystem service valuation can lead into irreversible environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, which ultimately imposes higher long-term costs [34]. Policymakers must weigh these economic opportunities against the ecological and social trade-offs, ensuring that resource extraction does not compromise marine biodiversity or the livelihoods of future generations. Despite the growing concerns on the importance of conducting coastal ecosystem valuations, there is a lack of region-specific studies, particularly for countries like Sri Lanka. Further, the public perceptions and preferences for seabed conservation have been limitedly studied in Sri Lanka. Addressing this gap is crucial to establish a blue economy based sustainable seabed mining framework, tailored to local socio-economic and environmental contexts. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate public perceptions and WTP for mitigating the environmental impacts of seabed mining in Sri Lanka for the first time. The findings of this study provide empirical evidence on necessary trade-offs to ensure sustainability in seabed mining and supports policy development in line with the blue economy framework, while offering insights into balancing economic development with environmental sustainability.”

 

• Comment 3

Formulate conclusions with clearer figures and recommendations, as this is done in the "abstract" section.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. The conclusion section was modified as follows after considering the comments of all the reviewers.

 

“5. Conclusions

The findings revealed a significant public support for seabed conservation, with a mean WTP ranging between LKR 1,067.86 and LKR 3,532.02. The RPL model provided a more realistic value of LKR 3,532.02 for WTP. Young, female, and educated individuals, with low-income levels, demonstrated a strong influence on the perceptions and WTP. However, financial constraints among respondents highlighted the need for government support or alternative funding mechanisms to support sustainable seabed management. It was evident that when the awareness of deep seabed mining is limited, respondents tend to denote a strong curiosity to learn more and a growing concern on its impacts. Participants emphasized the necessity for stringent regulations and collective action by community groups and government institutions to ease these impacts and protect the marine environment.

 

The necessity of both regulatory and market-based incentives and policy tools to promote sustainable seabed management in Sri Lanka has been underscored by the findings. Integrating these evidence-based preferences into policy design will ensure that conservation interventions are financially inclusive, socially acceptable, and ecologically effective. Public education campaigns should be implemented across the country, especially in coastal and rural areas, to raise awareness and foster greater community engagement. In addition, policy decisions should be made in consultation with stakeholders to account for their perspectives and needs. Providing financial incentives and subsidies for sustainable practices, especially to low-income groups, was recognized as a way to enable more equitable participation.

 

In line with the national priorities, legal and regulatory structures, the proposed policy measures can be operationalized within Sri Lanka’s existing blue economy and coastal resource management frameworks, particularly through national agencies. Implementation can be integrated into ongoing national seabed conservation plans and marine spatial planning initiatives. Potential barriers such as limited funding allocations, lack of transparency, fragmented institutional coordination and weak enforcement capacity must be acknowledged in this process. A phased approach involving public-private partnerships, effective institutional and expert network, data sharing mechanism, targeted budgetary allocations, capacity-building of enforcement agencies, as well as the establishment of multi-stakeholder governance platforms is recommended. Further research especially involving underrepresented communities and strengthening institutional capacity through training, technology, and collaboration are recommended to sustain the seabed conservation in Sri Lanka, while allowing for responsible blue economic activities.”

 

• Comment 4

Do the research results indicate interaction with a group of people, did the authors comply with the requirements of the "Informed Consent Statement" section?

 

Response

Yes. The authors obtained informed written consent from all the respondents prior to data collection. The relevant information was added under the declaration section.

 

“Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee (ERC) of the Faculty of Agriculture and Plantation Management, Wayamba University of Sri Lanka (ERC/2024/009; Approval Date: 03 April 2024). Informed written consent was acquired from the respondents before collection of data.”

 

• Comment 5

Any research article describing a study involving humans should contain this statement. Written informed consent for publication must be obtained from participating patients who can be identified (including the patients themselves). Please state "Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper" if applicable. You might also add “Not applicable” for studies not involving humans.

 

Response

The authors are thankful for highlighting this. The authors obtained informed written consent from all the respondents prior to data collection. The relevant information was added as mentioned below under the declaration section.

 

“Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee (ERC) of the Faculty of Agriculture and Plantation Management, Wayamba University of Sri Lanka (ERC/2024/009; Approval Date: 03 April 2024). Informed written consent was acquired from the respondents before collection of data.”

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been substantially improved and now addresses all major concerns raised by reviewers. The authors have made significant efforts to enhance methodological transparency, policy relevance, and overall clarity. The study provides valuable empirical evidence on public perceptions and willingness to pay for seabed conservation in Sri Lanka, filling an important gap in the literature for developing countries in the Global South context.

While the authors acknowledge sampling limitations, a brief quantitative sensitivity analysis showing how WTP estimates might change with a more balanced sample would strengthen the robustness claims. The policy implementation section could benefit from more specific examples of successful financing mechanisms used in comparable developing countries. Some technical passages in the methodology section remain complex and could benefit from additional simplification for broader accessibility. The conclusion could more explicitly highlight the unique contribution of being the first WTP assessment for seabed conservation in Sri Lanka.

(1) Could you provide quantitative sensitivity analysis showing how WTP estimates might change with a more demographically balanced sample (e.g., weighted adjustments)?
(2) What specific financing mechanisms (e.g., blue bonds, payment for ecosystem services) would you recommend for implementing the suggested subsidies for low-income groups?
(3) How would you address potential temporal limitations in your cross-sectional design regarding changing public awareness about seabed mining over time?

Author Response

Comment 13

Several sentences are overly complex or contain multiple clauses, which can obscure key points. For example, in the methodology section, sentences describing the sampling approach could be simplified for better comprehension. Consider breaking long sentences into shorter, more direct statements.

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. All such instances were revised to the best ability of the authors, with the support of a professional English language editor.

Comment 19

Transitions between sections (e.g., from results to discussion) are abrupt. Adding brief bridging sentences (e.g., "These findings align with prior studies on X, as discussed below...") would improve logical flow.

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. All such instances were revised with the support of a professional English language editor.

Comment

Minor grammatical errors (e.g., subject-verb agreement, article usage) are present but infrequent. A thorough proofread for these issues is recommended.

Response

The authors are thankful for the suggestion. The support of a professional English language editor was employed to address such concerns.

Comment 22

Syntax issues occasionally arise in complex sentences, such as misplaced modifiers (e.g., "Based on surveys conducted in coastal regions, the data revealed..." instead of "Data from surveys conducted in coastal regions revealed...").

Response

The support of a professional English language editor was employed to address such concerns.