Systematic Mapping of Research on Farm-Level Sustainability in Finfish Aquaculture
, Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist 1, Torun Wallgren 2, Per Hjelmstedt 1, Ulf Sonesson 3 and Helena Hansson 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
your manuscript titled "Systematic Mapping of Research on Farm-level Sustainability in Finfish Aquaculture" is a well-written paper which I think is reflecting some of the reality in aquaculture and its surrounding communities. I am also feeling, like the authors mentioned, that it is a strangely low number of publications that in the end fit your criteria for this analyses. Without being an expert on each of these topics myself I am just concerned that large amounts of data might be missing in this search you have done? There should be large amount of data available on for example genetic pollution of natural populations of salmonids close to aquaculture sites, pollution by metals, medicines, eutrophication etc should also be quite well mapped in relation to this species, since it is such a high-value species done in countries with quite large research efforts in this field. But without being an expert on the field, I am unsure.
Apart from that I do not have any comments, I find the article especially well-written and a nice and easy read. It could be a nice overview especially for people not especially known with the aquaculture industry, while it for people more into the topic it feels like the discussion is just brushing over the surface of the issues. Maybe this is really a lack of available data.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your work with reviewing our manuscript.
Review comments:
your manuscript titled "Systematic Mapping of Research on Farm-level Sustainability in Finfish Aquaculture" is a well-written paper which I think is reflecting some of the reality in aquaculture and its surrounding communities. I am also feeling, like the authors mentioned, that it is a strangely low number of publications that in the end fit your criteria for this analyses. Without being an expert on each of these topics myself I am just concerned that large amounts of data might be missing in this search you have done? There should be large amount of data available on for example genetic pollution of natural populations of salmonids close to aquaculture sites, pollution by metals, medicines, eutrophication etc should also be quite well mapped in relation to this species, since it is such a high-value species done in countries with quite large research efforts in this field. But without being an expert on the field, I am unsure.
Our answer:
The aim of our study was to perform a systematic mapping (see e.g. Petersen, Vakkalanka and Kuzniarz, 2015 Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64, 1-18.). As we describe in the manuscript, we defined a consistent process of developing the search strings with valuable help from an expert librarian at our university. The search was performed in the world leading scientific data bases; Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and CABI: Cab Abstracts. Using this systematic approach we screened the scientific literature on sustainability performance in finfish aquaculture, including environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainability, and our geographical focus was literature from Europe, Northern America, Australia and New Zealand. Yes, it may be surprising that solely a few scientific papers actually met the criteria set up.
Apart from that I do not have any comments, I find the article especially well-written and a nice and easy read. It could be a nice overview especially for people not especially known with the aquaculture industry, while it for people more into the topic it feels like the discussion is just brushing over the surface of the issues. Maybe this is really a lack of available data.
Our answer:
Thank you. The scope of the study was to perform a systematic mapping of the scientific literature. However, that aim is not really the same as discussing specific sub-areas that are related to all sustainability aspects. Therefore, the discussion is limited to our findings.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article presents a literature review of sustainability in finfish aquaculture. Amazingly, the authors found only 17 articles that have addressed this topic, and as a consequence they conclude that more research is needed in this area.
I can't faulty the authors in terms of their writing, and analysis. My only concern is that this is work offers zero impact. The entire paper could be summarized in maybe a few sentences... the internet was searched for papers on sustainable finfish aquaculture, not many were found; there needs to be more research on this topci. To me, this is not grounds for publication.
To turn this into something worthy of publication I would want to see an exploration of why there are so few publications on sustainable finfish aquaculture. Perhaps include the grey literature, and speak to the industry publications too. If the goal is to judge where there are research (and practice) gaps, maybe we need to look beyond only academics doing finfish aquaculture? This sector has a wide range of actors, including transnational corporations. What are they doing in terms of sustainability (research)? What about the nascent use of new financial instruments for incentivizing sustainable behaviors (Swiss Re is looking into that for example).
In general, you can't just tell me that there are only 17 papers on a topic, and leave it at that. If this research truly isn't being conducted anywhere, instead of presenting this literature review, perhaps perhaps write an opinion on how sustainability in finfish aquaculture should/can be shaped (using the info gleaned from this lit review)... providing concrete policy and industry recommendations. That would be more useful.
Author Response
Review comments:
This article presents a literature review of sustainability in finfish aquaculture. Amazingly, the authors found only 17 articles that have addressed this topic, and as a consequence they conclude that more research is needed in this area.
I can't faulty the authors in terms of their writing, and analysis. My only concern is that this is work offers zero impact. The entire paper could be summarized in maybe a few sentences... the internet was searched for papers on sustainable finfish aquaculture, not many were found; there needs to be more research on this topci. To me, this is not grounds for publication.
To turn this into something worthy of publication I would want to see an exploration of why there are so few publications on sustainable finfish aquaculture. Perhaps include the grey literature, and speak to the industry publications too. If the goal is to judge where there are research (and practice) gaps, maybe we need to look beyond only academics doing finfish aquaculture? This sector has a wide range of actors, including transnational corporations. What are they doing in terms of sustainability (research)? What about the nascent use of new financial instruments for incentivizing sustainable behaviors (Swiss Re is looking into that for example).
In general, you can't just tell me that there are only 17 papers on a topic, and leave it at that. If this research truly isn't being conducted anywhere, instead of presenting this literature review, perhaps perhaps write an opinion on how sustainability in finfish aquaculture should/can be shaped (using the info gleaned from this lit review)... providing concrete policy and industry recommendations. That would be more useful
Our answer:
Thank that reviewer for the comments.
The aim of our study was to perform a systematic mapping (see e.g. Petersen, Vakkalanka and Kuzniarz, 2015 Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology 2015, 64, 1-18.).
As we describe in the manuscript, we defined a consistent process of developing the search strings with valuable help from an expert librarian at our university. The search was performed in the world leading scientific data bases; Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and CABI: Cab Abstracts. Thereafter, paper titles and abstracts were manually analysed and any papers not relevant to the topic were removed. Relevant papers were defined as those addressing sustainability, conducted in one of the selected geographical areas (Europe, Northern America, Australia or New Zealand), available in English in full text, and describing original research (i.e. not reviews). Book chapters and conference papers were excluded. Papers on finfish aquaculture specifically, and also on farm animal production explicitly including finfish aquaculture, were included.
Yes, it may be surprising that solely a few scientific papers actually met the criteria set up.
The work presented in this paper is part of a larger project, other findings regarding farm animals have been published previously. (See Gunnarsson et al. 2020. Systematic Mapping of Research on Farm-Level Sustainability in Egg and Chicken Meat Production. Sustainability, 12, 3033.; Gunnarsson et al., 2020. A Systematic Mapping of Research on Sustainability Dimensions at Farm-level in Pig Production. Sustainability, 12, 4352.; Arvidsson Segerkvist et al., 2020. Research on Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability in Dairy Farming: A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature. Sustainability, 12, 5502.)
The reviewer is suggesting us to write a completely different manuscript with a different approach “a “providing concrete policy and industry recommendations”. However, that is a less structured way of screening the literature, although it previously has been common in reviews. That type of literature reviewing has limited transparency and is based on the principle that authors’ are selecting what they consider to be relevant literature. Thereby, these reviews are highly dependent on the subjective judgement by authors whether to include or not to include a particular study.
In contrast, systematic mapping aims to make evidence synthesis as objective and comprehensive as possible, and the specific approach requires transparent stages and processes. Therefore, we still consider that a systematic mapping of research on farm-level sustainability in finfish aquaculture still is relevant for publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written and clearly laid out.
When I read the title of your paper I was curious as to what you meant by "Systemic Mapping." It appears to be seeing how the topics covered in papers align with a particular theoretical framework, in this case the three dimensions of sustainability, and quantifying this alignment through counting. I appreciate the attempt to be quantitative in this assessment, though I wonder if one were to simply approach this topic as a regular review that similar insights would not be developed. The quantification could be useful for conducting higher level meta analyses, though.
A few things to improve:
Line 195-6 is it 17 or eighteen papers? 10 + 6 + 2 = 18.
Some of the alignments of the papers with the three dimensions appear to be judgement calls (see below for table entries), what criteria were used to align these papers with these dimensions?
Page 7, Iagaru et al. has no entries in the Key word columns. Does this mean that no key words were found on this topic? What were the creteria for establishing an entry under these topics?
Page 8, Otchere et al. has a blank entry in the table, same question as above.
It seems like there is a bias in favor of papers that include two or preferably all of the three dimensions of sustainability. While the three dimensions are important, it seems to me that the limited length of typical research papers would force a choice between depth or breadth in covering a topic, so I am not sure that more inclusive studies are necessarily preferable. Complementary, but not preferable.
Author Response
Review comment:
The paper is well written and clearly laid out.
When I read the title of your paper I was curious as to what you meant by "Systemic Mapping." It appears to be seeing how the topics covered in papers align with a particular theoretical framework, in this case the three dimensions of sustainability, and quantifying this alignment through counting. I appreciate the attempt to be quantitative in this assessment, though I wonder if one were to simply approach this topic as a regular review that similar insights would not be developed. The quantification could be useful for conducting higher level meta analyses, though.
Our answer:
Many thanks for the reviewer comments. Yes, the aim of our study was to perform a systematic mapping (see e.g. Petersen, Vakkalanka and Kuzniarz, 2015 Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Information and Software Technology, 64, 1-18.). As we describe in the manuscript, we defined a consistent process. Therefore, the study is not really the same as discussing specific sub-areas that are related to all sustainability aspects. Therefore, the discussion is limited to our findings, and not extended to a general discussion of the details of the literature findings.
Review comment:
A few things to improve:
Line 195-6 is it 17 or eighteen papers? 10 + 6 + 2 = 18.
Our answer: The correct number is 10+5+2=17, and Line 195-196 has been changed into …” only 17 papers remained (10 from Europe, five from Northern America and two from Australia/New Zealand).”
Review comment:
Some of the alignments of the papers with the three dimensions appear to be judgement calls (see below for table entries), what criteria were used to align these papers with these dimensions?
Page 7, Iagaru et al. has no entries in the Key word columns. Does this mean that no key words were found on this topic? What were the creteria for establishing an entry under these topics?
Page 8, Otchere et al. has a blank entry in the table, same question as above.
Our answer:
Thank you for the remarks. The following has been added to Table 1
Iagaru et al., 2015 - “Promote rural tradition; Encouraging entrepreneurship” in in Social column, and “Diversification of the rural economy” in Economy column
Otchere et al., 2004 - “Economic diversification, Income/ Employment” in Economy column
Review comment:
It seems like there is a bias in favor of papers that include two or preferably all of the three dimensions of sustainability. While the three dimensions are important, it seems to me that the limited length of typical research papers would force a choice between depth or breadth in covering a topic, so I am not sure that more inclusive studies are necessarily preferable. Complementary, but not preferable.
Our answer:
This is a relevant remark. Sustainability is a complex area, and the tradition and current design of most scientific publications may not favour a multidimensional approach to sustainability. Not including more than one dimension of sustainability does not discriminate a scientific study. However, the different dimensions of sustainable development (environmental, economic, social) may be in conflict, meaning that there are trade-offs between them, or they may function to reinforce each other..
The present manuscript is part of a larger project were we previously published other findings from systematic mapping regarding farm animal species. (See Gunnarsson et al. 2020. Systematic Mapping of Research on Farm-Level Sustainability in Egg and Chicken Meat Production. Sustainability, 12, 3033.; Gunnarsson et al., 2020. A Systematic Mapping of Research on Sustainability Dimensions at Farm-level in Pig Production. Sustainability, 12, 4352.; Arvidsson Segerkvist et al., 2020. Research on Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability in Dairy Farming: A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature. Sustainability, 12, 5502.). The systematic mapping may be a basis for systematic investigating for further research with a more holistic approach to sustainability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
