Dried Fish and Fishmeal as Commodities: Boosting Profitability for Artisanal Fishers in Namibe, Angola

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dears,

I have completed my review of the article “How the Production and Commercialization of Dried Fish and Fishmeal Impact the Profitability of Artisanal Fishers in Namibe, Angola, Africa” and found it to be a compelling and important study worthy of publication. That said, I believe a few revisions could further strengthen the manuscript. First, the introduction would benefit from reorganization, as some key ideas currently embedded in the discussion might fit better there. Additionally, the methodology section should include the interview questionnaire or formulary used, as this is critical for both assessing and replicating the study. Regarding the results, while I appreciate that the scenarios are theoretical and the tables reflect probabilities of success, I suggest first performing a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA)—similar to PCA but for categorical data—to better summarize the principal characteristics of the study area. This would provide a clearer foundation for interpreting the scenarios. Overall, the work is robust and relevant, and I hope these suggestions prove helpful for its refinement. 

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answers to reviewers

We would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestions that greatly improve the article, we made some notes as he suggested:

*Changes and insertions have been highlighted in blue in the text.

Reviewer #1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dears,

I have completed my review of the article “How the Production and Commercialization of Dried Fish and Fishmeal Impact the Profitability of Artisanal Fishers in Namibe, Angola, Africa” and found it to be a compelling and important study worthy of publication. That said, I believe a few revisions could further strengthen the manuscript. First, the introduction would benefit from reorganization, as some key ideas currently embedded in the discussion might fit better there. Additionally, the methodology section should include the interview questionnaire or formulary used, as this is critical for both assessing and replicating the study. Regarding the results, while I appreciate that the scenarios are theoretical and the tables reflect probabilities of success, I suggest first performing a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA)—similar to PCA but for categorical data—to better summarize the principal characteristics of the study area. This would provide a clearer foundation for interpreting the scenarios. Overall, the work is robust and relevant, and I hope these suggestions prove helpful for its refinement. 

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the potential use of Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) to interpret categorical data in a manner analogous to Principal Component Analysis (PCA). However, the methodological framework of the present study was specifically designed to assess the economic viability of artisanal fishing under distinct production and value-addition scenarios. All variables analyzed were of a quantitative and continuous nature, such as production volumes, operational costs, investment requirements, and profitability indicators (NPV, IRR, MIRR, payback period), which are not suited to MCA, a technique primarily intended for exploring associations among categorical variables.

Moreover, the study’s central objective was not to reduce the dimensionality of a complex set of categorical descriptors, but rather to conduct a deterministic economic analysis based on well-established engineering economics and fisheries economics models. These models allowed for a direct and precise estimation of financial returns under different scenarios, supported by sensitivity analyses that already synthesize the main characteristics and trends of the activity in the study area.

In this context, applying MCA would not add interpretative value to the results, as it would not alter or enhance the economic conclusions derived from the quantitative indicators. Instead, the adopted approach ensured methodological coherence and alignment with the specific aims of the research, while preserving analytical robustness and clarity in addressing the economic feasibility of artisanal fishing and the role of value-added products in enhancing profitability.

Correction notes inserted into the document by reviewer 1

Authors' Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We hope to have corrected all the points mentioned that were in disagreement.

Join with the first paragraph; Join with the paragraph above; Join. One paragraph.

Suggestion accepted, the entire text of the introduction and discussion was restructured as suggested by the reviewer, joining several paragraphs for better understanding.

One map with some pictures in the map could help us to better understand. Or, a map (your figure 01) and some pictures separately.

Suggestion accepted, map replaced.

This paragraphs sounds like introduction. Not a real discussion.

Suggestion accepted, the paragraph was removed from the discussion and incorporated, structured and contextualized in the introduction.

Place in conclusion

Suggestion accepted, paragraph removed from the end of the discussion and incorporated in a structured in the conclusion.

Consider join all paragraphs in one

Suggestion accepted, the entire conclusion was unified in one paragraph.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

This paper tries to investigate the economic viability of artisanal fishing in Namibe Province, Angola, particularly focusing on how processing fish into dried fish and fishmeal impacts profitability. The authors analyze different scenarios, comparing the sale of fresh fish with the added value of processed products, and evaluate this using profitability indicators like Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and Payback Period. The study concludes that incorporating fish processing significantly enhances economic returns for small-scale fishers and promotes sustainable resource utilization by reducing waste. It highlights the potential for these products to become valuable commodities within regional markets, contributing to socioeconomic development and food security in coastal communities.

The objective of the manuscript, in general, is interesting from a fishery’s economic perspective, particularly given the importance of small-scale fisheries in the Angola. However, the manuscript requires some improvements to meet publication standards. The manuscript should become acceptable for publication pending suitable major revision considering the comments appended below.

More specific comments:

Title: The current title is descriptive and could be improved for conciseness and impact. For example, the inclusion of "Africa" is redundant as Angola is located in Africa. The phrase "How the Production and Commercialization of..." can be made more direct. In addition, the study emphasizes that the inclusion of processing stages significantly increased profitability and added value to fish by-products. It also notes that dried fish and fishmeal assume characteristics typical of commodities due to their higher commercial value and growing demand. Furthermore, the article consistently refers to the "economic viability" of artisanal fishing under different scenarios. These key findings and concepts should be highlighted. Considering these points, here are a few suggested alternatives, for your consideration:

• Enhancing Artisanal Fisher Profitability through Dried Fish and Fishmeal Value Addition in Namibe, Angola.
• Dried Fish and Fishmeal as Commodities: Boosting Profitability for Artisanal Fishers in Namibe, Angola.
• Economic Viability of Artisanal Fishing: The Role of Dried Fish and Fishmeal in Namibe, Angola.

Abstract: The abstract captures the main research findings. It effectively communicates the study's aim, methodology, and core results regarding the economic viability of artisanal fishing and the positive impact of fish processing. However, there are areas where it could be improved to enhance its impact, conciseness, and comprehensiveness, drawing more strongly on the study's key insights and the detailed findings in the source. For example, consider starting with a sentence that sets the stage by briefly mentioning the importance of artisanal fishing while alluding to existing challenges that processing helps address. In addition, the abstract states, "The inclusion of processing stages increased the profitability of the activity by adding value to fish by-products". While accurate, this is an understatement of the actual findings. The results section shows that the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) can jump from 34.30% (Scenario A, without by-product commercialization) to 106.28% (Scenario C, with inclusion of dried fish and fishmeal production and sales). So, please quantify this significant increase or use stronger phrasing. Moreover, the abstract notes that "dried fish and fishmeal assume characteristics typical of commodities". This is a crucial finding. The discussion further links this to the "proximity economy" concept, emphasizing local value chains and reduced intermediation. So, try to strengthen this point by stating that processing transforms less commercially valuable fish or by-products into high-value commodities. Integrate the "proximity economy" idea if space allows, as it's a key concept in the paper. Alos, at the end, a very brief phrase or two in the abstract could hint at the broader socioeconomic impacts, showing that the benefits extend beyond just financial profitability. Please check.

Figures & Table:

To improve clarity and flow, I recommend renumbering "Table 2a" as "Table 2" and "Table 2b" as "Table 3", adjusting all subsequent table numbers accordingly.

In Table 1, "Fishery production data and revenues," the "Total/month" and "Total/year" rows are labeled "kg/week." These values should be "kg/month" (representing weekly production summed and multiplied by 4) and "kg/year" (representing monthly production summed and multiplied by 12), respectively, despite the corresponding USD values being derived consistently.

Tables 2.a and 2.b: the "Total/month" under USD columns should be "Total/week USD," as it sums weekly revenues. Consequently, the "Total/year" under USD columns, calculated by multiplying the weekly sum by 4, effectively represents a monthly sum and should be labeled "Total/month USD," creating a misleading impression of a four-month "year" in this context.

Table 3: while the footnote states an "Annual interest on capital" of 7.5%, most calculated "Annual interest on capital" values are inexplicably half of this rate (3.75%), whereas "Registration Roll + Sailor IDs" and "Documentation 3%" correctly apply the 7.5% rate, necessitating clarification of the calculation method.

Finally, Table 4: the "Estimation of Production Costs" section states financial charges are "estimated as an annual interest rate applied to 50% of the EOC value," yet the "Financial Charges" in Table 4 are consistently calculated as a full 7.5% of the Effective Operating Cost (EOC).

Also, while the tables are generally clear, there's an ambiguity concerning the integration of data between Table 2 and Table 5. Specifically, it's unclear how the detailed breakdown of Scomber japonicus commercialization scenarios in Table 2, which show "Total/year" revenues up to USD 3,851.98, reconcile with the significantly higher "Gross Revenue" figures presented for "with fishmeal" scenarios in Table 5, ranging from USD 39,586.25 to USD 48,162.92. This substantial discrepancy makes it difficult to understand the derivation of the gross revenue values in Table 5.

Author Response

Answers to reviewers

We would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestions that greatly improve the article, we made some notes as he suggested:

*Changes and insertions have been highlighted in blue in the text.

Reviewer #2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

This paper tries to investigate the economic viability of artisanal fishing in Namibe Province, Angola, particularly focusing on how processing fish into dried fish and fishmeal impacts profitability. The authors analyze different scenarios, comparing the sale of fresh fish with the added value of processed products, and evaluate this using profitability indicators like Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and Payback Period. The study concludes that incorporating fish processing significantly enhances economic returns for small-scale fishers and promotes sustainable resource utilization by reducing waste. It highlights the potential for these products to become valuable commodities within regional markets, contributing to socioeconomic development and food security in coastal communities.

The objective of the manuscript, in general, is interesting from a fishery’s economic perspective, particularly given the importance of small-scale fisheries in the Angola. However, the manuscript requires some improvements to meet publication standards. The manuscript should become acceptable for publication pending suitable major revision considering the comments appended below.

Authors' Response: Thank you for your suggestions. We hope to have corrected all the points mentioned that were in disagreement.

More specific comments:

Title: The current title is descriptive and could be improved for conciseness and impact. For example, the inclusion of "Africa" is redundant as Angola is located in Africa. The phrase "How the Production and Commercialization of..." can be made more direct. In addition, the study emphasizes that the inclusion of processing stages significantly increased profitability and added value to fish by-products. It also notes that dried fish and fishmeal assume characteristics typical of commodities due to their higher commercial value and growing demand. Furthermore, the article consistently refers to the "economic viability" of artisanal fishing under different scenarios. These key findings and concepts should be highlighted. Considering these points, here are a few suggested alternatives, for your consideration:

• Enhancing Artisanal Fisher Profitability through Dried Fish and Fishmeal Value Addition in Namibe, Angola.
• Dried Fish and Fishmeal as Commodities: Boosting Profitability for Artisanal Fishers in Namibe, Angola.
• Economic Viability of Artisanal Fishing: The Role of Dried Fish and Fishmeal in Namibe, Angola.

Authors' Response: We appreciate the suggestion and find it pertinent. We have changed the article title to " Dried Fish and Fishmeal as Commodities: Boosting Profitability for Artisanal Fishers in Namibe, Angola."

Abstract: The abstract captures the main research findings. It effectively communicates the study's aim, methodology, and core results regarding the economic viability of artisanal fishing and the positive impact of fish processing. However, there are areas where it could be improved to enhance its impact, conciseness, and comprehensiveness, drawing more strongly on the study's key insights and the detailed findings in the source. For example, consider starting with a sentence that sets the stage by briefly mentioning the importance of artisanal fishing while alluding to existing challenges that processing helps address. In addition, the abstract states, "The inclusion of processing stages increased the profitability of the activity by adding value to fish by-products". While accurate, this is an understatement of the actual findings. The results section shows that the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) can jump from 34.30% (Scenario A, without by-product commercialization) to 106.28% (Scenario C, with inclusion of dried fish and fishmeal production and sales). So, please quantify this significant increase or use stronger phrasing. Moreover, the abstract notes that "dried fish and fishmeal assume characteristics typical of commodities". This is a crucial finding. The discussion further links this to the "proximity economy" concept, emphasizing local value chains and reduced intermediation. So, try to strengthen this point by stating that processing transforms less commercially valuable fish or by-products into high-value commodities. Integrate the "proximity economy" idea if space allows, as it's a key concept in the paper. Alos, at the end, a very brief phrase or two in the abstract could hint at the broader socioeconomic impacts, showing that the benefits extend beyond just financial profitability. Please check.

Authors' Response: We agree with the valuable suggestions and have restructured the entire abstract to ensure better understanding of the article's content.

Figures & Table:

 To improve clarity and flow, I recommend renumbering "Table 2a" as "Table 2" and "Table 2b" as "Table 3", adjusting all subsequent table numbers accordingly.

Authors' Response: We appreciate your valuable comment. As suggested, we have updated the table numbering starting from Table 2.

In Table 1, "Fishery production data and revenues," the "Total/month" and "Total/year" rows are labeled "kg/week." These values should be "kg/month" (representing weekly production summed and multiplied by 4) and "kg/year" (representing monthly production summed and multiplied by 12), respectively, despite the corresponding USD values being derived consistently.

Authors' Response: We appreciate your comment. We have taken your suggestions into account and added a row reflecting the results of the weekly productions.

Tables 2.a and 2.b: the "Total/month" under USD columns should be "Total/week USD," as it sums weekly revenues. Consequently, the "Total/year" under USD columns, calculated by multiplying the weekly sum by 4, effectively represents a monthly sum and should be labeled "Total/month USD," creating a misleading impression of a four-month "year" in this context.

 Authors' Response: We appreciate your careful attention to the issue raised. There was a clear error in the configuration of Table 2. In it, we considered the values obtained for the Week, which were mistakenly labeled as “Monthly,” and the values previously labeled as “Monthly” have been renamed to “Annual.” In the revised version, we have added row headings corresponding to the weekly values (with the correct data) and included rows referring to the annual values.

Table 3: while the footnote states an "Annual interest on capital" of 7.5%, most calculated "Annual interest on capital" values are inexplicably half of this rate (3.75%), whereas "Registration Roll + Sailor IDs" and "Documentation 3%" correctly apply the 7.5% rate, necessitating clarification of the calculation method.

Authors' Response: In economic and financial analyses, the annual interest on capital for depreciable assets is typically calculated using half of the stipulated annual interest rate. This practice is based on the assumption that the investment in the asset is not fully committed throughout the entire year, since the asset’s value declines progressively due to depreciation. Under the linear depreciation method, the average capital invested during the year is approximately half of the initial asset value. Therefore, the financial cost (interest on capital) is computed on this average investment rather than the full initial value. This approach aligns with standard accounting and engineering economic principles, as discussed in established references (Park, 2011; Horngren et al., 2012; Drury, 2013).

• Park, C. S. (2011). Contemporary Engineering Economics (5th ed.). Pearson.
• Horngren, C. T., Sundem, G. L., Elliott, J. A., & Philbrick, D. (2012). Introduction to Financial Accounting (11th ed.). Pearson.
• Drury, C. (2013). Management and Cost Accounting (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Finally, Table 4: the "Estimation of Production Costs" section states financial charges are "estimated as an annual interest rate applied to 50% of the EOC value," yet the "Financial Charges" in Table 4 are consistently calculated as a full 7.5% of the Effective Operating Cost (EOC).

Authors' Response: We appreciate your important observation. There was an error in transposing the values during the preparation of this table, which has been duly corrected.

Also, while the tables are generally clear, there's an ambiguity concerning the integration of data between Table 2 and Table 5. Specifically, it's unclear how the detailed breakdown of Scomber japonicus commercialization scenarios in Table 2, which show "Total/year" revenues up to USD 3,851.98, reconcile with the significantly higher "Gross Revenue" figures presented for "with fishmeal" scenarios in Table 5, ranging from USD 39,586.25 to USD 48,162.92. This substantial discrepancy makes it difficult to understand the derivation of the gross revenue values in Table 5.

 Authors' Response: Dear Reviewer, we understand your perspective, and your concern is clear to us. We acknowledge that we may not have sufficiently clarified the intentions behind the analyses presented in the referenced tables. In Tables 2, and now Table 3, we conducted projections regarding the variations in product allocation derived from Scomber japonicus (Fresh fish for consumption and Salted fish with viscera meal). In these tables, we projected the potential gains across percentage variations ranging from 100% Fresh fish and 0% Salted fish with viscera meal, to the reverse scenario of 0% Fresh fish and 100% Salted fish with viscera meal. Table 5, in turn, presents two catch scenarios: in Scenario A (Pessimistic), total catches were reduced by 10%, whereas in Scenario C (Optimistic), catches were increased by 10%. Therefore, we emphasize that these tables present distinct analyses, yet both illustrate the possible situations encountered in the daily practices of artisanal fishers in Namibe, Angola.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors successfully responded to most of my comments, and the manuscript has been greatly improved based on my first review and the other reviewers' recommendations.