Fishery-Based Ecotourism in Developing Countries Can Enhance the Social-Ecological Resilience of Coastal Fishers—A Case Study of Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the manuscript about fishery based ecotourism of Bangladesh and has been well written and organized. The following are some of my comments for the authors to consider:

1. The importance of this research should be further highlight in the introduction section e.g. policy contribution and theoretical contribution.
2. good to see authors have included a theoretical framework in this study. However, authors need to better integrate this theoretical framework into their study. e.g. how your research methods for data collection is related to the framework? Otherwise, the theoretical framework seems to be out of place in this manuscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I am writing this to submit my comments on your research article with the following details.

Manuscript title: Fostering coastal fishing communities' social-ecological resilience through fishery-based ecotourism in the developing countries - A case study of Bangladesh

Manuscript Number: water-1057001

Journal Submitted: Water

General Comments:

This paper deals with the socio-ecological resilience among the coastal fishermen communities in an island in Bangladesh. This paper discusses the Fisheries based ecotourism which is a relatively new concept and holds relevance with the modern age. However, this manuscript does not fall within the general scope of Water. Furthermore, this paper contains too many details that must be deleted. There are several repeated details in the study area discussed in the introduction and methods sections. The discussions are poor and the introduction and abstract need more attention for their contents. Please see some of my comments as below.

Specific Comments:

Title: The title needs to be revised especially an unusual use of communities’ social-ecological…….

Abstract:

L 19: What is FbE?

The abstract does not highlight the main findings…..

Why would you more emphasize on the application aspect of this study in the abstract?

The abstract must be revised. The authors need to replenish with more study details and their findings, on the basis of which they are advocating the usefulness of this study.

Introduction:

The introduction is too long and must be cut short to avoid jargon.

L 138-143: Irrelevant fancy statements.

Bangladesh as a FbE destination with a focus on Saint Martin's Island must be shifted to Methods.

Theoretical frameworks do not belong to the introduction section, therefore, must be shifted to the methods section.

If we see your objectives, they do not align with the abstract.

The spelling of heading 3 is wrong.

Materials and Methods:

Methods contain several typos. Please fix them all carefully.

Methods are poorly described and cannot help the new authors to follow this study.

Results and Discussion:

Please consider joining the results and discussions section into one. Results are written well but the discussions are poor and need attention.

Figures and Tables:

Figure 2 does not hold relevance, hence must be deleted.

Conclusions

Conclusions are too long and repetitive of what is mostly said in the preceding parts of the manuscript.

References:

The references list is too long. Please try to reduce it, if possible.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for sending the revised version. I can see that you have made substantial changes to the manuscript and that the manuscript appears to be improved a lot. However, I can see that you need to perform the English language and grammar checks with the help of a native speaker. 

The other issues I have noticed are that you have responded to all of the comments but did not perform the changes properly. I would like to advise you that please re-consult the previous documents and try to perform the revisions accordingly. 

You said that you have changed the title but there is a little change in actuality. Please consider. The same is the case with the ract. Please revise it thoroughly.

I advise you to try to revise your manuscript rather than putting all your effort into writing lengthy rebuttals to the comments. 

Please revise your recommendations section and try to reduce its length by keeping only useful sentences. Others must go.

You have tried to misguide by misquoting the references as well. I hope you do not repeat it. 

In short, you need to perform careful English corrections along with Major Revisions. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf