Barriers to Effective Management of Mediterranean Coastal Lagoons Following Key European Union Directives: Perceptions of Managers of Natura 2000 Lagoon Sites in South France

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript needs major revisions. Although the focus, approach, and research and interpretation methods make perfect sense, the display and interpretation of the results and the discussion need to be rewritten entirely. In its present form, the manuscript lacks consistency.

Concrete remarks:

1. The abstract is void of conclusions.
2. The introduction is too short and does not provide a comprehensive perspective of the specific aspects of transitional waters management.
3. Materials and Methods. A manuscript is not a research project report. Please condense the research strategy and methods without describing various work packages.
4. The Results in the present form make sense, but they should be shortened, and the main results of international relevance should be highlighted.
5. The Discussion must be shortened, and the concrete results moved to the Results section, whilst the concrete research conclusions highlighted in a specially added Conclusions section.

Author Response

The manuscript needs major revisions. Although the focus, approach, and research and interpretation methods make perfect sense, the display and interpretation of the results and the discussion need to be rewritten entirely. In its present form, the manuscript lacks consistency.

Concrete remarks:

Comment 1: The abstract is void of conclusions.

Response 1: Main results of conclusion added

Comment 2: The introduction is too short and does not provide a comprehensive perspective of the specific aspects of transitional waters management.

Response 2: Introduction rearranged to include the specific aspects of transitional waters management pertinent for coastal lagoons. Please be aware that this was not in the first submission as it was sent as an open submission and transfer to the SI ‘Multiple Approaches for Environmental Assessment of Transitional and Coastal Waters II’ following a suggestion by the editorial office of Environments.

Comment 3: Materials and Methods. A manuscript is not a research project report. Please condense the research strategy and methods without describing various work packages.

Response 3: We politely inform that this request is in contradiction with a request of another reviewer, who, on the contrary, has asked more detail. In line with good scientific practice, we believe that providing sufficient methodological transparency is essential for ensuring replicability and for allowing readers to fully understand the specificities of the approach used. Moreover, we consider that the methodological framework developed in this study — which combines an initial thematic analysis with a subsequent detailed analysis of the managers’ reference systems — represents a contribution in itself, particularly given the complexity and originality of the case study examined. That said, we fully understand the reviewer’s concern regarding the structure of the Methods section. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will reorganize the presentation of the methodological approach so that it follows a logical sequence of analytical steps, without explicit reference to the project’s internal Work Packages. This adjustment will improve the clarity of the Methods section, while preserving the necessary level of detail to support the robustness and originality of our findings.

Comment 4: The results in the present form make sense, but they should be shortened, and the main results of international relevance should be highlighted.

Response 4: Done (main result highlighted)

Comment 5: The discussion must be shortened, and the concrete results moved to the results section, whilst the concrete research conclusions highlighted in a specially added Conclusions section.

Response 5: Done

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is an interesting investigation concerning the stakeholders of wetlands in the lagoons of southern France and Corsica trying to understand the problems and in particular the barriers related to the application of the european directives. a picture of a certain complexity emerges and with various points that sometimes hinder the management or the decisions to be taken. It is an interesting analysis that tries to highlight some critiques on these directives can be a stimulus to further reflections on the subject. The manuscript is fine as it is only some typos that I have highlighted in the attached text need to be corrected.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The paper is an interesting investigation concerning the stakeholders of wetlands in the lagoons of southern France and Corsica trying to understand the problems and in particular the barriers related to the application of the european directives. a picture of a certain complexity emerges and with various points that sometimes hinder the management or the decisions to be taken. It is an interesting analysis that tries to highlight some critiques on these directives can be a stimulus to further reflections on the subject.

Comment 1: The manuscript is fine as it is only some typos that I have highlighted in the attached text need to be corrected.

Reply: Done (please Note that interviewee is the person - hence maintained as was)

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General appraisal:
Very interesting work, deserving to be published in Environments. However, it needs to become clear in the manuscript why sometimes you talk separately in Habitats and Birds directives and others only in the Habitats Directive. Alternatively, you may focus always only in the Habitats Directive or in both along the manuscript. Some important data missing should be displayed as supplementary material (see specific comments). Figures should only have captions, with titles removed.

Specific comments:

Abstract: Should include a better focus on the results obtained. 

Lines 14-17: This sentence could be better linked withe the Directive focused in the work.

Keywords: Their repetition with the title should be avoided.

Table 1: The WFD also aims to Good hydromorphological status (target) and quality (focus).

Lines 132-133: The 27-question guide should be displayed as supplementary material.

Lines 141-143: The list of these provisional variables shoul also be displayed as supplementary material.

Figure 2: Consider to remove it as it does not add any new information to the one present in the text. Also, in the pdf its caption hides part of the text after it.

 

Author Response

General appraisal:
Very interesting work, deserving to be published in Environments.

Comment 1: However, it needs to become clear in the manuscript why sometimes you talk separately in Habitats and Birds directives and others only in the Habitats Directive :

Response 1: We now explain the reason why HD is generally pertinent for coastal lagoons. HD recognises coastal lagoons as a priority habitat and therefore, the protection of all the lagoons is derived from the HD scheme: “Nevertheless, the coastal lagoons in the Natura 2000 network along the Mediterranean coast in S. France and Corsica are all protected through the HD scheme, because HD recognizes these ecosystems as a priority habitat.”

Comment 2: Alternatively, you may focus always only in the Habitats Directive or in both along the manuscript.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, we consider that one of the key findings of our study precisely lies in revealing the multiplicity and entanglement of reference frameworks mobilized by managers. Although initially focused on the Habitats and Water Framework Directives, our results show that managers rarely think within the strict boundaries of a single directive. Instead, they spontaneously refer to a broader set of legal and policy references, reflecting the complexity and contradictory objectives they face. We therefore prefer to maintain this openness, and we will clarify and emphasize this point in the revised version of the manuscript.

Some important data missing should be displayed as supplementary material (see specific comments). Figures should only have captions, with titles removed.

Specific comments:

Comment 3: Abstract: Should include a better focus on the results obtained. 

Response 3: Done

Comment 4: Lines 14-17: This sentence could be better linked withe the Directive focused in the work.

Response 4: Done see above.

Comment 5: Keywords: Their repetition with the title should be avoided.

Response 5: Adapted as requested – keywords used in title have been removed from the keywords list.

Comment 6:

Table 1: The WFD also aims to Good hydromorphological status (target) and quality (focus) :

Response 6: We politely disgree with the reviewer, as hydromorphological status is not mentioned at all in article 4 of the WFD. It is possible that some countries have decided to include hydromorphological status as a target for their national implementation (principe of subsidiarity), but it is not defined as such by the text of the WFD.

Comment 7: Lines 132-133: The 27-question guide should be displayed as supplementary material.

Response 7: Done

Comment 8: Lines 141-143: The list of these provisional variables should also be displayed as supplementary material.

Response 8: The methodological description has been simplified in the revised version of the manuscript, which also addresses this comment in parallel.

Comment 9: Figure 2: Consider to remove it as it does not add any new information to the one present in the text. Also, in the pdf its caption hides part of the text after it.

Response 9: We preferer to keep this figure.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a study carried out on the problem of coastal lagoons, applied to those located in the French Mediterranean, based on information obtained from surveys of users and managers.

The work is well presented, has all the sections and is correct formally and in content. There are only three small considerations.

First, the bibliography must conform to the style used by the journal.

Secondly, there is a precedent of similar content that could be considered both in the introduction and in the discussion of coastal lagoons in Spain. References in this regard that could be of interest and consideration are indicated:

Jégou, A., & Sanchis Ibor, C. (2019). The opaque lagoon. Water management and governance in l’Albufera de València wetland (Spain). Limnetica, 38(1), 503-515. https://doi.org/10.23818/limn.38.29

Soria, J.; Pérez, R.; Sòria-Pepinyà, X. Mediterranean Coastal Lagoons Review: Sites to Visit before Disappearance. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030347

Finally, instead of "work package" you could use "activity" or a similar word.

Author Response

The manuscript presents a study carried out on the problem of coastal lagoons, applied to those located in the French Mediterranean, based on information obtained from surveys of users and managers.

The work is well presented, has all the sections and is correct formally and in content. There are only three small considerations.

Comment 1: First, the bibliography must conform to the style used by the journal.

Response 1: In agreement

Comment 2: Secondly, there is a precedent of similar content that could be considered both in the introduction and in the discussion of coastal lagoons in Spain. References in this regard that could be of interest and consideration are indicated:

Jégou, A., & Sanchis Ibor, C. (2019). The opaque lagoon. Water management and governance in l’Albufera de València wetland (Spain). Limnetica, 38(1), 503-515. https://doi.org/10.23818/limn.38.29

Soria, J.; Pérez, R.; Sòria-Pepinyà, X. Mediterranean Coastal Lagoons Review: Sites to Visit before Disappearance. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030347

Response 2: Thank you for mentioning these papers. Nevertheless, we consider that these papers do not explicitely state the question of the co-implementation of HD and WFD. Jégou et al. is more an analysis of local procedures for managing the social ecological system of the Albufera, while Soria et al. deal more with geomorphological, hydrological and water quality elements without clear question of co-oimplementation with HD objectives. Therefore, we decided not to cite these papers.

Comment 3: Finally, instead of "work package" you could use "activity" or a similar word.

Response 3: Now we use Step rather than work package.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript aims to provide insights into the management of Mediterranean coastal lagoons within the current regulatory frameworks.

The topic is timely, reasonably addressed, and fits within the scope of the Journal of Environments. The overall content is interesting and may be useful to readers of this journal and valuable enough for publication.

Of course, it is a much-debated topic, as the 60 references prove, and many others could be added. The methodology adopted is common to many publications using surveys and questionnaires, and the results are treated through the application of statistical analyses.

Along the same lines, the manuscript's scientific content consists of exploring the data from a survey carried out using a questionnaire, the content of which is not provided, and the sample is not characterized.

While this study sets the context for the analysis well, I have some pertinent questions/concerns that I believe the authors should address; they are:
- A better characterization of the interviewees (sample) would be desirable, both in terms of the number of representatives of each category, especially local communities, stakeholders, NGOs, businesspeople, tourism agencies and employees of private and public institutions, and their qualifications (gender, age, academic level, economic power, ...), among other statistical issues. Will the results obtained be sufficiently representative? That is, is the sample representative?
- The questionnaire consists of 27 questions covering guidelines mainly focused on legislative and institutional issues. It was expected that the interview questionnaire would be provided (possibly in an appendix) (which is supposed to be uniform for all interviewees) and that the overall results of the set of interviews would be analyzed and statistically assessed taking into account the different perspectives.
- One gets the feeling that the results reflect personal opinions (of the authors themselves), resulting from a guideline aimed at obtaining the expected results.
- Repeated content throughout the manuscript should be avoided, including parts of figure captions (lines 109, 210, 241, and 286). Check also the caption to Figure 2; doesn't this caption overlap the content before line 220?
- Figure 3 and the descriptive content in lines 250-261 must follow an identical order. The institutions in Figure 3 (right panel) or the descriptive results should change their current order.
- What does the hierarchical classification reflect? In other words, what are the criteria for classifying as Class 1: Economic. Class 2 (Political),...? (Figure 4 and the content that follows it).
- Regarding the content of the Results, there will certainly be positive aspects to be highlighted. Aiming to impartially address and contribute to improving the status quo, it is necessary to take into account both the negative and the positive aspects. Therefore, in the questionnaire, respondents should be confronted with questions relating to positive and negative aspects. Data processing must take this into account.
- Consider a "Conclusions" section or possibly better a "Discussion and Conclusions" section instead of the current "Discussion". In this section, set clear guidelines for future research on the topic.

Author Response

This manuscript aims to provide insights into the management of Mediterranean coastal lagoons within the current regulatory frameworks.

The topic is timely, reasonably addressed, and fits within the scope of the Journal of Environments. The overall content is interesting and may be useful to readers of this journal and valuable enough for publication.

Of course, it is a much-debated topic, as the 60 references prove, and many others could be added. The methodology adopted is common to many publications using surveys and questionnaires, and the results are treated through the application of statistical analyses.

Comment 8: Along the same lines, the manuscript's scientific content consists of exploring the data from a survey carried out using a questionnaire, the content of which is not provided, and the sample is not characterized.

Response 1: The questionnaire is now available in on-line supplementary material

While this study sets the context for the analysis well, I have some pertinent questions/concerns that I believe the authors should address; they are:

Comment 2: - A better characterization of the interviewees (sample) would be desirable, both in terms of the number of representatives of each category, especially local communities, stakeholders, NGOs, businesspeople, tourism agencies and employees of private and public institutions, and their qualifications (gender, age, academic level, economic power, ...), among other statistical issues. Will the results obtained be sufficiently representative? That is, is the sample representative? –

Response 2: We refer to Fig. 2 and the accompanying text to describe the institutional affiliation of the respondents. More detail on education level according European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and function in the organisation is provided in supplementary material Table S1. This study based on representative collaborators of these different institutions is different from a study with citizens. Hence, the gender, age, academic level, economic power asked for in studies with samples of citizens are not pertinent, and asking such questions in semi-directed interviews would be embarrassing and in conflict with ethical standards.

Please notice that the objective of semi-structured interviews is always qualitative, we wrote in the methods that “we adopted a qualitative research approach based on grounded theory [22] and a neo-institutionalist perspective [23].“

Comment 3: - The questionnaire consists of 27 questions covering guidelines mainly focused on legislative and institutional issues. It was expected that the interview questionnaire would be provided (possibly in an appendix) (which is supposed to be uniform for all interviewees) and that the overall results of the set of interviews would be analyzed and statistically assessed taking into account the different perspectives.

Response 3: The guide for the survey is now provided in supplementary on-line material. All respondents were requested to reply to all the 27 questions. As an essential feature for semi-structured interviews, all questions were open. In addition, a question was added to allow for some snow-balling to discover unanticipated institutions and/or stakeholders.

Comment 4: - One gets the feeling that the results reflect personal opinions (of the authors themselves), resulting from a guideline aimed at obtaining the expected results.

Response 4: We politely, albeit very strongly, disagree with this statement of the reviewer. There was no guideline to draw the paper towards preconceived personal opinions. The very rich corpus of text resulting from a precise transcription (using Dictaphones) was analysed according the procedure described in the Methods.

We politely, yet firmly, disagree with this comment. There was absolutely no intention nor methodological procedure designed to guide the results towards any preconceived personal opinions of the authors. On the contrary, the strength of our approach precisely lies in the combination of an initial automated thematic analysis — based on the full corpus of transcribed interviews (Dictaphone recordings) — followed by a careful and transparent interpretative analysis, as detailed in the Methods section. The use of automated tools (Alceste method, Iramuteq software) ensures that the first-order structuring of the data emerges directly from the respondents' discourses, independent of the authors' interpretations. It is only in a second step, within the Discussion section — as is common in the social sciences and even required in management— that the authors express their interpretation of the results and propose recommendations based on the observed patterns. We believe that this distinction between data-driven analysis and interpretative discussion is both methodologically sound and explicitly described in the manuscript.

Comment 5:- Repeated content throughout the manuscript should be avoided, including parts of figure captions (lines 109, 210, 241, and 286). Check also the caption to Figure 2; doesn't this caption overlap the content before line 220?

Response 5: Repaired

Comment 6:- Figure 3 and the descriptive content in lines 250-261 must follow an identical order. The institutions in Figure 3 (right panel) or the descriptive results should change their current order.

Response 6: Done

Comment 7: - What does the hierarchical classification reflect? In other words, what are the criteria for classifying as Class 1: Economic. Class 2 (Political),...? (Figure 4 and the content that follows it).

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for this question, which gives us the opportunity to clarify how hierarchical classification operates in this type of textual analysis. In our case, the classes generated through hierarchical clustering (Figure 4) result from a statistical grouping of words that co-occur frequently within the same segments of discourse. This procedure, implemented through the Alceste method (via Iramuteq software), is entirely data-driven and independent of any a priori categorization by the authors. The labels assigned to each class (e.g., Economic, Political, etc.) are therefore not predefined, but result from a posteriori interpretation based on the examination of the most characteristic words and typical discourse segments composing each class. This interpretative step relies on a close and faithful reading of the verbatim excerpts, as well as on the knowledge of the empirical context. Thus, the hierarchical classification reflects lexical proximities within the corpus, while the naming of the classes reflects an interpretative synthesis of the content associated with each group, as is standard practice in this type of analysis.

Comment 8: - Regarding the content of the Results, there will certainly be positive aspects to be highlighted. Aiming to impartially address and contribute to improving the status quo, it is necessary to take into account both the negative and the positive aspects. Therefore, in the questionnaire, respondents should be confronted with questions relating to positive and negative aspects. Data processing must take this into account. Reply this study is the first step where we studied barriers.

Response 8: Note that we highlight very positive issues at the beginning of the Discussion and Conclusion section: “The EU directives HD and BD have been of paramount importance for endorsing protection measures in coastal lagoons in Europe.“ “The interviewed respondents, all stakeholders involved in coastal lagoon management in South France, recognized the importance and positive impacts these EU directives. “ A good knowledge of barriers is needed before starting the search for solutions.

Comment 9:- Consider a "Conclusions" section or possibly better a "Discussion and Conclusions" section instead of the current "Discussion". In this section, set clear guidelines for future research on the topic.

Response 9: Thank you for the suggestion, the section has been renamed ‘Discussion and Conclusions’

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is sufficiently revised and suitable for publishing.

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript is sufficiently revised and suitable for publishing.

Response: Thank you for your comments and advice which helped improve the article.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is not easy to spot typos or occasional mistakes in a draft manuscript. For review/evaluation purposes, the clean version of the manuscript should also be submitted.

Since the text is largely new, it becomes even more complicated to verify. It is clear that some of the previous content has been removed, and several improvements have been considered throughout.

In any case, my most important concerns were addressed satisfactorily, especially most of my concerns about procedures and results.

Overall, all sections have undergone significant changes that contribute to improving or clarifying content. The clarifications made show consistency and will certainly be useful to a wide audience.

The manuscript is pleasant to read, and the writing is essentially correct. Only minor spell checks are required.

I have just a few comments, which I believe should be addressed by the authors before moving forward; they are:

- It is appropriate to incorporate the discussion and conclusions into a single section. However, as no scientific article is the end of any investigation, directions for future research in the area must be described at the end.

- The descriptive content of the figures and what they depict has been clarified and/or improved. However, not all figures are sufficiently enlightening. Some figures need to be rearranged as they do not have the most appropriate dimensions. Also, note that all figures must have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi. Halftones must also have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi.

Author Response

Comment 1: It is not easy to spot typos or occasional mistakes in a draft manuscript. For review/evaluation purposes, the clean version of the manuscript should also be submitted.

Since the text is largely new, it becomes even more complicated to verify. It is clear that some of the previous content has been removed, and several improvements have been considered throughout.

Response 1: We feel sorry for the difficulties in reading and assessing the track-changes pdf file. Nevertheless, we also submitted a clear word version, that has apparently not been made available to the reviewer;

Comment 2: In any case, my most important concerns were addressed satisfactorily, especially most of my concerns about procedures and results.

Response 2: Thank you for your comments and advice which helped improve the article.

Comment 3: Overall, all sections have undergone significant changes that contribute to improving or clarifying content. The clarifications made show consistency and will certainly be useful to a wide audience.

Response 3: We have added a figure to the supplementary material that further clarifies the methodological procedure (Factorial Analyses Correspondences analyses).

The manuscript is pleasant to read, and the writing is essentially correct. Only minor spell checks are required.

I have just a few comments, which I believe should be addressed by the authors before moving forward; they are:

Comment 4 (#1/) It is appropriate to incorporate the discussion and conclusions into a single section. However, as no scientific article is the end of any investigation, directions for future research in the area must be described at the end.

Response 4: In this new version, we have revised and enriched the conclusion in a targeted manner to truly open up concrete research perspectives.

Comment 5 (#2/) The descriptive content of the figures and what they depict has been clarified and/or improved. However, not all figures are sufficiently enlightening. Some figures need to be rearranged as they do not have the most appropriate dimensions. Also, note that all figures must have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi. Halftones must also have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi.

Response 5: Figure 3 has been improved.