Understanding the Effects of Intersectionality on Coping Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Perspective of Small-Scale Cross-Border Fish Traders in Lake Chilwa, Malawi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this valuable manuscript. The paper makes a novel contribution to our understanding of the impacts of COVID-19 on fisheries value chains and also highlights an aspect of gender-based violence in SSF that is usually overlooked. You have shone a light on the lived experience of cross-border fish traders during the pandemic and this study provides a sensitive and nuanced view that is likely to inform SSF researchers and managers far beyond the study context. Your focus on the gendered relations involved in this case builds a strong narrative in the paper. Though the existing manuscript highlights several important ideas and significant findings, I have a few suggestions about how the paper could be strengthened to do justice to this important topic and the framing of intersectionality. I have also highlighted below some issues that you highlighted but which could benefit from greater discussion and reflection. I hope these comments and suggestions are useful in revising the manuscript.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

1.     Strengthen the intersectional approach and improve presentation of data in the results and discussion

In the introduction and methods there is a strong focus on intersectionality and the reasons for selecting an intersectional approach for your analysis. This section is very well written, and I appreciated your thoughtful definitions of gender and intersectionality. You state that you will focus on sex, marital status, age, and educational status. However, when it came to the findings section it seems like only gender is presented, though you do summarise the other characteristics in section 3.1. In the discussion, the challenges faced by single mothers and widows are mentioned, but there are no findings about this in the results section. Based on the strong emphasis on intersectionality in the other sections, I was expecting more links to intersectionality and the diversity within and between groups in the results and discussion, rather than slipping back into a typical comparison between men and women (though this is still required as well). Deeper discussion about the cultural norms, gender relations and power dynamics between social groups would enrich the discussion further. Either the intersectional aspects of the findings should be highlighted more to match your strong focus on this lens, or the introduction and methods should be modified to present the reality of the findings, or perhaps you could explain why the characteristics you studied did not reveal the diversity in impacts/experiences you expected (if that was the case). Were there limitations in the study that made it difficult to interrogate these intersections?

 

2.     Improve presentation of data and figures

In addition to the general comments on the intersectional framing above, the way the data is presented could support this approach better. Several findings were presented without visually showing gender-disaggregated results but, since your focus is on diversity and intersectionalities, I felt it would be useful to show gender disaggregation (or other relevant characteristics) in all of your figures instead of grouping all traders together. There were times I was looking for more details about the quantitative data so that would have been helpful to support your narrative. For example, in Section 3.4.1 some gender differences are described but then the figure does not show any of this – which serves to obscure the strong points you are making in the text, or in Figure 5, which describes gendered results but does not show gender-disaggregated data. Is there a reason for presenting this aggregated data? If so, I suggest you explain the reasons for grouping or not grouping data, as it is currently confusing for the reader.

 

Table 1: The way the percentages are presented in Table 1 is different for the social data (i.e., vertically they add up to 100% of women or men) compared to the fish trading rows (i.e., horizontally they add up to 100% of each fish category being traded by women and men), this makes it less intuitive to interpret and it’s not clear how the fish trading percentages are calculated and why they are presented this way. Are you talking about the percentage of traded fish (kg or number of fish) that is traded by women and men, or are you talking about the percentage of women and men that trade each type of fish? Based on the text, I think you are referring to the latter, so if the focus is the percentage of women and men that stated they trade each category then it is not clear why the men + women =100% for each category. Please clarify if these percentages relate to the percentage of the fish or the percentage of men or women. Also, does this calculation control for the difference in n for men and women?

 

Section 3.2: This section focuses on measures impacted the fish traders’ business, but the Figure legend just refers to measures in place. Do you know what measures were in place everywhere? Was everyone subjected to the same measures? I wanted to know if the differences in response where due to different measures actually being implemented for different respondents, or whether the difference is due to their difference in opinion about the impacts. Some clarification on this Figure is needed – does it show diversity in what was actually in place or do the findings relate to impacts, or patchy implementation?

 

3.     Include additional reference to GBV in SSF literature

A relevant reference from the small-scale fisheries literature that should be included in this paper is Mangubhai et al. (2023). Your paper makes a valuable contribution to build on that review and they have highlighted the risk of GBV for fish traders, including that perpetrated by local authorities and associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Full citations is: Mangubhai, S., Barclay, K. M., Lawless, S., & Makhoul, N. (2023). Gender‐based violence: Relevance for fisheries practitioners. Fish and fisheries, 24(4), 582-594.

 

4.     Include additional context about the study site

In line 201-202, the matrimonial system of marriage is mentioned. It would be useful to define this and state the relevance to the study (e.g., shared assets in marriage or changed decision-making for women or men who are married etc). It would also be helpful to provide additional study site context regarding the gender relations or other relevant social norms, cultural or livelihood information, for readers who are not familiar with the context. For example, in the results and discussion there are statements made about household decision-making, but it is not clear if this is typical of the usual gender relations or different, as a result of the pandemic. Also, is the educational and marital status of the participants in this study (and any gender differences) consistent with the wider area or the national scale? As a reader, I just wanted a bit more understanding of the gender (and other relevant intersections) context to help strengthen the interpretation of the findings.

 

Also, please provide additional information about the COVID pandemic and the site context in terms of health. General information about the severity of the COVID pandemic or the response/measures in place would be helpful background for the individual experiences of the study participants.

 

5.     Acknowledgement of domestic violence

An increase in domestic violence was one of the gendered impacts of the pandemic measures documented in several contexts. This issue needs to be acknowledged and explored more thoroughly in your results and discussion, as the discussion about gender-based violence is mainly focused on the violence perpetrated by the authorities. The sentence that notes this issue in the discussion is in line 512-513 but this reference to “internal and external sexual exploitation” is not clear at all. Please explain this more fully and acknowledge the prevalence of domestic violence before the pandemic as well, as part of the gender relations context. Also, the reference used there is a paper about digital dating apps, which seems like an odd choice when several other papers and reports have highlighted the increased risk of domestic violence as well.   

 

6.     Inequitable access to information and exposure to covid

Given your findings on gendered differences in opinions about the COVID measures and also the issue where some women implemented social distancing within their homes after misunderstanding the rules, I wondered whether there is an issue here around inequitable access to information about COVID measures. Do you think that everyone would have equal access to the information, and would they have equal ability to understand that guidance? E.g., would people who can’t read have less information at their disposal? Was information delivered in an accessible way for people with disabilities or with different education levels?

 

I’m curious about whether you have thoughts on why the misunderstandings you reported where only from women, or did men also not follow the rules correctly but there was less of an impact when that happened – does this tell us something about household decision-making and/or sexual coercion? You mention in line 317 that “the behaviour of men brought COVID-19 to households”, was that due to not following the rules? Did women implement social distancing at home because they were worried about their partners’ behaviour increase the risks?  

 

7.     I’d recommend the inclusion of a positionality statement in the methods section

 

 

DETAILED COMMENTS

Line 50: It seems like a word may be missing, rather than “have put in evidence how” I suggest something like “have provided evidence about how”.

 

Line 44-56: This paragraph includes a mix of present and past tense. The same tense should be used consistently throughout the paragraph, or the time that you are referring to should be clarified. E.g., I thought perhaps the past tense is only being used to refer to the COVID-19 pandemic and the present tense is being used for general statements, but then I wondered if the last sentence be past tense too? At present it is unclear which sentences refer to contagions in general vs the COVID-19 pandemic, so some clarification would be useful.

 

Line 82: This is a great sentence and I wanted to know what some of the examples of these mal-affects might be here. However, this next paragraph hints at these a bit, perhaps they should be combined into one paragraph, or some examples from the Afrika & Ajumbo paper could be added after line 82.

 

Line: 88-94: Excellent definition here of gendered COVID-19 impacts

 

Line 170: There is a question mark after the first “associated measures”, but I think this should be a full stop/period since it reads as a statement. I thought this sentence should just say that the study will address the following questions, and not mention the “associated measures” until the first question.

 

Line 169-174: Since you have centred the concept of intersectionality in the introduction, perhaps the research questions should reflect this, not just focussing on men and women.

 

Line 174: What do you mean by “amplifying”? I was curious if this refers to the fish traders themselves, or if you are referring to support from government services, CSOs or some other intervention here.

 

Line 209: This is the first mention of the EMMA toolkit, so it should be written out in full with an appropriate citation.

 

Figure 2: “Boarder” should be border in the legend

 

Line 324: some words are missing, it should say 47.1% “of men”

Line 326: a word is missing before females, maybe “more” or “a greater number of”

 

Figure 3: the labels can’t be read easily on the blue background. Please adjust the colours

I also suggest that the colour legend should be moved to the top right of the figure so that the text describing the figure can be directly below the horizontal axis.

 

Line 334-336: Due to the incomplete quotation marks and italics, it is not clear if this is part of a direct quotation or not. Please correct the punctuation and make it clear who is making this statement

 

Line 357: Where did the fish stocks pile up? Is the pile-up due to the delays or a cause of delays, or both? It seems like both occurred so it would be helpful to explain this a bit more.

 

Line 365: Was there a gender difference in the percentage of traders who said they did not benefit from the safety net programs?

 

3.4.3 Title: Remove “access to”. Women are subjected to sexual exploitation, they do not access it themselves through their own choice.

 

I wondered if male focus groups also acknowledged the sexual exploitation that occurred. Did they have much to say about it? In Line 419 you mention this but I’m not clear what it means. Are you saying that they thought the abuse was less likely to take place than you said (i.e., they didn’t believe you) or that the sexual exploitation of women is less likely than the physical abuse of men? Please clarify. Did any women talk about the attitudes of the husbands towards this issue?

 

Line 387: suggest to change this to the “poor” availability or “lack of” availability

 

3.6.1.: Why do the men use loan sharks but women use VSLs? Is this due to the sums of money involved or do men not have access to VSLs? This seems an additional risk exposure for men. Additional explanation here would be useful for readers unfamiliar with the context.

 

Figure 5: The legend states that this figure presents gendered coping mechanisms, so it would be better if this could be presented as gender-disaggregated data, to show who used which mechanisms. Are you aware of any intersectional aspects to the coping mechanisms? Were some people able to access better/safer mechanisms than others? If so, this would interesting to discuss

 

Line 477: when referring to a reference in the sentence the parentheses must be corrected to just include the years, e.g., by Smith et al., (2020)

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is very high. Some missing words and small punctuation errors/typos have been included in the line-by-line comments in the feedback. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1: 27^th January 2025

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this valuable manuscript. The paper makes a novel contribution to our understanding of the impacts of COVID-19 on fisheries value chains and also highlights an aspect of gender-based violence in SSF that is usually overlooked. You have shone a light on the lived experience of cross-border fish traders during the pandemic and this study provides a sensitive and nuanced view that is likely to inform SSF researchers and managers far beyond the study context. Your focus on the gendered relations involved in this case builds a strong narrative in the paper. Though the existing manuscript highlights several important ideas and significant findings, I have a few suggestions about how the paper could be strengthened to do justice to this important topic and the framing of intersectionality. I have also highlighted below some issues that you highlighted but which could benefit from greater discussion and reflection. I hope these comments and suggestions are useful in revising the manuscript.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. Strengthen the intersectional approach and improve presentation of data in the results and discussion

In the introduction and methods there is a strong focus on intersectionality and the reasons for selecting an intersectional approach for your analysis. This section is very well written, and I appreciated your thoughtful definitions of gender and intersectionality. You state that you will focus on sex, marital status, age, and educational status. However, when it came to the findings section it seems like only gender is presented, though you do summarise the other characteristics in section 3.1. In the discussion, the challenges faced by single mothers and widows are mentioned, but there are no findings about this in the results section. Based on the strong emphasis on intersectionality in the other sections, I was expecting more links to intersectionality and the diversity within and between groups in the results and discussion, rather than slipping back into a typical comparison between men and women (though this is still required as well). Deeper discussion about the cultural norms, gender relations and power dynamics between social groups would enrich the discussion further. Either the intersectional aspects of the findings should be highlighted more to match your strong focus on this lens, or the introduction and methods should be modified to present the reality of the findings, or perhaps you could explain why the characteristics you studied did not reveal the diversity in impacts/experiences you expected (if that was the case). Were there limitations in the study that made it difficult to interrogate these intersections?

Response: We have revised the introduction to focus exclusively on males and females, as the data currently available provides detailed insights specifically addressing these groups and the research questions. We will note this as a limitation, suggesting that future studies adopting an intersectional approach should incorporate more diverse groups. Additionally, we have revised the discussion to include aspects of cultural norms, gender relations, and power dynamics between social groups to enrich the analysis further.  Line 109 to 117

 

2. Improve presentation of data and figures

In addition to the general comments on the intersectional framing above, the way the data is presented could support this approach better. Several findings were presented without visually showing gender-disaggregated results but, since your focus is on diversity and intersectionalities, I felt it would be useful to show gender disaggregation (or other relevant characteristics) in all of your figures instead of grouping all traders together. There were times I was looking for more details about the quantitative data so that would have been helpful to support your narrative. For example, in Section 3.4.1 some gender differences are described but then the figure does not show any of this – which serves to obscure the strong points you are making in the text, or in Figure 5, which describes gendered results but does not show gender-disaggregated data. Is there a reason for presenting this aggregated data? If so, I suggest you explain the reasons for grouping or not grouping data, as it is currently confusing for the reader.

 

Response: All figures have been revised to present the gender persepctives as suggested by the rveiwer

 

Table 1: The way the percentages are presented in Table 1 is different for the social data (i.e., vertically they add up to 100% of women or men) compared to the fish trading rows (i.e., horizontally they add up to 100% of each fish category being traded by women and men), this makes it less intuitive to interpret and it’s not clear how the fish trading percentages are calculated and why they are presented this way. Are you talking about the percentage of traded fish (kg or number of fish) that is traded by women and men, or are you talking about the percentage of women and men that trade each type of fish? Based on the text, I think you are referring to the latter, so if the focus is the percentage of women and men that stated they trade each category then it is not clear why the men + women =100% for each category. Please clarify if these percentages relate to the percentage of the fish or the percentage of men or women. Also, does this calculation control for the difference in n for men and women?

Response: One of the co-authors was responsible for generating the table, and we initially overlooked checking the last row related to the type of fish responses. The data has now been thoroughly reviewed, and the figures have been updated accordingly. Calculations are based on males and females separately, with the totals for each group summing to 100%.

Section 3.2: This section focuses on measures impacted the fish traders’ business, but the Figure legend just refers to measures in place. Do you know what measures were in place everywhere? Was everyone subjected to the same measures? I wanted to know if the differences in response where due to different measures actually being implemented for different respondents, or whether the difference is due to their difference in opinion about the impacts. Some clarification on this Figure is needed – does it show diversity in what was actually in place or do the findings relate to impacts, or patchy implementation?

Response: The measures were provided by the governments of Malawi and Mozambique and included quarantine requirements for individuals crossing the border. We developed our questionnaire based on these measures. Our objective was to understand how the control measures implemented by the two governments—such as restrictions on border crossings, movement, and interactions—impacted traders' businesses. The responses from traders, collected through the survey, reflect their perceptions of how these measures affected their business operations.

 

3. Include additional reference to GBV in SSF literature

A relevant reference from the small-scale fisheries literature that should be included in this paper is Mangubhai et al. (2023). Your paper makes a valuable contribution to build on that review and they have highlighted the risk of GBV for fish traders, including that perpetrated by local authorities and associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Full citations is: Mangubhai, S., Barclay, K. M., Lawless, S., & Makhoul, N. (2023). Gender‐based violence: Relevance for fisheries practitioners. Fish and fisheries, 24(4), 582-594.

Response: This is great and we appreciate for your recommendations. We have cited it and included in our reference. Line 566

 

4. Include additional context about the study site

In line 201-202, the matrimonial system of marriage is mentioned. It would be useful to define this and state the relevance to the study (e.g., shared assets in marriage or changed decision-making for women or men who are married etc). It would also be helpful to provide additional study site context regarding the gender relations or other relevant social norms, cultural or livelihood information, for readers who are not familiar with the context. For example, in the results and discussion there are statements made about household decision-making, but it is not clear if this is typical of the usual gender relations or different, as a result of the pandemic. Also, is the educational and marital status of the participants in this study (and any gender differences) consistent with the wider area or the national scale? As a reader, I just wanted a bit more understanding of the gender (and other relevant intersections) context to help strengthen the interpretation of the findings.

 

Also, please provide additional information about the COVID pandemic and the site context in terms of health. General information about the severity of the COVID pandemic or the response/measures in place would be helpful background for the individual experiences of the study participants.

Response: We have revised as suggested. Line 174 to 211

 

5. Acknowledgement of domestic violence

An increase in domestic violence was one of the gendered impacts of the pandemic measures documented in several contexts. This issue needs to be acknowledged and explored more thoroughly in your results and discussion, as the discussion about gender-based violence is mainly focused on the violence perpetrated by the authorities. The sentence that notes this issue in the discussion is in line 512-513 but this reference to “internal and external sexual exploitation” is not clear at all. Please explain this more fully and acknowledge the prevalence of domestic violence before the pandemic as well, as part of the gender relations context. Also, the reference used there is a paper about digital dating apps, which seems like an odd choice when several other papers and reports have highlighted the increased risk of domestic violence as well.   

Response: We have explained this in the discussion session, we don’t have relevant data to explain it in the results section. Line 510 to 523

 

6. Inequitable access to information and exposure to covid

Given your findings on gendered differences in opinions about the COVID measures and also the issue where some women implemented social distancing within their homes after misunderstanding the rules, I wondered whether there is an issue here around inequitable access to information about COVID measures. Do you think that everyone would have equal access to the information, and would they have equal ability to understand that guidance? E.g., would people who can’t read have less information at their disposal? Was information delivered in an accessible way for people with disabilities or with different education levels?

Response: This is an excellent idea, and we have incorporated it into our discussion. From the descriptive data, it is evident that the majority of our survey respondents were illiterate, so the possibility of misinterpretation of information cannot be overlooked. Line 519 to 523

 

I’m curious about whether you have thoughts on why the misunderstandings you reported where only from women, or did men also not follow the rules correctly but there was less of an impact when that happened – does this tell us something about household decision-making and/or sexual coercion? You mention in line 317 that “the behaviour of men brought COVID-19 to households”, was that due to not following the rules? Did women implement social distancing at home because they were worried about their partners’ behaviour increase the risks?  

Response: This is an excellent idea; however, the questions lack concrete answers as we did not consider this perspective during data collection. What immediately comes to mind is the potential for misinterpretation of information of COVID-19 and how it was disseminated. Many organizations were hesitant to operate or avoided physical contact during this period. Considering the low literacy levels among some groups in the study area, there could have been significant misinterpretation of OVID-19 control measures guidelines, leading to the imposition of overly strict measures. Additionally, it is worth noting that the majority of households in the study area are matrilineal, where women often control household decisions. As a result, some assertive women might have enforced strict measures on their husbands. On the other hand, we can’t also ignore some behavioural factors of men whom might be careless, could also contribute to the spread of the virus. While this remains speculative due to a lack of data, it offers a potential avenue for future exploration. We have added something between 519 and 523.

 

7. I’d recommend the inclusion of a positionality statement in the methods section

Response: We appreciate your suggestion and positionality statement has been included. Line 274 to 283

  

DETAILED COMMENTS

Line 50: It seems like a word may be missing, rather than “have put in evidence how” I suggest something like “have provided evidence about how”.

 

Response: This has been revised and corrected

Line 44-56: This paragraph includes a mix of present and past tense. The same tense should be used consistently throughout the paragraph, or the time that you are referring to should be clarified. E.g., I thought perhaps the past tense is only being used to refer to the COVID-19 pandemic and the present tense is being used for general statements, but then I wondered if the last sentence be past tense too? At present it is unclear which sentences refer to contagions in general vs the COVID-19 pandemic, so some clarification would be useful.

Response: This has been revised and corrected. Line 41 to 58

 

Line 82: This is a great sentence and I wanted to know what some of the examples of these mal-affects might be here. However, this next paragraph hints at these a bit, perhaps they should be combined into one paragraph, or some examples from the Afrika & Ajumbo paper could be added after line 82.

Response: Examples have been included and the statement reads as “However, cross-border trading is mal-affected by gender inequalities like limited access to resources, increased vulnerability to exploitation, limited participation in decision making, and restricted access to credit (Afrika & Ajumbo, 2012)”.  Line 84 to 86

 

Line: 88-94: Excellent definition here of gendered COVID-19 impacts

Response: Thank you for the positive feedback; it is greatly appreciated..

 

Line 170: There is a question mark after the first “associated measures”, but I think this should be a full stop/period since it reads as a statement. I thought this sentence should just say that the study will address the following questions, and not mention the “associated measures” until the first question.

Response: This has been revised and corrected. Line 169

 

Line 169-174: Since you have centred the concept of intersectionality in the introduction, perhaps the research questions should reflect this, not just focussing on men and women.

Response: The results and data in this study specifically focus on males and females; therefore, the research questions align with the scope of the manuscript as it has been presented. Line 169 to 172

 

Line 174: What do you mean by “amplifying”? I was curious if this refers to the fish traders themselves, or if you are referring to support from government services, CSOs or some other intervention here.

Response: This was not revised from conceptualization, and now it has been revised . Line 174

 

Line 209: This is the first mention of the EMMA toolkit, so it should be written out in full with an appropriate citation.

Response: The issue has been revised and corrected; Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis (EMMA). Line 218

 

Figure 2: “Boarder” should be border in the legend

Response: This has been revised and corrected

 

Line 324: some words are missing, it should say 47.1% “of men”

Response: This has been revised Line 350

 

Line 326: a word is missing before females, maybe “more” or “a greater number of”

Response: The issue has been revised and corrected Line 352. 

Figure 3: the labels can’t be read easily on the blue background. Please adjust the colours

I also suggest that the colour legend should be moved to the top right of the figure so that the text describing the figure can be directly below the horizontal axis.

 

Response: This has been revised and corrected; colours have been changed. Figure 3

 

Line 334-336: Due to the incomplete quotation marks and italics, it is not clear if this is part of a direct quotation or not. Please correct the punctuation and make it clear who is making this statement

Response: This has been revised and corrected. Line 359 to 366

 

Line 357: Where did the fish stocks pile up? Is the pile-up due to the delays or a cause of delays, or both? It seems like both occurred so it would be helpful to explain this a bit more.

 Response:

Response: Fish piled in the markets and it has been revised as “All cross-border traders reported that fish stocks piled up in the markets due to movement restrictions during which reduced number of customers. This caused delays in completing sales for their consignments. Line 388 to 389

 

Line 365: Was there a gender difference in the percentage of traders who said they did not benefit from the safety net programs?

Response: Yes, these have been included. Line 398 to 399

 

3.4.3 Title: Remove “access to”. Women are subjected to sexual exploitation; they do not access it themselves through their own choice.

Response: This has noted and revised accordingly Line 401

 

I wondered if male focus groups also acknowledged the sexual exploitation that occurred. Did they have much to say about it? In Line 419 you mention this but I’m not clear what it means. Are you saying that they thought the abuse was less likely to take place than you said (i.e., they didn’t believe you) or that the sexual exploitation of women is less likely than the physical abuse of men? Please clarify. Did any women talk about the attitudes of the husbands towards this issue?

Response: Normally, in the surveys, males did not report experiencing sexual exploitation but rather physical abuse. As a result; they decided to send their wives into business to sustain their operations. However, we have included this statement; On the other hand, FGDs with male participants revealed that “We were aware of cases where our female business counterparts faced sexual exploitation, mostly by Mozambican police. However, cases of sexual exploitation were rare for men. The main challenge we faced was that our wives often denied us intimacy during the COVID-19 period. Line 418 to 421

Line 387: suggest to change this to the “poor” availability or “lack of” availability

Response: We appreciate the insights, it was revised. Line 424 to 425

 

3.6.1.: Why do the men use loan sharks but women use VSLs? Is this due to the sums of money involved or do men not have access to VSLs? This seems an additional risk exposure for men. Additional explanation here would be useful for readers unfamiliar with the context.

Response: We added a statement which reads “VSLAs are culturally perceived as activities primarily for women, resulting in limited participation by men. As a result, men often resort to risky income-coping mechanisms, such as relying on loan sharks. Line 453 to 456

 

Figure 5: The legend states that this figure presents gendered coping mechanisms, so it would be better if this could be presented as gender-disaggregated data, to show who used which mechanisms. Are you aware of any intersectional aspects to the coping mechanisms? Were some people able to access better/safer mechanisms than others? If so, this would interesting to discuss

 Response: This has been noted and rectified, now its Figure 6

 

Line 477: when referring to a reference in the sentence the parentheses must be corrected to just include the years, e.g., by Smith et al., (2020)

 Response: This has been noted and rectified, This has been rectified.  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is very high. Some missing words and small punctuation errors/typos have been included in the line-by-line comments in the feedback. 

Submission Date

06 September 2024

Date of this review

13 Jan 2025 08:02:00

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-organized and explores a particular problem that affects a specific population of people in a specific latitude and individuals engaged in a specific activity /transboundary fish trade/.  

The author has introduced the reader to the methodology of the study. The implemented methodologies are supported by arguments and structured. 

The combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods is impressive, which contributes to the authenticity of the data presented. The method of focus groups contributes immensely to the quality of the research. We can assume that the researchers have selected a good combination of research methods. In addition, they have had close contact with the research subjects through the implementation of a workshop as well as conducting expert interviews

What is impressive is the application of intersectionalities, which considers and shows what happens when multiple axes of inequalities come into relation. In this way, the particularities of gender are considered in interactive and complex relationships with other factors such as ethnicity, class, age, marital status, income

The published results provide a different perspective on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Certainly the pandemic has led to financial losses around the world, but this article looks at the consequences, based on gender, specifically the female gender. 

Of particular note are the emergence and the unfolding of serious problems in several areas.

• Rise of crime rates - extortion, bribery, harassment also including sexual harassment of women, even murder

• Problems in the families of fish traders - quarrels, separation, divorce, raising levels of infection due to the infidelity of the husbands

• Sexually transmitted diseases 

• Gender-based violence 

All of the above issues that have arisen are important socially, economically, morally, legally. 

The paper contains all the necessary components - introduction, overview of the problem, methods and results of the study. 

The individual sections are developed in a logical sequence.

The results obtained from the study are presented in a clear and readable manner.

Recommendations are made for inter-state coordination, conduct of training programmes.

Up-to-date literature sources, including those of the last few years, are used.

Notes:

It would be better to combine the presentation of the figures, for example - only in black and white or only in colour. This would achieve better readability, as well as a handwriting of its own.

Recommendations: 

Given the problems discussed in the article, it would be good for the authors to observe and monitor the progress in the future, to conduct further research, and to make specific recommendations to overcome the difficulties of the individuals studied. 

Another guideline that could be used by the authors is to track when fish traders would reach the baseline situation they were in before the pandemic / how long it would take them to recover from the difficulties that befell them/.

In view of the above, I believe that the article can be accepted without further changes.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2: 27^th January 2025

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-organized and explores a particular problem that affects a specific population of people in a specific latitude and individuals engaged in a specific activity /transboundary fish trade/.  

The author has introduced the reader to the methodology of the study. The implemented methodologies are supported by arguments and structured. 

The combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods is impressive, which contributes to the authenticity of the data presented. The method of focus groups contributes immensely to the quality of the research. We can assume that the researchers have selected a good combination of research methods. In addition, they have had close contact with the research subjects through the implementation of a workshop as well as conducting expert interviews. What is impressive is the application of intersectionalities, which considers and shows what happens when multiple axes of inequalities come into relation. In this way, the particularities of gender are considered in interactive and complex relationships with other factors such as ethnicity, class, age, marital status, income. The published results provide a different perspective on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Certainly, the pandemic has led to financial losses around the world, but this article looks at the consequences, based on gender, specifically the female gender. 

Of particular note are the emergence and the unfolding of serious problems in several areas.

• Rise of crime rates - extortion, bribery, harassment also including sexual harassment of women, even murder
• Problems in the families of fish traders - quarrels, separation, divorce, raising levels of infection due to the infidelity of the husbands
• Sexually transmitted diseases 
• Gender-based violence 

 

All of the above issues that have arisen are important socially, economically, morally, legally. 

The paper contains all the necessary components - introduction, overview of the problem, methods and results of the study. 

The individual sections are developed in a logical sequence.

The results obtained from the study are presented in a clear and readable manner.

Recommendations are made for inter-state coordination, conduct of training programmes.

Up-to-date literature sources, including those of the last few years, are used.

Notes:

It would be better to combine the presentation of the figures, for example - only in black and white or only in colour. This would achieve better readability, as well as a handwriting of its own.

Response: This has been revised as suggested by the reviewer

Recommendations: 

Given the problems discussed in the article, it would be good for the authors to observe and monitor the progress in the future, to conduct further research, and to make specific recommendations to overcome the difficulties of the individuals studied. 

Response: We greatly appreciate, this has been added in the recommendatios

Another guideline that could be used by the authors is to track when fish traders would reach the baseline situation they were in before the pandemic / how long it would take them to recover from the difficulties that befell them/.

Response: This is noted and well appreciated

In view of the above, I believe that the article can be accepted without further changes.

 

Submission Date

06 September 2024

Date of this review

03 Dec 2024 18:12:31

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the thoughtful revisions you have made to the paper. I think the manuscript is now clearer and has a stronger narrative. However, there are numerous typos and errors in the edited sections. Some of the revisions require a bit more clarification because the edits are not clear. Overall the content of the revisions is great, but the writing needs some further attention. Please see the detailed list below for the minor suggested changes. 

Line 37: Change “was a disruptive” to “was disruptive” or “was a disruption”

Line 50: Change “varyings” to “varying”

Line 51: Change “coping mechanisms employed to the emergency consequences of the pandemic” to “coping mechanisms employed in response to the consequences of the pandemic”

Line 67: Put a comma before “which”

Line 87: Change to “Gender inequalities existed in…”

Line 91: Change “pandemic” to “pandemics”

Line 195: Insert comma before “namely”

Line 196: small-scale fisheries is usually hyphenated

Line 198: Change to “follow a matrilineal system”

Line 197 – 213: This is a very useful addition

Table 1: Looks like an extra P in primary

Line 347-349: Should be “limitations” and “on social media”

Line 355: Suggest that you consistently use men and women or males and females. Since we are talking about social issues, rather than biological characteristics, I would recommend changing to men and women throughout, but it’s just an option.

Line 386: Should be “cross border traders”, not “cross barders traders”

Line 391: This addition is not grammatically correct. “Sad up” is not clear and the rest of the sentence seems to missing a couple of words. Do you mean the stocks built up in the markets?

Line 431-432: put a space between “the officers” and “went through”

Line 520: You state that men experience domestic violence but may be silent about it and in the previous paragraph you talked about women experiencing domestic violence. If you are arguing that men also experienced more domestic violence, but they were silent about it, it would be good to include evidence for that. Is there a reference you could include? It seems confusing to say that women experienced increased violence and then say they are in charge in some households and men experienced increased violence (but without a source for that). It is a complex and nuanced topic so perhaps you could clarify these sentences and what the point you are trying to make is.

Line 538: Change “results” to “result”

Line 539: This edit doesn’t make sense. Should it be the “findings from the study show that” or “the presented findings show that”?

Line 540: Typo. Change “fishn” to “fish”

Line 541: Rather than being tools for hardship, you could say they were drivers? Tools makes it sounds like they were used by someone on purpose to create those things

Line 568: change “value chain” to “value chains”

Line 575: The addition in line 574/575 is not clear. Are you saying that men suffered more violations than women? Or are you saying that both suffered violations, but that men’s violations were more secretive? You go onto say that women faced physical abuse and sexual exploitation, so it doesn’t seem right to say they experienced less violations in silence. Please clarify what you mean here.

Line 613: Change to “the rate”

Line 645: Affects should be affect

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As per my comments above.

Author Response

Response to reviewers

Line 37: Change “was a disruptive” to “was disruptive” or “was a disruption”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 37

Line 50: Change “varyings” to “varying”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 50

Line 51: Change “coping mechanisms employed to the emergency consequences of the pandemic” to “coping mechanisms employed in response to the consequences of the pandemic”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 51

Line 67: Put a comma before “which”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 68

Line 87: Change to “Gender inequalities existed in…”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 88

Line 91: Change “pandemic” to “pandemics”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 92

Line 195: Insert comma before “namely”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 191

Line 196: small-scale fisheries is usually hyphenated

Response: Revised as suggested Line 192

Line 198: Change to “follow a matrilineal system”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 194

Line 197 – 213: This is a very useful addition

Response: Well appreciated

Table 1: Looks like an extra P in primary

Response: Extra P removed on primary; Table 1

Line 347-349: Should be “limitations” and “on social media”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 344 to 345

Line 355: Suggest that you consistently use men and women or males and females. Since we are talking about social issues, rather than biological characteristics, I would recommend changing to men and women throughout, but it’s just an option.

Response: Revised as suggested Line 347 to 354

Line 386: Should be “cross border traders”, not “cross barders traders”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 356

Line 391: This addition is not grammatically correct. “Sad up” is not clear and the rest of the sentence seems to missing a couple of words. Do you mean the stocks built up in the markets?

Response: This was a mistake which we didn’t go through before submission, it was supposed to be pile up. It has been revised Line 388

Line 431-432: put a space between “the officers” and “went through”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 427 to 428

Line 520: You state that men experience domestic violence but may be silent about it and in the previous paragraph you talked about women experiencing domestic violence. If you are arguing that men also experienced more domestic violence, but they were silent about it, it would be good to include evidence for that. Is there a reference you could include? It seems confusing to say that women experienced increased violence and then say they are in charge in some households and men experienced increased violence (but without a source for that). It is a complex and nuanced topic so perhaps you could clarify these sentences and what the point you are trying to make is.

Response: We agree with reviewer comments and we have statement indicating men suffered in silence to maintain flow of ideas. Line 515 to 516

Line 538: Change “results” to “result”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 532

Line 539: This edit doesn’t make sense. Should it be the “findings from the study show that” or “the presented findings show that”?

Response: Revised as suggested Line 533

Line 540: Typo. Change “fishn” to “fish”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 534

Line 541: Rather than being tools for hardship, you could say they were drivers? Tools makes it sounds like they were used by someone on purpose to create those things.

Response: Revised as suggested Line 535

Line 568: change “value chain” to “value chains”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 562

Line 575: The addition in line 574/575 is not clear. Are you saying that men suffered more violations than women? Or are you saying that both suffered violations, but that men’s violations were more secretive? You go onto say that women faced physical abuse and sexual exploitation, so it doesn’t seem right to say they experienced less violations in silence. Please clarify what you mean here.

Response: Revised as suggested This has been rectified; Line 568 to 576

Line 613: Change to “the rate”

Response: Revised as suggested Line 607

Line 645: Affects should be affect

Response: Revised as suggested Line 639

Author Response File: Author Response.docx