Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented a very interesting work on mapping of oil spill risk and environmental sensitivity. It fits well to the scope of the journal and would be of contribution.. However, minor revisions might be required depending. The authors must look at the comments, I made in the manuscript to improve the quality of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Responses to reviewer #1

General comments

（1）Question: As English language and style: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for providing the good assessment for the English language. We have invited a Native English speaker to revise the English expression and believe that the English language should meet the requirements of the journal.

（2）Question: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic?

Response: The reviewer thought that the content described and contextualized are succinct. We are thankful to the reviewer’s high evaluations toward the manuscript. The manuscript combines the AIS and shipping data to precisely quantify the spatial extent of accident risk and ecological risk in coastal China. The results shown that the higher oil spill environmental risk concentration zone is in Bohai Sea Rim, Yangtze River Delta, and Pearl River Delta. The low-risk area proportion in Hainan province is 62%.

 Based on previous studies, the innovation of our study is the quantitively analysis of spatial distribution of oil spill accident in coastal China.

（3）Question: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Response: Thank you very much for giving a good evaluation for the research design, question, hypotheses, and methods. The study’s design and methods are clear and the manuscript would have wide readers across the world.

（4）Question: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balance and compelling?

Response: The Results section consists of accident risk index of ship oil spill, sensitive degree of oil spill in coastal China, and oil spill environmental risk. The Discussion section are mapping of oil spills and influencing factor in coastal China, ecological effects and uncertainties, and policy response. The reviewer believe that the above section is coherent. We express our gratitude for the reviewer’s high assessment for the manuscript.

（5）Question: For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Response: The reviewer thinks that the results presentation should be improved. We believe the current version should be good. Thank you.

（6）Question: Is the article adequately referenced?

Response: The reviewer believed that the reference should be improved.

（7）Question: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Response: The reviewer thinks that the conclusions are supported by the results thoroughly. We are thankful to reviewers’ setting a high value for the manuscript. The conclusion summarized the research finding of the article and point out the future research direction. We believe the current conclusion should meet the requirements of the journal.

 

Specific comments

(8) Question: The manuscript title?

Response: We have revised the title based on the reviewer’s comments. Thank you very much.

(8) Question: Fig. 1, the names of the islands in the South China Sea are described in the manuscript and in the figure, but the layer elements of the islands are not seen in the figure, and are also indicated in the legend.

Please author to check whether the translation of the "Nanhai Zhudao" is correct?

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for the constructive comment. Fig. 1 has been deleted because it could not provide more information.

(8) Question: Please check the full text format carefully

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comment and the text in the main body of the manuscript are Palatino Linotype. We believe the text are consistent in format.

(8) Question: Line 202, does the “O” in the two formulas (6-7) represent the same variable, and if so, then the E=S/n, can E still be represented the Oil spill extent? The variable format in the text seems to be inconsistent.

Response: Yes, the ‘O’ in the two formulas (6-7) represent the same variable. The variable format in the text has been updated according to the reviewer’s comment.

(8) Question: How to define “high risk of pipe transportation oil spill” or “the high risk of platform”? Where is the North Sea? Are you sure it’s the North Sea?

Response: The more the pipeline and platform there is, the more risk it will face. The North Sea include the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors address the oil-spill risk map of the China shelf coastal sea. They use the AIS data for the ship’ risk and others data for the risks belonging to rigs, pipes etc… The AIS data are clearly addressed while the data coming for the others risk are not detailed.

The originality of the paper is the studying to the whole China coast (18000 km long). The principal lack of the paper is the absence of the data source details for the others risks than the ships one. We recommend accepting the paper under the above restriction. Here follows several suggestions from the scientific, editorial and small typos point of views. We notice that a lot of plural are missing along the paper and somewhere there are missing words. Missing words and missing plural are not given exhaustively because there are numerous.

Science

The paper could precise the presence of eventual sheltered places, every 100 km, one per county, in section 2.2.1

The specific risks of anchoraged ships, barges, fishing vessels together ship density and ship crossing lines could be detailed. Separation traffic could be detailed if it exists.

AIS data concerns only ships and not pies, rigs and storages (line 282). It could be mentioned and studied.

Is there a unit with the number 32.23 at line 290.

The paper suggests studying the chemical spills in section after fig(3). The paper could precise if it is true.

Edition

Assessment, is twice, lines 70-71

Repetition, line 173-175

(O) to be explain, title 2.2.2

T could be introduced at line 135, before using it in eq(5)

Define i, if it is I, II, III in section 2.2.2; define n in eqs(4-5)

Include H, P, n … in fig(2)

Complete two cases oil-ships and others-ships, fig(2)

Reference to table 1 is unclear at line 311

Add <0.01 (low risk), >10 (high risk) in table 4

Precise that the discussion will provide details and bibliographic study on others topics connected to the subject.

Lines 348-350 look like lines 70-71.

Typos

This > The, first word abstract.

Plural, risks, line 15, areas, lines 88, 86, 272, lengths, line 157, zones, caption fig(5), industries, line 343, others, table 1, miles, line 224

Strategic, line 39

Missing words: average tonnage, line 135, ship traffic, line 136, levels, table 1, countries, table 1, lines 482-484

Combining, line 200

Precise what n is, line 213, and n is in eqs(4) and (5)

Are > is line 231

Zoneare, line 224

Of>to fig(4) caption, missing words in caption fig(4)

Indicates, line 391

Sentence lines 393-394 is a repetition

Spreads, becomes, line 409, areas in caption table 5, variables, line 426

Reference [23] is highly cited, it could be explained why.

Edit line 459

Check/edit journal name, refs 14, 18, 30

Edit refs 22, 40

Ref [31] is Neves and not Sepp, line 441

Author Response

 

 

Responses to reviewer #2

General comments

• Question: As English language and style: moderate English changes required.

Response: We have invited a Native English speaker to revise the language carefully and believe the current version should meet the requirements of the journal in terms of language. Thank you.

Specific comments

• Question: The authors address the oil-spill risk map of the China shelf coastal sea. They use the AIS data for the ship’ risk and others data for the risks belonging to rigs, pipes etc… The AIS data are clearly addressed while the data coming for the others risk are not detailed.

Response: Oil spill accidents are believed a global problem, which has brought serious socio-economic, health, and environmental risks of the coastal and marine areas. The manuscript applied AIS and shipping data to detect the spatial extent of accident risk in coastal China. We agree with the review’s assessment. The reviewer thinks that the AIS are clearly addressed. Other data that describes the other risk has also been updated in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

• Question: The originality of the paper is the studying to the whole China coast (18000 km long). The principal lack of the paper is the absence of the data source details for the others risks than the ships one. We recommend accepting the paper under the above restriction.

Response: The coastal are of China includes the Bohai, Yellow Sea, East Sea, and South China Sea. The manuscript is to study the oil risk in coastal China with a length of 18000 m. The data source details have been provided in the manuscript. We are thankful to the reviewer’s decision of acceptance of the manuscript.

(3) Question: Here follows several suggestions from the scientific, editorial and small typos point of views. We notice that a lot of plural are missing along the paper and somewhere there are missing words. Missing words and missing plural are not given exhaustively because there are numerous.

Response: The reviewer provided detailed comments in terms of Science, Editor, and Typos. We express our gratitude to the reviewer for the helpful suggestion. These comments play an important role for the improvement of the manuscript. We have invited a fluent English expert to revise the language and we maintain that the current version should meet the journal’s demand in terms of language.

Science

(4) Question: The paper could precise the presence of eventual sheltered places, every 100 km, one per county, in section 2.2.1

Response: The author is thankful to the reviewer’s comment. In 2.2.1, this is grid zonation. The grid zonation in coastal marine area is the basis for marine status investigation, risk computation, and analysis. Each sheltered place in every 100 km, one per county has been provided in the revised manuscript. Please refer to 2.2.1.

(5) Question: The specific risks of anchoraged ships, barges, fishing vessels together ship density and ship crossing lines could be detailed. Separation traffic could be detailed if it exists.

Response: The manuscript has analyzed the accidents risk of ship oil spill, sensitive degree of oil spill in coastal China, and oil spill environmental risk. We didn’t analyze the fishing vessel. Thank you very much.

(6) Question: AIS data concerns only ships and not pies, rigs and storages (line 282). It could be mentioned and studied.

Response: Thank you very much. AIS data are obtained from ships information. Data source has been updated in the revised manuscript.

(7) Question: Is there a unit with the number 32.23 at line 290.

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comment. There is no unit with the number of 32.23. Please refer to the revised manuscript.

(8) Question: The paper suggests studying the chemical spills in section after fig(3). The paper could precise if it is true.

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comment. The Fig. 3 is based on the oil spill location. We have added some information in the revised manuscript.

Edition

(9) Question: Assessment, is twice, lines 70-71

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comments and have deleted this sentence in the revised manuscript. Please refer to it.

(10) Question: Repetition, line 173-175

Response: We express our gratitude to the review’s suggestion. We have deleted the sentence ‘There are 185 counties in the coastal area of China and each county occupies the approximately the coastline length of 93 km.’ in the revised manuscript. Please refer to the revised manuscript. Thank you.

(11) Question: (O) to be explain, title 2.2.2

Response: The original meaning of Title 2.2.2 is that the oil amount transported by oil ships and other types ships in each grid size.

(12) Question: T could be introduced at line 135, before using it in eq(5)

Response: We express our gratitude to the review’s comment. The T definition has been addressed. Thank you for the helpful comments.

(13) Question: Define i, if it is I, II, III in section 2.2.2; define n in eqs(4-5)

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comments. Generally speaking, i consist of I, II, and III types. Oil ship type of I type demonstrates the ship has a length of 100 meter.

(14) Question: Include H, P, n … in fig(2)

Response: Thank you very much. We have added one figure to describe the research flow chart. Please refer to it.

(15) Question: Reference to table 1 is unclear at line 311

Response: We are thankful to you. The reference of Table 1 here is not suitable. We have deleted the citation based on the reviewer’s comment and the paragraph has ben also deleted.

(17) Question: Add <0.01 (low risk), >10 (high risk) in table 4

Response: We have revised the Table order in the revised manuscript.

(18) Question: Precise that the discussion will provide details and bibliographic study on others topics connected to the subject.

Response: In the revised manuscript, some related information has been added in the Discussion section. Please refer to it.

(19) Question: Lines 348-350 look like lines 70-71.

Response: We have deleted the sentence of 70-71. Please refer to the related section.

Typos

(20) Question: This > The, first word abstract.

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comment and have replaced ‘This’ to ‘The’ in the abstract. Please refer to it.

(21) Question: Plural, risks, line 15, areas, lines 88, 86, 272, lengths, line 157, zones, caption fig(5), industries, line 343, others, table 1, miles, line 224

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comment and we have revised the plural expression in the revised manuscript. Please refer to it.

(22) Question: Strategic, line 39

Response: We have revised it as ‘strategic’ in revised manuscript.

(23) Question: Missing words: average tonnage, line 135, ship traffic, line 136, levels, table 1, countries, table 1, lines 482-484

Response: The reviewer’s comments is correct and we have revised the above section. Please refer to the revised manuscript.

(24) Question: Combining, line 200

Response: We have edited the expression and please refer to it in the revised manuscript.

(25) Question: Precise what n is, line 213, and n is in eqs(4) and (5)

Response: We have revised it in the revised manuscript. In line 213, n

 are the times of oil spill accidents.

(26) Question: Are > is line 231

Response: The reviewer’s comment is right. We have modified it as ‘is’ in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much.

(27) Question: Zone are, line 224

Response: The correct expression has been updated.

(28) Question: Of>to fig(4) caption, missing words in caption fig(4)

Response: The Fig. 4 has been deleted in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

(29) Question: Indicates, line 391

Response: We have modified the expression in line 391. Thank you

(30) Question: Sentence lines 393-394 is a repetition

Response: We have deleted the repeated sentence in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

(31) Question: Spreads, becomes, line 409, areas in caption table 5, variables, line 426

Response: We have modified the sentence based on the review’s comment. Please refer to it. Thank you very much.

(32) Question: Reference [23] is highly cited, it could be explained why.

Response: We cite the describe of study area from Reference [23]. However, there are many articles introducing the status of study area, the article [23] published in 2019 and may be regarded as the latest article. We have modified some citation in the revised manuscript. 

(33) Question: Edit line 459

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comments and have revised it based on the above comments.

(34) Question: Check/edit journal name, refs 14, 18, 30

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comments and have revised the above reference based on the reviewer’s comments.

(35) Question: Edit refs 22, 40

Response: We have revised the above reference based on the reviewer’s comments. Thank you.

(36) Question: Ref [31] is Neves and not Sepp, line 441

Response: We are thankful to the reviewer’s comment and we have revised the sentence.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx