Social Perception and Engagement in Mangrove Restoration: A Case Study in Central America

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presented is interesting and responds to the line of interest of the journal.

With the purpose of improving it, we suggest the authors to pay attention to the following considerations:

 

1. About the abstract. Adjust the number of words to the norm of the journal.

2. About the Figures

The figure: Driving forces-Pressure-State-State-Impact-Responses does not have a figure caption with number and description. The letters inside the figure are not legible. Remember, you are writing for readers who do not necessarily know the study area.

When incorporating it, you should correct the number of the following figures.

3. On the structure of the article.  It is suggested to restructure the article. Move the description of the research done in the introduction to the materials and methods section. It is suggested to finish the introduction with the objective or research question.

4.            The Conclusions section should be included.

5.            On the Discussion of the results.

 

It is suggested to include in the article the recommendations derived from the study on the perception of the sustainable management of these ecosystems. It could be placed in a differentiated subtitle.

 

It is suggested to strengthen the Discussion section. In the last 5 years there has been an increase in the number of studies on the subject of reference. These could contribute to reveal and better position this result.

 

 Some suggestions:

Cruz Portorreal, Y.; Beenaerts, N.; Koedam, N.; Reyes Dominguez, O.J.; Milanes, C.B.; Dahdouh-Guebas, F.; Pérez Montero, O. Perception of Mangrove Social–Ecological System Governance in Southeastern Cuba. Water 2024, 16, 2495. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16172495

1.       Dahdouh-Guebas F, Ajonina GN, Amir AA, Andradi-Brown DA, Aziz I, Balke T, Barbier EB, Cannicci S, Cragg SM, Cunha-Lignon M, Curnick DJ, Duarte CM, Duke NC, Endsor C, Fratini S, Feller IC, Fromard F, Hugé J, Huxham M, Kairo JG, Kajita T, Kathiresan K, Koedam N, Lee SY, Lin H-J, Mackenzie JR, Mangora MM, Marchand C, Meziane T, Minchinton TE, Pettorelli N, Polanía J, Polgar G, Poti M, Primavera J, Quarto A, Rog SM, Satyanarayana B, Schaeffer-Novelli Y, Spalding M, Van der Stocken T, Wodehouse D, Yong JWH, Zimmer M and Friess DA (2020) Public Perceptions of Mangrove Forests Matter for Their Conservation. Front. Mar. Sci. 7:603651. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.603651

 

 

 

 

Author Response

1. About the summary:

Comment: We suggest adjusting the word count to meet journal standards.

Response: We adjusted the abstract to 200 words, ensuring that it is concise and covers the key points of the study without exceeding the maximum length allowed.

2. About the figures:

Comment: The figure “Driving Forces-Pressure-State-State-Impact-Responses” does not have a figure number or description, and the text within the figure is not legible. Also, it is recommended to correct the numbering of the following figures.

Response: The figure is placed in the discussion to analyze the results within the DPSIR framework, allowing us to interpret the restoration actions in response to the identified pressure factors.

3. Article structure:

Comment: It is suggested to move the description of the research conducted in the introduction to the materials and methods section. It is also suggested that the introduction end with the objectives or research questions.

Response: The manuscript was restructured by moving the detailed description of the research conducted to the materials and methods section. In addition, the introduction was ended with a clear statement of the objectives of the study.

4. Conclusions Section:

Comment: A conclusions section should be included.

Response: We add a conclusion section of the main findings of the study, connecting these results with implications for mangrove restoration and recommendations for future research.

5. Discussion of Results:

Comment: We suggest including recommendations derived from the study on the perception of sustainable ecosystem management, and strengthening the discussion section by incorporating recent studies from the last 5 years.

Response: We will strengthen the discussion section by including relevant studies on mangrove restoration and social perception, such as those suggested in the report (Cruz Portorreal, et al., 2024; Dahdouh-Guebas, et al., 2020). We will also add specific recommendations derived from the results of the study on sustainable management of mangrove ecosystems.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments to land-3228085, Social perception and engagement in mangrove restoration: a case study in Central America, by Del Cid et al.

 

This manuscript describes a case study of ecological restoration vs. current use in Panamá. The authors find opportunities for future sustainable management if the interests of charcoal producers are intertwined with conservation and restoration efforts. 

The text is fluid and clear. I do not feel like Land would be the optimal venue for this article, as it is more related with the objectives and aims of Forest MPDI, but I will let the Editors to consider that point.

My only concern is regarding the graphical features, which are very low quality:

1. Figure 1 is of no use to the readers. It is unclear, and the flow of ideas does not allow the reader to understand the methods. If preserved, the authors should change this for a proper flow diagram of their methods (as exemplified in PRISMA, https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-flow-diagram for systematic reviews).

2. Figure 1 (the new flow diagram) should be accompanied by a new table 2, after current table 1, describing each of the five sets of questions, the number of questions per section, the number of participants, and other demographic data.

3. Figure 1 currently does not have a figure legend. 

4. Figures 2 -4 are of little informative value, as there is no previous background within each figure to interpret the percentages presented. Given that this article presents multivariate responses derived from a questionnaire, the authors should present their results on radar charts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_chart

where each angle of the radar chart represents each of the five sections of the questionnaire, the central area equals 0%, and the border area 100%. 

This figure would replace current figures 2-4, and would be informative to readers, allowing also to reduce the extension of the results section which is redundant with these figures.

5. Fig 5 and 6 present comparisons without error bars. The comparison is not informative, unless there is a mean value per geographic area and an associate error per the whole study area. Is there any trend at the scale of the individual location? rearranging this figure would allow to answer this question.

6. A photographic appendix or the inclusion of photographs following figure 2 would allow to understand the degree of degradation in each area or category.

7. The acknowledgments are in Spanish.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is ok, but the results section is too large, and the acknowledgment needs translation.

Author Response

1. Quality of the figures: Comment: we criticize the low quality of the figures and suggest the use of radar graphs to present the results of the questionnaire.

Response: We will improve the quality of the current figures, and will consider replacing Figures 2-4 with radar graphs, as suggested, to more clearly visualize the multivariate responses to the questionnaire. This change will allow readers to interpret the results more efficiently.

2. Errors in the Comparisons of Figures 5 and 6: Comment: Figures 5 and 6 present comparisons without error bars, which makes interpretation difficult. We suggest reorganizing these figures to include mean values by geographic area and error bars.

Response: We will restructure Figures 5 and 6 to include the error bars and error bars by geographic area where the surveys were administered. In this way, the results will be more accurate and easier to interpret.

3. Include a Photographic Appendix: Comment: We suggest including a photographic appendix or photographs after Figure 2 to show the degree of degradation in each area or category.

Response: We believe the addition of a photographic appendix that visually documents the state of degradation of the mangroves in the different areas studied is pertinent.

4. Translation of the Acknowledgements: Comment: The acknowledgements are in Spanish and should be translated into English.

Response: We made the translation in the acknowledgements section into English to comply with the language requirements of the journal.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed a revised version of MS Land 3390, titled "Social perception and engagement in mangrove restoration: a case study in Central America."

 

My concerns have been solved, I have no further comments. I hope this article will expand stakeholders' social commitment to promote mangrove conservation in Panama and elsewhere.

 

Sincerely