Supply Chain-Based Coral Conservation: The Case of Mozuku Seaweed Farming in Onna Village, Okinawa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The importance of the problem: as the authors rightly point out, "blue food" is usually overlooked in food systems analyses, which is justified by the lack of available data.
This fact to some extent impinges on the content presented in the article, (lack of so-called; hard data), however, the analyses carried out fill the existing cognitive gap in the studied area. The authors specifically emphasize the regenerative role of aqua-crops.
Referring to the construction of the text:
1) Abstract - does not find a clearly stated purpose of the work, research questions, and there is no information about the material and the method of research used (I assume that the method is a case study)
2) Introduction - adequately introduces the reader to the issue raised, but does not contain a clear objective and indications of how to achieve it
3) Material and method - this part reinforces my belief that the article has the character of an evaluation of the existing state of affairs more on the basis of logical analysis than statistical proof, this approach has its good and weaker points
4) Results - presented descriptively, at different levels, in accordance with the logic of the procedure adopted by the authorsa. The content corresponds to the availability of data.
5)  Discussion - this element of the article raises my doubts. Discussion in scientific articles is usually an answer to the question: what does it even mean, how does my research relate to previous results? I find no such reflection in the reviewed paper. There are also few references to works by other authors addressing the described issue in its entirety. In my opinion, this part of the article needs reconstruction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is understandable, the text is easy to read

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our paper and the valuable comments. We prepared the point-by-point answers.

1. Abstract

Added the following research objectives and research questions

OBJECTIVE:

This research explores the role the supply chain, including consumers, plays in restorative aquaculture.

RESEARCH QUESTION:

1. What quality assurance technique is necessary to continue restorative aquaculture as a market-based solution over the long term?
2. What social platforms and communication channels are available to stakeholders to maintain restorative aquaculture in the long run?

2. Introduction

The other two referees also noted the absence of a clear research question, research objective, and research gap. In response, the authors added the following sentences at the end of the introduction.

GAP: Many studies have highlighted the importance of restorative aquaculture and its potential as a market-based solution. However, few papers provide details on the market structure, supply chain relationships, and financial flow necessary to realize the positive impact of certain types of aquacultures. In addition, it is also important to consider the cultural uniqueness of seaweed as food in the context of restorative aquaculture.

3. The authors clearly articulate the method section below (2.1)

This paper uses data analysis, literature reviews, interviews, and observations. Data provided by Onna Village Fisheries Cooperative and Igeta Takeuchi Co., Ltd. were analyzed together with seaweed production statistics of Okinawa, which are publicly available. A series of interviews with members of Onna Village Fisheries Cooperative and managers of consumer cooperatives were conducted between 2018 and 2023. Observations were conducted on boats and in the water at seaweed farming grounds. Also, the seaweed processing factory was visited in July 2023.

4. Other reviewers pointed out that the result was too long and difficult to read, so we moved 3.4 (The challenge and the countermeasure) to section 4.

5. Other reviewers noted that the initial text lacked a research purpose or research questions. We thought your points (including those for the introduction) aligned with this. The introduction now includes research objectives, questions, and corresponding answers in the discussion (4.2).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see my comments and implement changes:

1. introduction part must be completely rewritten, since it only contains what we already know. We do not have a picture of what is the research gap, why do we need a new paper from this topic, what shall be done in the research and what is the main research question.

2. table 1 is highly unusual and should be improved to be in line with the journal.

3. Figure 1 is inappropriate and should be removed from the paper

4. section 3 is way too long, now it looks very messy. Please restructure this in order to preserve readability.

5. figures 5, 8, 9, 10, etc are totally useless.

6. conclusion part is way to general and wide...

7. only 56 references is way below standard for M22 cathegory journal.

Having all in mind, i would reconsider to reconstruct the whole paper and resubmit it again.

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our paper and the valuable comments. We prepared the point-by-point answers.

1. Introduction

The other two referees also noted the absence of a clear research question, research gap, research objective, and approach to achieve it. In response, the authors added the following sentences at the end of the introduction (line xxx).

OBJECTIVE: This research explores the role the supply chain, including consumers, plays in restorative aquaculture.

RESEARCH QUESTION:

1. What quality assurance technique is necessary to continue restorative aquaculture as a market-based solution over the long term?
2. What social platforms and communication channels are available to stakeholders to maintain restorative aquaculture in the long run?

RESEARCH GAP: Many studies have highlighted the importance of restorative aquaculture and its potential as a market-based solution. However, few papers provide details on the market structure, supply chain relationships, and financial flow necessary to realize the positive impact of certain types of aquaculture. In addition, it is also important to consider the cultural uniqueness of seaweed as food in the context of restorative aquaculture.

2. The authors have made modifications to Table 1.

3. Figure 1 has been removed.

4. Section 3.4 has been moved to the discussion part as the section is the deep exploration of the result towards a conclusion. Also, figures 8, 9, and 10 have been removed from the paper. The section has been arranged in the sequence of the mozuku production process.

5. Figures 8, 9, and 10 have been removed. Regarding Figure 5, which is related to the topic of this journal's special issue - sustainability of seafood and product quality, we would like to leave the photo as evidence of the collaborative effort between producers and processing companies to maintain the quality of their products. We have added the following text to the relevant section to communicate this necessity to our readers.

“One of the reasons producers visit processing plants on the mainland to check the quality of mozuku is to confirm the traits that make it suitable for processing mutually between producers and the processing company. Another reason is that producers usually cannot check the condition of salted and transported mozuku and how it affects processing.”

6. To avoid redundancy, the authors moved the part after row 687 to sections 4.1 and 4.2, as recommended by reviewer 4, and we kept the conclusion brief without bringing new information, as recommended by reviewer 3.

7.  11 references, especially on blue carbon, have been added.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

* good paper, important topic and interesting case study

* row 73. suggest to add "from marine or coastal organisms". in fact, blue carbon is sometimes used in the context of mangroves, which are not marine organisms. 

* row 78. "it is not yet well know that" etc, this is a strange affirmation. it is actually quite well known that those organisms sequester carbon and so do oceans. consider a reformulation. 

* Consider adding more references on the potential uses of algae worldwide, such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258063/

* row 145. when you mention market-based solutions, you need to mention briefly how sustainable finance aims at providing more capital for the blue economy. this is a fast growing current in finance. for example: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16030184

* row 157. Consider adding a scientific definition of "case study". why is this case study of mozuku worthwhile studying? what can we learn that can be useful in other contexts?

* row 173. specify when the Ryuku kingdom took place

* row 177, you may want to specify what type of food in mainland japan uses the algae, or what source you use, since this contrast with the apparent absence in Okinawa before the 1970s

* row 189. it is a bit strange to see the reference to the press article.  this comment looks out of place. what is the argument here?

* you may want to also indicate prices in USD in the table 

* row 209. it would be very interesting to learn more details about the organization of the cooperative and how extraction is shared about members of the community, how they harvest the algae in the ocean, and how rules are defined within the cooperative. This could add to the literature of public goods, in line with Elinor Ostrom's "Governing the Commons"

* row 225. it would be interesting somewhere in the paper to comment on the potential size of the market for algae globally, since you mention there is a large potential for this commodity

* row 528, typo on "oocean"

* row 524. this section is very interesting as it describes how different groups / communities can compete for a public good. there can be a conflict between agriculture, development and fisheries (sometimes also tourism) and this is a common problem in many locations worldwide. hence, it is very interesting to highlight this tension and also share some lessons learned on how to solve those conflicts in the case of mozuku. 

* coral protection and red soil runoff are two measures that you mention in favor of mozuku, but do they have other benefits? is it worth mentioning other environmental services?

* the conclusion should not bring new relevant information, but simply conclude and potentially propose topics for future research (consider including row 697 and following into the main body of the paper)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

* some moderate edition needed

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our paper and for the encouraging and valuable comments. We prepared the point-by-point answers.

Row 73: “from marine or coastal organisms” added.

Row 78: Deleted “It is not yet well known…” and added the following sentences.

“Shallow coastal ecosystems, which cover less than 0.5% of the ocean area, sequester over half of the carbon stored in the ocean [ref]. Shallow coastal waters have a strong capacity to sequester carbon, making them a subject of interest in recent years (Xiong et al.), and many studies have worked on estimating accurately the CO2 sequestration capacity of aquatic plants found in shallow water, including seagrass [ref].”

Row 145: We have added the following sentences based on your suggested reference (thank you so much!)

"Blue bonds were first issued in Seychelles in 2018. Since then, 26 blue bond transactions totaling USD 5.0 billion have taken place by 2022. [X]. Bosmans et al. [X] raise concerns about bonds without impact metrics and suggest blue carbon as one of measurable indicator for the effective growth of blue economy. "

Row 157: Regarding the rationale for why the authors researched this species and its economic importance, we have included the following sentences in 2.2.

“Okinawa's subtropical climate allows cultivating crops that cannot be grown on Japan's main island. The largest industry in Okinawa is commerce, specifically tourism. In Okinawa, the fishery industry centers on the coral reef ecosystem, a tourist resource. As a result, their coexistence and sustainable use are of great concern. The value of fishery production in Okinawa Prefecture in 2019 was 21.047 billion yen, of which 9.147 billion yen was from marine aquaculture. Furthermore, about half of the marine aquaculture industry's output, 4,363 million yen, is accounted for by Mozuku, which is the subject of this paper. In this way, Mozuku is extremely important as a fishery industry in Okinawa Prefecture. Additionally, areas for marine activities such as snorkeling often overlap with areas used for mozuku cultivation.”

Re:”What can we learn that can be useful in other contexts?” As other reviewers also questioned this, the authors articulated the research objective and research questions at the end of the introduction.

OBJECTIVE: This research explores the role the supply chain, including consumers, plays in restorative aquaculture.

RESEARCH QUESTION:

1. What quality assurance technique is necessary to continue restorative aquaculture as a market-based solution over the long term?
2. What social platforms and communication channels are available to stakeholders to maintain restorative aquaculture in the long run?

Row 173: established in 1429 and destroyed in 1879.

Row 177: The authors included more information about Nemacystus decipiens as below.

For a long time, wild Nemacystus decipiens was harvested and used raw or salted in areas where it was produced, but due to limited production areas, the species was not eaten nationwide (ref). Although the farming of this species has been established, it is still not widely distributed or well known among consumers due to small production.

Row 189: Figure 1 has been removed as the other referee thinks the figure is inappropriate. Accordingly, the relevant part of the text has also been deleted.

Table 2: Unite prices per kg in USD have been added.

TABLE TITLE: Table 2. The annual production volume and the production value of Mozuku seaweed in Okinawa (1USD=109 yen, the exchange rate in 2019)

Row 209: Regarding the harvest method in the water and how the extraction is shared among members in the cooperative, the authors mentioned briefly in section 3 as below. To cover the important point you raised about the share, the authors added a few sentencesin 3.2.4 (in bold).

 

3.2.4. Harvesting

At OVFC, harvesting is carried out while monitoring the growing period from in-termediate cultivation to harvest, as well as the actual quality of the sporophyte. Har-vesting is usually done in a team of two or three people. One or two people harvest the Mozuku underwater using suction pumps, while the remaining person on board sorts out foreign objects and fills the mozuku into baskets. When Mozuku is unloaded at the fishing port, a quality inspection is conducted and proceed to the initial treatment. A unique feature of OVFC is that although it is a cooperative, each producer's mozuku is sent to the processing company in a state where individuals can be identified. The reason for this will be explained in 3.3. Each producer is paid a fee based on the quantity and quality of their products landed, providing an economic incentive to improve quality.

Row 225(?): regarding the potential size of the market for algae globally, there are many estimates by private market research companies (e.g., 55.67 billion in 2031). Since prediction by academic sources cannot be found, the authors have added the current market size published by FAO in section 1.1 (USD 14.7 billion first-sale value).

Row 528: corrected.

Row 524: The authors highlighted the tension between terrestrial development and OVFC, and the solution they reached is outlined below.

Onna Village receives a total of 2.94 million tourists stay overnight in Onna each year. Many large resort hotels were built from the late 1970s to the 1980s. This period coincides with the time when OVFC established the cultivation technology for mozuku and began harvesting it.

Conflicts between development and OVFC led fishermen to protest marches by boats in 1986. As a result of many years of protests and consultations, OVFC now plays a central role in managing sea surface use (Yanaka 2000). For example, rules have been established to prevent conflicts over the use of fishing grounds in Onna Village's waters. It is required to consult OVFC before starting out any marine leisure businesses in this area, and OVFC member vessels must be used for diving operations. Additionally, the Onna Village Environmental Conservation Ordinance stipulates that resort wastewater must undergo advanced treatment.

Coral protection and red soil runoff and MORE

The authors mentioned three measures to promote mozuku: coral protection, soil runoff prevention, and seagrass bed protection, as outlined in section 4.1.To clarify the third measure, we moved the discussion on the importance of seagrass in a global context from the conclusion to section 4.1.

Rows after 697 have been moved to 4.2 and 4.3.

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General coments

 

The topic of this manuscript is suitable for Sustainability journal. The topic is also of potential interest to researchers in the field. That said, the authors fail to convince that they have made a clear advance here. Your article has had the unfavorable opinion in the scientific analysis.

General comments

 1. The manuscript contains some potentially interesting findings but it needs considerable revision before it could be published and should be returned to a referee prior to acceptance for publication.

2. The rationale for the paper is not clearly outlined.

3. The methods are not sufficiently detailed or precise. The test criterion is whether a researcher who wishes to repeat the work could do so without introducing other variability.

4. The statistical analysis is not clear and, since the strength of the conclusions depends on them, this is an essential requirement.

5. Introduction: Why the authors researched this species? Which the importance of these species in the ecosystem or which the importance economic? Need to make sure each sentence is specific enough to understand. Need to state objectives more clearly, and what were you expecting. What is the hypothesis of this study? It needs to establish the hypothesis to understand the discussion

6. Results.  I could not reconcile the presentation of Methods and the Tables and Figures presenting the data and their analysis. It could be that the text does not describe it well but there could also be an error in the reporting. This needs to be checked and clearly presented. It will be easier to provide a critique on this section if the methods and statistical analysis are clarified. Again, this should be reviewed again by a referee.

7. Discussion. The Discussion covers some interesting points but it needs a clearer direction as to why they are of significance and interest to the main thrust of the paper. Since this is not elaborated (see above) their inclusion appears somewhat random and disorganized.

8. Conclusion. Superficial and redundant, it seems that the authors already knew the conclusion before starting the study

9. References. Only 12 references, of which only three are articles published in specialized journals

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our paper and the valuable comments. We prepared the point-by-point answers.

1. Thank you for your encouraging comment!

2. The authors have clarified the paper's purpose by adding the aim, objectives, and research questions at the end of the introduction.

3. the authors added the method section below (2.1)

This paper is based on data analysis, literature reviews, interviews, and observations. Data provided by Onna Village Fisheries Cooperative and Igeta Takeuchi Co., Ltd., were analysed together with seaweed production statistics of Okinawa, which are publicly available. A series of interviews with members of Onna Village Fisheries Cooperative and managers of consumer cooperatives were conducted between 2018 and 2023. Observations were conducted on boats and in the water at seaweed farming grounds. Also, the seaweed processing factory was visited in July 2023.

4. A clear explanation for Figure 11 (SPSS value) has been added to the main text below.

Figure 11 shows the Suspended Particles in Sea Sediment (SPSS) values of 20 points in the estuary of Onna Village measured by the OVFC producers between 2010 and 2015. SPSS is a convenient measuring method of monitoring soil run-off and was developed in 1985 [48]. The sedimentation monitoring method is widely accepted in Okinawa due to its fast-measuring times, mobile and simple operation, and no requirement for special equipment. The sedimentation monitoring method is widely accepted in Okinawa due to its fast-measuring times, mobile and simple operation, and no requirement for special equipment [48]. Boxes, central lines, interval lines above and below each box, and circles indicate 25th–75th quartiles, median, max, and min distribution values, and outlier values, respectively. The number below each point's initial letters indicates the pollution level, and a rank 6 or higher (50 kg/m3) is considered to be clearly contaminated by anthropogenic red soil or other runoff.

5. The other two referees also noted the absence of a clear research question, research gap, and research objective. In response, the authors added the following sentences at the end of the introduction.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: This research explores the role the supply chain, including consumers, plays in restorative aquaculture.

RESEARCH QUESTION:

1. What quality assurance technique is necessary to continue restorative aquaculture as a market-based solution over the long term?
2. What social platforms and communication channels are available to stakeholders to maintain restorative aquaculture in the long run?

RESEARCH GAP: Many studies have highlighted the importance of restorative aquaculture and its potential as a market-based solution. However, few papers provide details on the market structure, supply chain relationships, and financial flow necessary to realize the positive impact of certain types of aquaculture. In addition, it is also important to consider the cultural uniqueness of seaweed as food in the context of restorative aquaculture.

Regarding the suggestion to add a hypothesis, we have added the following sentence at the end of the introduction.

“This paper hypothesizes that for restorative aquaculture to be viable as a market-based solution in the long term, it must involve not only economic incentives but also other socio-economic relationships.”

Regarding the rationale why the authors researched this species and what is the economic importance, we have included the following sentences in 2.2.

“Okinawa's subtropical climate allows cultivating crops that cannot be grown on Japan's main island. The largest industry in Okinawa is commerce, specifically tourism. In Okinawa, the fishery industry centers on the coral reef ecosystem, a tourist resource. As a result, their coexistence and sustainable use are of great concern. The value of fishery production in Okinawa Prefecture in 2019 was 21.047 billion yen, of which 9.147 billion yen was from marine aquaculture. Furthermore, about half of the marine aquaculture industry's output, 4,363 million yen, is accounted for by Mozuku, which is the subject of this paper. In this way, Mozuku is extremely important as a fishery industry in Okinawa Prefecture. Additionally, areas for marine activities such as snorkeling often overlap with areas used for mozuku cultivation.”

6. Methos have been added in response to your comment No.3.

In response to reviewer 2, figures 1, 8, 9, and 10 have been removed. Regarding Figure 5, which is related to the topic of this journal's special issue - sustainability of seafood and product quality, we would like to leave the photo as evidence of the collaborative effort between producers and processing companies to maintain the quality of their products. We have added the following text to the relevant section to communicate this necessity to our readers.

“One of the reasons producers visit processing plants on the mainland to check the quality of mozuku is to confirm the traits that make it suitable for processing mutually between producers and the processing company. Another reason is that producers usually cannot check the condition of salted and transported mozuku and how it affects processing.”

7. Other reviewers noted that the initial text lacked a research purpose or research questions. We thought your points (including those for the introduction) aligned with this. The introduction now includes research objectives, questions and corresponding answers in the discussion (4.2).

8. To avoid redundancy, the authors moved the part after row 687 to sections 4.1 and 4.2. We kept the conclusion brief without bringing new information, as recommended by reviewer 3.

9. The authors added a few academic papers to the discussion and conclusion section.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ok

Author Response

Thank you so much for going through our manuscript for the second time. We appreciate your valuable comments on the first draft, which helped us so much to improve it. Thank you so much for signing the review report.