Applying the advocacy coalition framework to wildlife management: Explaining policy change for damage mitigation in Japan

Tatsuya Koga

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331966

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 13, 2025
14 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Julio Cesar de Souza, Editor PONE-D-25-19409Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework to Wildlife Management: Explaining Policy Change for Damage Mitigation in JapanPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Koga, 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. ============================== Considering the reviewers' suggestions, I request that the authors make the necessary adjustments (these should be highlighted in a different color for identification) and return the paper so we can proceed with publication. Best regards ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 2025 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, Julio Cesar de Souza, 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. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section* (delete as necessary): “The Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI),　to which I belong, is an organization that appeared in the policy subsystem in Periods 1 and 2, but I declare that there are no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could affect the research reported in this paper.” We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study : The Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI) a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, 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 identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). 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 to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 5. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Insert text from online submission form here]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 7. 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Considering the reviewers' suggestions, I request that the authors make the necessary adjustments (these should be highlighted in a different color for identification) and return the paper so we can proceed with publication. Best regards [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: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: Based on the methods, the authors should give on the Table S3 the number of person in each institution asked. It might be a soiurce of biais the fact, that there is no balance on this number. Example, the number of Prefectural Government are at least represetned by five entities, but the Hunting group is only one. So youshould give explaination on how to avoid "biais" on getting more response trends towards governemental perception than those of hunters Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study author tried to compile through the article. However, it is suggested to revisit the manuscript and consider it in submitting review or essay section. Yes data has been analyzed through different source and interviews though it is not reflecting the results and further in discussion and conclusion section. At current stage manuscript is very descriptive which suits for review or essay Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, I found it to be well-written, clearly structured, and scientifically sound. The research question is well-motivated, and the methods and conclusions are appropriate for the scope of the journal. I have no major concerns with the content. However, I do have a minor suggestion: Figure Clarity: Some of the figures (e.g., Figures 1 and 2) are difficult to read due to low resolution or small text labels. Improving the clarity and resolution would enhance readability and overall presentation quality. Otherwise, I believe the manuscript is in good shape and can proceed with minor revisions. ****** 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: Aristide Andrianarimisa Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-19409_R.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331966.r001
Revision 1
18 Aug 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewer#1 Thank you very much for your insightful comment regarding the potential for sampling bias. In response to your concern, I have revised the manuscript to clarify the following two points, demonstrating that no significant sampling bias occurred in this study. 1. Response to Concerns Regarding Interviewee Distribution I appreciate your suggestion and have added the number of interviewees per institution in Table S3. I acknowledge the imbalance in the number of interviewees across different types of organizations. Unfortunately, some key individuals had retired or passed away, which made it difficult to reach all relevant stakeholders. This limitation is now explicitly explained in lines 326–330 of the main text. However, as described in the main text, the interviews mainly served to supplement the core data sources. The primary analysis of the policy process and discourse network construction relied on publicly available primary sources, including newspaper articles, parliamentary minutes, and official government documents. Therefore, I believe that the identification and analysis of key policy actors and their belief systems were conducted comprehensively and without bias. 2. Clarification Regarding Hunting Organizations I appreciate your comment on the representation of hunters in Table S3. Indeed, only one hunting organization—the Japan Hunters’ Association (JHA)—was included, while multiple prefectural governments were listed. To clarify, hunters in Japan are organized at the local level into branch clubs coordinated by prefectural hunting associations. All of these fall under the umbrella of the JHA, which is the sole national-level organization representing hunters in policy discussions. Although other smaller hunters’ groups exist, they have limited political influence and do not engage in national policy-making processes. The JHA is the only hunters’ organization regularly participating in national-level decision-making bodies, such as government advisory councils. For this reason, I considered the JHA to be the sole representative of hunters at the national level—comparable to how individual prefectural governments are included based on their direct involvement in national policy processes. To clarify this for readers, I propose adding a footnote to Table S3 explaining the organizational structure of hunters’ associations in Japan and the rationale for focusing on the JHA. I hope this addition will demonstrate that my analytical focus reflects the actual distribution of political influence rather than sampling bias. Thank you again for your valuable feedback. Best regards, Tatsuya Koga Dear Reviewer #2, Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback. While I understand your concern regarding the descriptive nature of the Results section, I would like to clarify that this manuscript primarily employs a qualitative policy process analysis grounded in the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Within this tradition, detailed narrative accounts are often necessary to trace the evolution of policy beliefs, actor coalitions, and institutional shifts. That said, I have carefully reviewed the Results section and made revisions to make the analytical structure more explicit. Specifically, I clarified how the evidence supports changes in belief systems, coalition alignments, and policy outcomes over time. I hope these revisions help demonstrate the analytical depth of the study. Major Revisions: In the Results section, I revised the structure by introducing or modifying subheadings for each period and reorganizing the order of paragraphs. By doing so, I aimed to make the causal pathways—from policy beliefs, coalition structures, and policy-oriented learning to external perturbations and eventual policy change—more accessible and comprehensible to readers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. Period 1: Intensifying Deer Damage → Coalition Structures and Policy-Oriented Learning → External Perturbations and Policy Change Period 2: Policy feedback of decentralization in Period 1, Coalition Structure and Policy-Oriented Learning → Policy Change Toward Relaxation of Hunting Regulations Period 3: Venue Shopping → Coalition Structure and Policy Change Period 4: Change in Government → Policy-Oriented Learning → Coalition Structure and Policy Change In addition, I revised wording and reorganized sentence order throughout the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. Best regards, Tatsuya Koga Dear Reviewer #3, Thank you very much for reviewing my manuscript and for your positive evaluation. In response to your comment regarding the resolution of the figures, I have improved their quality accordingly. Thank you again for your valuable feedback. Sincerely, Tatsuya Koga Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: #3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331966.r002
24 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Julio Cesar de Souza, Editor Applying the advocacy coalition framework to wildlife management: explaining policy change for damage mitigation in Japan PONE-D-25-19409R1 Dear Dr. Koga, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . 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, Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Considering that there were minor suggestions and that the authors made the necessary adjustments, which they considered prudent, I am in favor of publication. JCS Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331966.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Julio Cesar de Souza, Editor PONE-D-25-19409R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Koga, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Julio Cesar de Souza Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331966.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .