Coordinated Development of the Marine Environment and the Marine Fishery Economy in China, 2011–2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted paper is of paramount importance for the readership against the backdrop of the rapid extinction of the marine species. This has gave repercussions for the food security worldwide. The analysis is based on the data for 11 coastal cities in China for a time frame spanning between 2011 and 2020. The employed methodology is correct. The authors must, however, better justify the choice of tobit panel estimator and show its merits. To this end, at least cursorily refer to https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2067037 where this issue has been comprehensively discussed. Also the merits of the nonparametric tobit are mentioned in the mentioned paper. Formally the paper is fine. It is well-written and has an appropriate structure. There are several typographical mistakes. With regards to Table 1: Put Table 1 to appendix.

Author Response

Dear Editor:

Thank you for your letter concerning our manuscript entitled “Coordinated development of the marine environment and the marine fishery economy in China, 2011–2020” (fishes: 2019821).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list all the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your guidance and help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reviewers:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Coordinated development of the marine environment and the marine fishery economy in China, 2011–2020” (fishes: 2019821). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction that we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. (Please refer to the revised version for details.) The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following. (Please refer to the page number of the revised version of the manuscript without comments.)

Responds to the reviewer 1’s comments:

 

The submitted paper is of paramount importance for the readership against the backdrop of the rapid extinction of the marine species. This has gave repercussions for the food security worldwide. The analysis is based on the data for 11 coastal cities in China for a time frame spanning between 2011 and 2020. The employed methodology is correct. The authors must, however, better justify the choice of tobit panel estimator and show its merits. To this end, at least cursorily refer to https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2067037 where this issue has been comprehensively discussed. Also the merits of the nonparametric tobit are mentioned in the mentioned paper. Formally the paper is fine. It is well-written and has an appropriate structure. There are several typographical mistakes. With regards to Table 1:Put Table 1 to appendix.

 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. Possibly we may not express clearly in the manuscript, and cause misunderstanding. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance. The author carefully studied and discussed the paper you recommended (https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2067037), which is very helpful for me to revise this paper. We modified the Tobit model, and verified the advantages and rationality of this model through comparative analysis of four models. The revisions are as following:

(1) We already added some Tobit panel estimator and showed its merits. (Part 2.3.4 of P7)

The coordination between marine-environment quality and marine-fishery-economy quality is characterized by random distribution, and the value is between 0 and 1. If the ordinary least-squares (OLS) method is used for regression, it is unable to obtain consistency estimate. And the conclusion will be biased. Therefore, we use the maximum likelihood intercept regression model—that is, the Tobit model. Tobit estimator has been proposed by James Tobin in 1958 to analyze estimations with censored dependent variables. A fixed-effects Tobit model is not feasible because there is no sufficient statistic whereby the fixed effects are conditioned out of the likelihood.[36]

 

(2) As for the description and empirical analysis of the model, the author has also made corresponding modifications and improvements. (Part 5.1 of P15)

 

In order to explain the results, the percentage of coefficients and independent variables are logarithmized. In order to evaluate the robustness of the Tobit model, the fixed effect least square method (Model 1), the random effect least square method (Model 2), the mixed model Tobit (Model 3) and the random adaptive model Tobit (Model 4) with the same dependent and independent variables were used for comparison.

 

 

(3) We carefully proofread the full text and some spelling mistakes. Thank you for your patient guidance and careful reading.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

 

This paper tries to analyse the spatiotemporal evolution of the coordination between the marine environment and marine fishery economy, reveals the characteristics of such coordination, and identifies the factors affecting coordination, in 11 coastal provinces/cities in China as the research object. Taking into account the sustainability and environmental uncertainty, it is important to investigate the development of the marine environment and the marine fishery economy to improve the quality of both.

 

The objective of the manuscript, in general, is interesting being a study at regional level, and especially when it deals with an important country such as China. Although the paper has good objectives and shows some interesting results, it does not have a good structure (i.e., some parts of the results sections are actually methods or discussion) and lacks any discussion (a scientific/scholarly 'discussion' which links the proposed ideas in this paper into the other existing similar research). The manuscript should become acceptable for publication pending suitable major revision in light of the comments appended below.

 

More specific comments:

 

Title, Abstract and Keywords: reflect the content of the paper.

Line 13 – 14: " Given the vast expanse of China’s marine area, the ….". What do you exactly mean by the vast expanse of marine area? Expanse of fishing or marine activities by the country or the expanse of the country's EEZ?

 

Introduction:

Line 42 – 45: "In 2015, the French paper Le Monde reported that since the 1970s, the number of marine …". Please use scientific references. Also, please add the reference at the end of the sentence.

Line 42 – 54: "In 2015, the French paper Le Monde reported that since the 1970s ……. the effects of climate change [2]". The two used references [1] and [2] are from 2008 and 2014. Please use recent references. For this it is better to use the FAO reports.

Line 53 – 54: "In 2019, researchers found that from 1930 to 2010, ..... owing to the effects of climate change[2]". The sentence says 2019 and ends with a reference from 2014. Please revise.

Line 119 – 121: "Although a general framework for monitoring and assessing the fishery economy ...., only a few empirical studies have been conducted.". Please provide references of these studies.

 

Materials and Methods

Line 119 – 121: "We selected 11 major coastal provinces/cities in China ...". From the maps provided in Figure it shows that all the cities are in the eastern side of the country. Why were these cities selected?

Line 136 – 142: " We acquired data related to their marine environments and fishery economies .... published in professional journals. Missing data were obtained by linear interpolation or calculated by the authors.". In the paragraph the authors provided the sources of data but not the nature of data itself. Please specify what type of data were collected and also the missing data.

Line 145 – 165: "The strength of the marine fishery industry, the scale of the marine fishery economy, and the capacity of marine fishery production are important ...". Later in lines 426–430 the authors used acronyms for these indicators as; marine fishery industry strength (SFI), marine fishery economy scale (SFE), marine fishery production capacity (SFP), marine resource environment quality (SCQ), and marine-environment quality (SBQ). Please specify these acronyms the first time the term is mentioned in the text, and then use the acronyms in the whole text.

Line 159 – 165: "The index system for evaluating marine-environment quality is mainly constructed in the two dimensions of marine resource quality and marine-environment quality. Five indicators … in the research areas (Table 1)". Similar to the details provided in lines 151–159 of how the previous indicators; strength of the marine fishery industry, the scale of the marine fishery economy, and the capacity of marine fishery production are measured, please provide the same details for marine resource quality and marine-environment quality.

 

Results (sections: 3, 4, 5)

 

All sections 3, 4, 5 should be under the Results section.

 

At some parts of these sections there is no clear distinction between results, material and methods, and discussion. Just as examples, but there are many, lines 270–272 "There are large gaps in the quality of marine fishery economies in the region, and the coordinated development of the marine fishery economy still needs improvement", also lines 324–326 "This shows that China attached importance to improving marine-environment quality and the sustainable development of the fishery economy during the study period" are read like discussion. Also, the subsection 5.1. Model specification should be in material and methods.

 

Figures and Tables:

-        All figures’ captions are very brief and don’t provide a good description of the figures.

-        Figures 1, 2, and 3; please provide a label in the Y axis.

-        All tables’ captions are very brief and don’t provide a good description of the tables. For example in many of them in the note it says "calculated using the authors’ formula". In this case, please specify the section where the formula is mentioned.

 

Conclusion and discussion

The section "6. Conclusion and discussion" provides a kind of a summary of results and also provides some interpretation of the results and recommendations. However, this section, as well as the whole manuscript, lacks a real discussion where the authors should use findings of other similar studies (e.g., with the same objectives or using the same or other methodology) for comparison even for other regions or countries (not necessarily only in China). In fact, this section lacks any reference to any other study. What is then missing is a scientific/scholarly 'discussion' which links the proposed ideas in this paper into the other existing similar research.

 

Also, the discussion and conclusion should be separated in two sections or at least the name should be "discussion and conclusion" starting with the discussion (scientific/scholarly 'discussion' which links the proposed ideas in this paper into the other existing similar research) then the main conclusions of the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor:
Thank you for your letter concerning our manuscript entitled “Coordinated development of the marine environment and the marine fishery economy in China, 2011–2020” (fishes: 2019821).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list all the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your guidance and help.

 

Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Coordinated development of the marine environment and the marine fishery economy in China, 2011–2020” (fishes: 2019821). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction that we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. (Please refer to the revised version for details.) The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following. (Please refer to the page number of the revised version of the manuscript without comments.) 

Responds to the reviewer 2’s comments:
General comments 

This paper tries to analyse the spatiotemporal evolution of the coordination between the marine environment and marine fishery economy, reveals the characteristics of such coordination, and identifies the factors affecting coordination, in 11 coastal provinces/cities in China as the research object. Taking into account the sustainability and environmental uncertainty, it is important to investigate the development of the marine environment and the marine fishery economy to improve the quality of both. 

The objective of the manuscript, in general, is interesting being a study at regional level, and especially when it deals with an important country such as China. Although the paper has good objectives and shows some interesting results, it does not have a good structure (i.e., some parts of the results sections are actually methods or discussion) and lacks any discussion (a scientific/scholarly ‘discussion’ which links the proposed ideas in this paper into the other existing similar research). The manuscript should become acceptable for publication pending suitable major revision in light of the comments appended below.

More specific comments: 
Title, Abstract and Keywords: reflect the content of the paper. 
Line 13 – 14: “Given the vast expanse of China’s marine area, the ….”. What do you exactly mean by the vast expanse of marine area? Expanse of fishing or marine activities by the country or the expanse of the country’s EEZ? 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. Possibly we may not express clearly in the manuscript, and cause misunderstanding. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance. So this sentence has been deleted.

Introduction: 
Line 42 – 45: “In 2015, the French paper Le Monde reported that since the 1970s, the number of marine …”. Please use scientific references. Also, please add the reference at the end of the sentence. 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance. We have changed the scientific references. The changes are as follows:
(1)According to the FAO Report on the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture in 2018, the proportion of fish stocks caught within the sustainable limit showed a downward trend, from 90.0% in 1974 to 66.9% in 2015. The proportion of fish stocks caught at unsustainable levels increased from 10% to 33.1% over the same period [1].

1.Ye, Y.;  Barange, M., et al., FAO's statistic data and sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture: Comments on Pauly and Zeller (2017). Marine Policy 2017, 81, 401-405,doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.012.

Line 42 – 54: “In 2015, the French paper Le Monde reported that since the 1970s ……. the effects of climate change [2]”. The two used references [1] and [2] are from 2008 and 2014. Please use recent references. For this it is better to use the FAO reports. 
Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance. We have changed the scientific references. The changes are as follows:
(1)According to the FAO Report on the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture in 2018, the proportion of fish stocks caught within the sustainable limit showed a downward trend, from 90.0% in 1974 to 66.9% in 2015. The proportion of fish stocks caught at unsustainable levels increased from 10% to 33.1% over the same period [1].
1.Ye, Y.;  Barange, M., et al., FAO's statistic data and sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture: Comments on Pauly and Zeller (2017). Marine Policy 2017, 81, 401-405,doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.012.

(2) In 2019, researchers found that from 1930 to 2010, the total output of global fishing grounds decreased by 4.1% owing to the effects of climate change [2].(The reference source has been adjusted.)
2.Teh, L. S. L.;  Bond, N., et al., The economic impact of global change on fishing and non-fishing households in the Tonle Sap ecosystem, Pursat, Cambodia. Fisheries Research 2019, 210, 71-80,doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2018.10.005.

(3) According to the latest FAO’s State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture in 2022, the sustainability of marine fishery resources is still a matter of deep concern. In 2019, the proportion of sustainable catch stocks will decline to 64.6%, 1.2% lower than the level in 2017 [3]. ( This reference is newly added.)
3.Zhao, W.; Shen, H., A statistical analysis of China's fisheries in the 12 th five-year period. Aquaculture and Fisheries 2016, 1, 41-49,doi:10.1016/j.aaf.2016.11.001.

Line 53 – 54: “In 2019, researchers found that from 1930 to 2010, ..... owing to the effects of climate change[2]”. The sentence says 2019 and ends with a reference from 2014. Please revise. 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance. We have revised the scientific references. The changes are as follows:
(1) In 2019, researchers found that from 1930 to 2010, the total output of global fishing grounds decreased by 4.1% owing to the effects of climate change [2].(The reference source has been adjusted.)
2.Teh, L. S. L.;  Bond, N., et al., The economic impact of global change on fishing and non-fishing households in the Tonle Sap ecosystem, Pursat, Cambodia. Fisheries Research 2019, 210, 71-80,doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2018.10.005.

Line 119 – 121: “Although a general framework for monitoring and assessing the fishery economy ...., only a few empirical studies have been conducted.” Please provide references of these studies.
Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance. We have added some scientific references. The changes are as follows (29-37 of reference):

29.Voss, R.;  Quaas, M. F., et al., Ecological-Economic Fisheries Management Advice—Quantification of Potential Benefits for the Case of the Eastern Baltic COD Fishery. Frontiers in Marine Science 2017, 4,doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.00209.
30.HAnnA, S., Economics in the Service of Fisheries Policy and Practice. Marine Resource Economics 2011, 26, No. 1 (January 2011), pp. 87-94,doi:.org/10.5950/0738-1360-26.1.87.
31.Prellezo, R.;  Accadia, P., et al., A review of EU bio-economic models for fisheries: The value of a diversity of models. Marine Policy 2012, 36 (2), 423-431,doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.08.003.
32.Idda, L.;  Madau, F. A., et al., Capacity and economic efficiency in small-scale fisheries: Evidence from the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Policy 2009, 33 (5), 860-867,doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.03.006.
33.Zhang, M.;  Liu, Y., et al., Index system of urban resource and environment carrying capacity based on ecological civilization. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2018, 68, 90-97,doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.11.002.
34.Fan, M.;  Shen, J., et al., Improving crop productivity and resource use efficiency to ensure food security and environmental quality in China. J Exp Bot 2012, 63 (1), 13-24,doi:10.1093/jxb/err248.
35.Doyle, M. W.; Havlick, D. G., Infrastructure and the Environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2009, 34 (1), 349-373, doi.10.1146/annurev.environ.022108.180216.
36.Sadik-Zada, E. R.;  Gatto, A., et al., E-government and petty corruption in public sector service delivery. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2022, 1-17,doi:10.1080/09537325.2022.2067037.
37.Weaver, P. P. E.;  Aguzzi, J., et al., Assessing plume impacts caused by polymetallic nodule mining vehicles. Marine Policy 2022, 139,doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105011.

Materials and Methods 
Line 119 – 121: “We selected 11 major coastal provinces/cities in China ...”. From the maps provided in Figure it shows that all the cities are in the eastern side of the country. Why were these cities selected? 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. Perhaps the article did not explain the research object clearly. The explanation is as follows:
The research object of this paper is the coordination of marine environment and marine fishery, so the research scale of this paper is China’s coastal provinces and cities. All of China’s 11 coastal provinces and cities are located in the eastern side of China, and there are no coastal provinces and cities in other regions. Therefore, this manuscript can only select the eastern provinces and cities.

Line 136 – 142: “We acquired data related to their marine environments and fishery economies .... published in professional journals. Missing data were obtained by linear interpolation or calculated by the authors.” In the paragraph the authors provided the sources of data but not the nature of data itself. Please specify what type of data were collected and also the missing data. 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance, but due to the limited number of words, we haven’t explained it in the manuscript. 
(1) We supplemented the data sources of Bulletin on the State of China’s Marine Ecological Environment (2011-2020). (P3)
(2) The data sources include the China Fisheries Statistical Yearbook (2011–2020), China Statistical Yearbook (2011–2020), China Environmental Statistical Yearbook (2011–2020). The data in these yearbooks are panel statistics. In the 2016 of Bulletin on the State of China’s Marine Ecological Environment, the indicator of direct loss of marine disasters was missing from individual data, and the author supplemented it through linear interpolation estimation.

Line 145 – 165: "The strength of the marine fishery industry, the scale of the marine fishery economy, and the capacity of marine fishery production are important ...".Later in lines 426–430 the authors used acronyms for these indicators as; marine fishery industry strength (SFI), marine fishery economy scale (SFE), marine fishery production capacity (SFP), marine resource environment quality (SCQ), and marine environment quality (SBQ). Please specify these acronyms the first time the term is mentioned in the text, and then use the acronyms in the whole text. 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. Possibly we may not express clearly in the manuscript, and cause misunderstanding. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance. The authors have readjusted the unified expression of relevant terms in the text. The improvement information is as follows:
(1) The authors used acronyms for these indicators as; marine fishery industry strength (SFI), marine fishery economy scale (SFE), marine fishery production capacity (SFP), marine resource environment quality (SCQ), and marine ecological environment quality (SBQ). We specified these acronyms the first time the term is mentioned in the text (line 48-49 in P3 and line12-13 in P4), and then use the acronyms in the whole text (P14 and P16 of Table7).
(2) Due to negligence, there are some spelling mistakes. It has also been modified synchronously. (P15 of Table 6)

Line 159 – 165: "The index system for evaluating marine-environment quality is mainly constructed in the two dimensions of marine resource quality and marine-environment quality. Five indicators …in the research areas (Table 1)". Similar to the details provided in lines 151–159 of how the previous indicators; strength of the marine fishery industry, the scale of the marine fishery economy, and the capacity of marine fishery production are measured, please provide the same details for marine resource quality and marine environment quality. 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance, the author have added relevant explanations for marine resource quality and marine environment quality. (P4)
(1)The index system for evaluating marine-environment quality is mainly constructed in the two dimensions of marine resource environment quality and marine ecological environment quality. Five indicators were selected for each dimension, for a total of 10 measurement indicators. The marine resource environment quality is measured by direct economic loss from marine disasters, relative annual variation in sea level, proportion of nearshore Class I and II water quality, coastal wetland area, and nearshore and coastal area. The marine ecological environment quality is measured by direct discharge of marine wastewater, chemical oxygen demand, petroleum, ammonia nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The entropy method was used for evaluation, and the weighted scores were used to calculate scores for marine-environment quality and marine-fishery-economy quality in the research areas (P4 of Table 1).

Results (sections: 3, 4, 5) 

All sections 3, 4, 5 should be under the Results section. 

At some parts of these sections there is no clear distinction between results, material and methods, and discussion. Just as examples, but there are many, lines 270–272 "There are large gaps in the quality of marine fishery economies in the region, and the coordinated development of the marine fishery economy still needs improvement", also lines 324–326 "This shows that China attached importance to improving marine-environment quality and the sustainable development of the fishery economy during the study period" are read like discussion. Also, the subsection 5.1. Model specification should be in material and methods. 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance, the author have made some adjustments in the content, making the discussion, conclusions and suggestions different.
(1) In part 5, it is mainly suggestions. The author revised all the statements.(P18-19)
Given the current complex, severe situation, to improve coordination between marine-environment quality and marine-fishery-economy quality and to promote coordinated evolution to an advanced stage, we should do the following:
(1) Promote the transformation and upgrading of marine fishery industry. First, accelerate the innovation of fishery green science and technology, build a fishery green science and technology system, reduce the energy consumption of the marine fishery, form an effective linkage with the construction of the marine environment, and achieve the green, sustainable development of the marine fishery economy. Second, promote the digitalization of the marine fishery industry, and build a big data platform for the marine fishery economy. Third, transform the resource-dependent fishery development model, increase investment in marine environmental resource recovery and offshore fishery habitat restoration, and build a new model of marine resource conservation and fishery production with the coordinated development of fisheries, resources, and ecology. Fourth, promote the integrated development of marine fishery production, marine manufacturing, coastal tourism, and marine environmental protection industries, and cultivate new integrated cross-border businesses, such as marine leisure fisheries, marine biological products, and marine environmental protection.
(2) The scale of the marine fishery economy should be enhanced. First, develop modernized marine fishery and aquaculture. Innovate marine fishery breeding technology, build green marine ranches, promote fishery proliferation and release, promote healthy aquaculture, and improve the scale of marine fishery breeding. Moreover, guide the offshore and deepwater expansion of marine aquaculture and explore large-scale offshore deepwater cages, offshore aquaculture vessels, deepwater bottom seeding, and three-dimensional ecological aquaculture. Second, expand the space for marine fishing. Strengthen cooperation among countries and regions in deep-sea fishing, and develop new deep-sea fishery resources. Improve and upgrade deep-sea fishery equipment. Third, improve the quality and scale of marine fishery product processing. Innovate the processing of marine fishery products, cultivate new forms of marine fishery processing, and expand the industrial chain of marine fishery processing. Develop the deep processing of ocean aquatic products, innovate product forms, and extend product functions.
(3) Improve marine-environment quality. First, link land and sea environmental governance. Improve the overall planning system for the land and marine environments, strengthen the control of land-source pollution, and curb marine pollution from the source. Deepen marine environmental governance, prioritize ecology, improve marine-environment quality, and establish an integrated land-and-sea environmental governance system. Second, adhere to joint prevention and control, and utilize high technology to strengthen marine-environment monitoring and supervision. Promote marine-environment restoration and marine environmental protection, and strengthen the supervision and management of the marine environment. Third, improve the marine-environment compensation mechanism. Improve laws and regulations related to marine-environment compensation; clarify the main body, responsibilities, methods, and standards of marine-environment compensation; and implement protection and compensation for typical ecosystems in important bays. Fourth, implement cross-regional joint ecological defense and governance, and strengthen regional marine-environment space protection and governance. Strengthen cooperation with neighboring countries in the governance of the marine environment and promote the common governance of the international marine environment.

Figures and Tables: 
- All figures’ captions are very brief and don’t provide a good description of the figures. 
- Figures 1, 2, and 3; please provide a label in the Y axis. 
- All tables’ captions are very brief and don’t provide a good description of the tables. For example in many of them in the note it says "calculated using the authors’ formula". In this case, please specify the section where the formula is mentioned. 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance, the authors have made some adjustments of figures and tables in the content.
(1) We have provided a good description of the figures 1, 2, and 3. 
(2) We have also specified the section where the formula is mentioned of tables 3, 4, and 5.

Conclusion and discussion 
The section "6. Conclusion and discussion" provides a kind of a summary of results and also provides some interpretation of the results and recommendations. However, this section, as well as the whole manuscript, lacks a real discussion where the authors should use findings of other similar studies (e.g., with the same objectives or using the same or other methodology) for comparison even for other regions or countries (not necessarily only in China). In fact, this section lacks any reference to any other study. What is then missing is a scientific/scholarly 'discussion' which links the proposed ideas in this paper into the other existing similar research. 

Also, the discussion and conclusion should be separated in two sections or at least the name should be "discussion and conclusion" starting with the discussion (scientific/scholarly 'discussion' which links the proposed ideas in this paper into the other existing similar research) then the main conclusions of the authors. 

Response: Thanks very much for the guidance of the Reviewer. The comments from reviewers are of great reference significance, the authors have made some adjustments in the content, the discussion and conclusion have been separated in two sections.

(1) In part 6.1, it is mainly discussion. The author revised all the statements.(P19-20)
The United Nations General Assembly pointed out in "Changing Our World: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" that "global warming, sea level rise, ocean acidification and other impacts of climate change have seriously affected coastal areas and low-lying coastal countries, including many least developed countries and small island developing States.The survival of many societies and various biological systems that support the earth is threatened”[37]. The change of marine environment has a significant impact on the marine economy of coastal countries and regions in the world, especially on the development of marine fishery economy. UNESCO pointed out: "At present, the degradation of the marine environment is intensifying, which has a negative impact on the structure and function of the marine ecosystem. By 2050, the global population is expected to reach 9 billion, which will exert greater pressure on the marine ecosystem.”[38] At the same time, the extensive development mode of marine fishery economy has led to problems such as sea water oxidation, marine garbage and pollutant concentration, which have caused serious damage to the marine environment and had a huge impact on world food security. How to improve the quality of marine environment and promote the high-quality development of marine fisheries has become the focus of attention of all countries in the world. Therefore, the quality of marine environment and marine fishery economy development should be improved from a diversified perspective. Promoting the coordinated development of the marine environment and marine fishery economy is not only a scientific issue, but also a practical issue. Studying the coordination of China's marine environment and marine fishery quality is of great value to other countries and regions in the world, mainly reflected in the following two aspects:
First, studying the coordination of China's marine environment and marine fishery quality provides a new research framework for other countries and regions to improve the quality of marine environment and marine fishery economy. At present, the research on the economic quality of marine fisheries and the quality of marine environment is as shown in the previous literature review [39], we have mostly analysed the economic marine-fishery-quality and the marine-environment-quality as separate entities in a single analysis, or discuss the impact of changes in the marine environment on the development of marine fisheries. We believe that changes in the marine environment can affect the economic development of marine fisheries, and extensive aquaculture and overfishing of marine fisheries can lead to the deterioration of the marine environment [40] [41].We seldom discuss the coupling and coordination of marine fishery economic quality and marine environmental quality. The marine fishery economic system and the marine environmental system are two closely related systems that interact with each other, and they work together to form a diversified organism. Therefore, we need to analyze the coupling and coordination relationship between the two from a systematic perspective to promote their common development and form a positive resultant force . We selected several indicators to construct the indicator system of marine fishery economic quality and marine environmental quality, measured their coordination using the coupling coordination model in physics, and selected Tobit measurement model to measure the important factors affecting their coordination, revealing the coordinated evolution state, laws and regional differences of China's marine fishery economy and marine environmental quality,this is not only conducive to breaking the traditional thinking of separating marine environment and marine fishery development, giving play to the synergistic effect, but also helps to provide a new research framework and method for other coastal countries and regions to study marine fishery economy and marine environment quality.
Second, the study of the coordination of China's marine environment and marine fishery quality provides decision-making reference for other countries and regions to improve the coordination of marine environment and marine fishery quality. We use the model to measure the scale of marine fishery economy, the strength of marine fishery industry and the production capacity of marine fishery. These aspects have a far greater impact on the coordination of marine fishery economy and marine environmental quality than on marine environmental quality. But this does not mean that the marine environment plays a small role in improving the coordination of marine fishery economy and marine environment quality. On the contrary, the quality of marine resources and marine ecological quality has a strong, statistically significant impact on improving the coordination of marine fishery economy and marine environment quality, which means that to improve the coordination of marine fishery economy and marine environment quality. We must pay close attention to the level of marine environment quality. Therefore, if we want to improve the coordination between marine fishery economy and marine environment quality, we should not only promote the high-quality development of marine fishery economy, but also accelerate the governance and protection of marine environment. Only by deeply integrating these two aspects can we improve the level of coordination. This is an important reference for other coastal countries and regions in the development of economic and marine environmental policies for marine fisheries.
Of course, we have constructed an evaluation index system for the marine fishery economy and marine environment quality based on the existing research results, which reflects the strength of the marine fishery economy development and the marine environment construction level in a more comprehensive way. However, due to the limitation of data and materials, some impact indicators have not been included in the evaluation indicator system, which will inevitably lead to certain limitations in the research, such as changes in natural environment, labor quality, etc. We need to further explore and improve the indicator system. At the same time, we focus on the spatio-temporal evolution characteristics of the coordination between marine fishery economy and marine environmental quality. The spatial agglomeration analysis of the coordination between marine fishery economy and marine environmental quality is weak, which will also be the focus of future research. In addition, we consider other work using qualitative or different statistical method. We pay attention to the coupling relationship between marine fishery economy and marine environmental quality at the global scale and recognize that policies and governance strategies are also valuable.

(2) In part 6.2, it is mainly conclusion. The author revised all the statements.(P20-22)
By measuring the coordination between marine-environment quality and marine-fishery-economy quality, we analyze the pattern of their coordination over time. The following conclusions are obtained.
First, marine-environment quality and marine-fishery-economy quality are on the rise overall, showing obvious spatial heterogeneity. In the initial stage, In terms of the quality of the marine fishery economy, during the study period of 10 years, the marine fishery economic quality of Shandong, Zhejiang, and Fujian remained at a high level, with a rapid development rate in time sequence evolution. In terms of spatial evolution, the marine fishery economy presents a distribution pattern of a large gap between south and north and small gaps in the east. The average marine fishery economy of Shandong in the Northern Marine Economic Circle is 22 times that of Tianjin, and the gap is obvious. In the next stage, in terms of marine-environment quality, during the study period of 10 years, the marine-environment quality of Jiangsu, Shandong, and Guangdong remained at a high level. In terms of spatial evolution, marine-environment quality presents a spatial distribution pattern of a large gap in the east and a small gap in the north and south. The marine-environment quality of Jiangsu in the Eastern Marine Economic Circle is twice that of Shanghai. The gap between provinces in marine-environment quality has gradually widened. By 2020, the marine-environment quality of Jiangsu was 2.5 times that of Tianjin.
Second, the coordination between China's marine fishery economy and the quality of marine environment shows obvious volatility, but the overall trend is wave like, gradually moving to the intermediate stage. Liaoning, Shandong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangxi and Guangdong have reached the primary level of coordination by 2020. Among them, Shandong and Guangdong are approaching the intermediate level. Coordination between marine-environment and fishery-economy quality is biased. Marine-environment quality and coordination level are relatively high, but marine fishery economic quality is at a low level. Relying on the advantages of marine-environment quality, it shows high coordination, forming a negative effect of high coordination value but low economic quality. In terms of spatial evolution, there is a significant difference between the coordinated evolution of marine-environment quality and marine-fishery-economy quality, showing a small difference in the south. The difference between east and north is large. The interprovincial coordination of marine-environment quality and marine-fishery-economy quality is in a dynamic adjustment period. Most provinces/cities are in the barely coordinated and primary coordination stages, and only Shandong is in the intermediate coordination stage. 
Third, the scale of the marine fishery economy and the strength of the marine fishery industry are important factors that affect coordination between marine-environment quality and marine-fishery-economy quality. Through model calculation, we find that the strength of the marine fishery industry, the scale of the marine fishery economy, the production capacity of marine fishery, marine-environment quality, and the quality of marine resources and environment have a positive effect on coordination, and all pass the significance test. Among them, the impact coefficient of marine fishery economic scale is the highest, reaching 0.04, followed by that of the strength of the marine fishery industry, reaching 0.03. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been substantially improved and could be published now.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors successfully responded to most of my comments, and the manuscript has been greatly improved based on my first review recommendations. I have no further comments. So, the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.