Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts of Shrimp Farming in the Philippines: A Critical Analysis Using PRISMA
, Darshel Ester P. Estor 2, Elaine Q. Borazon 3,*, Misael B. Clapano 1,2 and Mudjekeewis D. Santos 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work is interesting, although it would be advisable to revise it:
Introduction: It is necessary to provide a structure of what will be discussed in the article.
The networks obtained from the bibiliometric analysis are not well explained: What indices have been evaluated? Where are the tables that support the results of the networks? Look at the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620352719 to be able to observe the parameters that can be used and how to display vosviewer results.
The results are purely bibliographical and lack robustness.
The case study is well presented but does not have sufficient results. The results are poor and do not show anything interesting.
The discussion is missing
Conclusions (future directions, limitations and conclusions of the study) are missing.
Author Response
The networks obtained from the bibiliometric analysis are not well explained: What indices have been evaluated? Where are the tables that support the results of the networks? Look at the paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620352719 to be able to observe the parameters that can be used and how to display vosviewer results.
=Thank you for this comment and for suggesting a reference for the VOSviewer analysis. The article was really helpful. This study utilized co-occurrence analysis and text analysis to allow us to identify the most common words that would aid in our synthesis approach of the articles. We have added a paragraph under the methodology section (lines 149-153) to discuss the index and analysis we used.
=We have also modified the results and discussion section to further discuss the co-occurrence/thematic analysis with additional tables on occurrences, links, and total link strengths (see lines 156-160;179-182).
The results are purely bibliographical and lack robustness.
=We do not agree with the reviewer’s comment on this as this study looked into various literature regarding the shrimp farming activities in the Philippines and focused on the analyses of 39 relevant journal articles from the WoS and SCOPUS databases. Moreover, this was supplemented with the use of other published literature for the study.
The case study is well presented but does not have sufficient results. The results are poor and do not show anything interesting.
=The results were shown in five figures and seven tables for this study. The additional results were provided for the cluster analyses in Tables 2 and 3; While tables 1, 6 and 7 were also improved or edited for readability
=We think that the study provides interesting details concerning the discussion of the results which have shown or provided themes in the study that were current or relevant for the shrimp farming industry in the Philippines and provide lessons also for other shrimp industries in the southeast Asia and beyond.
The discussion is missing
=The discussion is not missing but we provided it through the discussion of the various themes in the Results and Discussion section, e.g. in the Results and Discussion 3.1 to 3.5…further we have added new lines of discussion, especially discussion on marine pollution in lines 286-302, 312-322 as well as for the discussion on socioeconomic impact where we added lines 348-366
=Lines 178-180 was revised including lines 199-202; the Tables were also edited e.g. Table 1, 6 and 7
Conclusions (future directions, limitations and conclusions of the study) are missing.
=The conclusion is present and future directions; research gaps were mentioned including strategies for sustainable shrimp aquaculture in the Philippines see lines 396-469
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article reviews the possible environmental and socioeconomic impacts, challenges, and disease outbreaks that affected the Philippines shrimp industry over the years using the PRISMA method. Possible solutions required to revitalize the industry for future resilience are offered. This article responds to the theme of sustainability and corresponds to the journal's direction. The conducted research corresponds to the set goal. The abstract reflects the content of the article. The conclusions are consistent with the study.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article reviews the possible environmental and socioeconomic impacts, challenges, and disease outbreaks that affected the Philippines shrimp industry over the years using the PRISMA method. Possible solutions required to revitalize the industry for future resilience are offered. This article responds to the theme of sustainability and corresponds to the journal's direction. The conducted research corresponds to the set goal. The abstract reflects the content of the article. The conclusions are consistent with the study.
=Thank you very much for reviewing and appreciating our work
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General suggestions
The review was well structured and well written. The authors show several points that need to be improved for aquaculture to become a sustainable activity. The manuscript can improve in some points. The authors need to discuss more about biotechnological solutions to reduce environmental risks involving aquaculture. In some subjects the authors can delve further. For example, use of BFT systems, aquaponics, and strategies for reducing dietary nitrogen compounds. Also write about which public policies the government can adopt to encourage sustainability in aquaculture systems.
Introduction
Line 99 – remove “!”
Discussion
“The government should adopt further adaptation measures to prevent the catastrophic impacts of climate change and variabilities with the aquaculture sector”: Add what measures the government can take.
“Recommended strategies were considered to improve shrimp aquaculture, including disease management, adopting good aquaculture practices, proper environmental monitoring, sustainable practices at the farm level and priorities for future research” More detail: what strategies? What good practices?
More intensive aquaculture production systems, eg Bioflocs (BFT), Aquaponics, can be a strategy to increase the production of aquatic organisms? Answer this in the discussion.
Write in the discussion on the importance of water quality in good production practices.
What sustainable practices can be adopted to reduce the environmental damage of aquaculture? More detail in the manuscript.
“The government should adopt further adaptation measures to prevent the catastrophic impacts of climate change and variabilities with the aquaculture sector” Cite measures of the government to reduce the damage.
Add a recommendations item in the discussion. Describe which recommendations and ideas the authors have for improved sustainability aquaculture.
Conclusion
The conclusion needs to be short and to the point. Present the main findings of the review.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General suggestions
The review was well structured and well written. The authors show several points that need to be improved for aquaculture to become a sustainable activity. The manuscript can improve in some points. The authors need to discuss more about biotechnological solutions to reduce environmental risks involving aquaculture. In some subjects the authors can delve further. For example, use of BFT systems, aquaponics, and strategies for reducing dietary nitrogen compounds.
=Discussions about water quality and environmental impacts were included in 3.1, 3.3 and section 4 or conclusion and recommendations
Also write about which public policies the government can adopt to encourage sustainability in aquaculture systems.
=Thank you for your suggestions to improve the manuscript, these have been addressed in the marine pollution, climate change impacts as well as in the conclusion and recommendation parts; all changes were highlighted in color blue or violet.
=These have been addressed in the conclusion and recommendation section as well as partly in Lines 287-302, and lines 386-392
Introduction
Line 99 – remove “!”
=This was modified already
=Lines 144-152 was also revised further, including lines 178-180 was revised including lines 199-202; the Tables were also edited e.g. Tables 1, 6 and 7
Discussion
“The government should adopt further adaptation measures to prevent the catastrophic impacts of climate change and variabilities with the aquaculture sector”: Add what measures the government can take.
=These were addressed in lines 358-366; lines 381-393 and these were reiterated in the recommendations found in lines 432-469
“Recommended strategies were considered to improve shrimp aquaculture, including disease management, adopting good aquaculture practices, proper environmental monitoring, sustainable practices at the farm level and priorities for future research” More detail: what strategies? What good practices?
=These have been addressed in the recommendation section lines 431-468
More intensive aquaculture production systems, eg Bioflocs (BFT), Aquaponics, can be a strategy to increase the production of aquatic organisms? Answer this in the discussion.
Write in the discussion on the importance of water quality in good production practices.
=We have added new lines of discussion particularly about marine pollution in lines 286-302, and lines 312-322 as well as for the discussion on socioeconomic impact where we added lines 348-366
=Lines 178-180 was revised including lines 199-202; the Tables were also edited e.g. Tables 1, 6 and 7
What sustainable practices can be adopted to reduce the environmental damage of aquaculture? More detail in the manuscript.
=These were included in lines 421-425, 431-468
“The government should adopt further adaptation measures to prevent the catastrophic impacts of climate change and variabilities with the aquaculture sector” Cite measures of the government to reduce the damage.
=These measures have been added in lines 384-392
Add a recommendations item in the discussion. Describe which recommendations and ideas the authors have for improved sustainability aquaculture.
=This was already added in lines 431-468
Conclusion
The conclusion needs to be short and to the point. Present the main findings of the review.
=The conclusion was revised, shortened and we added some lines for the recommendation Lines 395-430 and recommendation is in lines 431-468
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The idea of the review on shrimp farming in the Philippines was good idea and authors have done a good job. I suggest that-
- The authors reformats the tables for better presentation
- Add detailed information in the figure legends, especially for cluster analyses
Author Response
The idea of the review on shrimp farming in the Philippines was a good idea and the authors have done a good job. I suggest that-
- The authors reformat the tables for better presentation
=The Tables have been edited including Tables 1, 6 and 7
2. Add detailed information in the figure legends, especially for cluster analyses
=Tables 2 and 3 were added for the cluster analyses
=New lines were added also for the discussion in lines 286-302, and lines 312-322 for marine pollution as well as for the discussion on socioeconomic impact where we added lines 348-366
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my view, publication is possible after the changes have been made.
