PONE-D-22-30978Quantifying the economic effects of different fishery management regimes in two otherwise similar fisheriesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Crosson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please consider all of the reviewers' comments. However, while one of the reviewers suggested that the manuscript would be improved if it were shorter (moving material to appendices or supplementary material), PLOS ONE does not have word limits for the body of a manuscript and length per se would not be a factor in whether the manuscript was accepted or not.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

John A. B. Claydon, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. We note that [Figure 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comparing the Gulf and South Atlantic reef fish/ snapper-grouper fisheries in terms of how they are managed presents a unique opportunity to assess management regimes with regard to how they achieve economic efficiency and profitability. Based on previous research on ITQs, the authors assume that these are preferable systems because they return more economic value from a renewable natural resource. While this may be a sound assumption, to assess value based solely on profitability and efficiency (derived from calculating resource rents, or the profits that exceed business and opportunity costs) narrows the comparative value the authors seek to achieve. In addition to previous studies, the authors mention other assumptions about common property resources that have long been disputed in the literature, such Hardin’s 1950s assumption that common properties are always prone to overexploitation, which they characterize as “long-established.”

Privatizing fishing resources through ITQ systems may result in higher rents, but they may also reduce the extent to which those fisheries distribute those rents through the wider economy, which calls into question the value of achieving economic efficiency. Their own data on the sizes of the fisheries and the number of people employed suggest that the “inefficiency” of the South Atlantic fishery results in higher employment and, consequently, a wider distribution of the value of the resource, as wages/ shares move through local economies. Their wording that “the SAT SG fishery only uses 29% more labor than the GOM RF fishery” deemphasizes this, but 29% is close to one-third of the labor, which doesn’t seem insignificant. By contrast, the findings regarding the impacts of the different regimes on derby fishing are interesting and important, and these have been supported by the 5-year reviews of the ITQ programs.

Although I recognize these biases in the article, I do not advocate against publication, as long as the authors mention the social costs that many studies have found with ITQ management systems, particularly regarding equity and impacts on crew vs. owner-operators. As far as it goes, the economic analysis is sound, if somewhat misleading regarding the overall benefits of ITQ systems.

The authors would benefit from reading a recent (2021) Oceans Study Board report entitled, “The use of limited access privilege programs in mixed-use fisheries,” which reviews limited entry and ITQs from an interdisciplinary perspective and, among other things, finds that most ITQ systems emerge from limited entry systems and therefore are not as radically different from one another as the authors suggest. There have also been 5-year evaluations of both the red snapper and grouper-tilefish ITQ programs in the Gulf that the authors might want to read.

Reviewer #2: This paper evaluates the economic efficiency of two adjacent and ecologically similar fisheries in the southeast USA. The comparison produces useful and relevant results that should be of widespread interest as well as for the two management councils responsible for the fisheries. The data used and the methods appear to this reviewer to be sound.

There are, however, two important issues that should be addressed before the paper is suitable for publication. The first is the fundamental approach and style of the main argument of the paper. The comparison is between a fishery that is managed through ITQs (GOM) and one that is managed by a suite of regulations that the authors refer to as traditional regulations (SAT). The economic assessment demonstrates convincingly the substantially higher economic efficiency of the ITQ managed one and the reader is left with the impression that management is faced with a choice of one or other approach, and the solution is clearly that the SAT fishery should choose to follow the lead of the GOM.

The question of what is the best approach is not primarily a scientific issue and in evaluating the options and potential solution it is important to know and understand the reasons for the current arrangements in both fisheries. Why has SAT retained a ‘traditional’ approach, what are the objectives of the key stakeholders and to what extent does the current arrangement address or fail to address those objectives. The same questions need to be answered for the GOM fishery and, from the background to both, it should be possible to determine whether an ITQ system would be more or less successful in achieving the full set of SAT objectives than the current approach. For example, in lines 356-357 it is stated that “Regulations for most of the major commercial fishing species in the SAT SG fishery are intended to extend fishing opportunities”. If that is an important objective, is there a better approach for meeting it than either the current, economically inefficient system or a straightforward ITQ system? The authors cannot be expected to give definitive answers to this but they should give some attention to other important objectives in the SAT fishery and how the alternative management approaches would perform in achieving them (and, if relevant, whether there is any significant dissatisfaction in the GOM fishery as a result of the ITQ system).

In addition, and flowing from the assessment against the objectives, the choice of management approach is not simply a stark choice between one or the other. Unless it is clear that an ITQ system would satisfactorily meet the SAT’s objectives, there may be intermediate solutions to improving economic efficiency without going to full ITQs. Individual quotas don’t have to be transferable for example. In the opinion of this reviewer, the authors need to put their economic analyses into the context of the objectives in this way so that the current arrangements can be better understood and the results and authors’ conclusions to be more complete. Addressing this first issue need not be a major task and should not detract from the economic comparison, which is the primary purpose of the paper, but it is an important gap in the current version.

The second important issue is that the paper is too long and goes into too much detail in places in describing aspects of the methods and data collection, which distracts the reader with information that is not essential for understanding the problem and results. Much of that detail should go into either an appendix or as supplementary information.

Some other more specific comments are:

L35. The term ‘traditional fisheries management’ used here and elsewhere needs to be qualified because what is traditional in the US is not necessarily traditional elsewhere. They could simply state something like ‘In traditional fisheries management in the USA (subsequently referred to as traditional fisheries management)…’

L50. The authors need to make it clear here and elsewhere that where they refer to ‘rationalizes’, ‘efficiency’ etc, they are referring only to economic rationalizing etc. The consequences of ITQs may not lead to rationalizing on other objectives – a well known example is the decline in fishing and hence rural populations in more remote regions of Norway as a result of ITQs.

L91. Should be ‘Some - ’ or ‘Many economists…’ Not all economists assume minimizing costs is the sole objective.

L125 – 128. ‘Researchers have noted the effects, positive and sometimes negative of ITQs ….’ or something similar to make it clear that the papers referred to include both.

L215 and following. The authors should explain for both GOM and SAT how the total catch is regulated. Presumably in the GOM, a total allowable catch is set for each species or species assemblage, which is then divided into individual quotas according to the rights held by each holder. That, or if some other arrangement, should be explained. The likely approach in the SAT is less clear to readers unfamiliar with the fishery (including this one). Presumably in this case too, a total sustainable catch is determined each season, or periodically, and the lengths of the season, with the catch limits per trip, are used to restrict the total catch to that limit but, again, this or whatever the arrangement is, should be explained. Is the SAT fishery open access or are the numbers of permits limited (in which case what was the basis for setting the maximum number of permits allowed)?

L269. Explain or define ‘IFQ leasing’.

L344. Is there an explanation for why the SAT SG fishers receive a lower price per pound than the GOM fishers? Is it a result of the seasonal effect referred to elsewhere or are there other factors too?

L474 – 476. A reference or substantiation of some sort is needed for this statement.

L602-604. By omission these two sentences imply that discarding is not an issue in the GOM fishery. That would be very surprising as discarding and high-grading are problems in many other ITQ and IQ systems. The status in the GOM, in accordance with best available information, should also be stated here.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: David Griffith

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Quantifying the economic effects of different fishery management regimes in two otherwise similar fisheries

PONE-D-22-30978R1

Dear Dr. Crosson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

John A. B. Claydon, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: