Applying a Set of Potential Methods for the Integrated Assessment of the Marine Eco-Environmental Carrying Capacity in Coastal Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is of high interest and priority scientific importance, although the carrying capacity of the ecosystem is not derived from the analyzes carried out. The authors just only state if the descriptors have more or less high values.
From my point of view, they use too many acronyms.
Abstract
Difficult to read. It cannot be differentiated well if it speaks of methods or results. It should be rewritten in order to have a good overview of the work.
Introduction
Please, define claerly what are environmental factor, the ecological factor, and human activity factor, What are the differences between environmental factor and ecological factor?
M&M's
Why have they not applied the DPSIR method?
Figure 2: should be reworked because the "sea area" would be the conceptual space where pressures would develop, states would appear and responses would be applied. What are described as "human activities" are actually "driving forces" (e.g., coastal industries). The pressures would be the ways in which the driving forces disturb the system (eg, volume of nitrogen discharged). The "Human" element would be represented by the driving forces.
It would be convenient to describe the components (i.e., indicators) of each P-S-R element.
line 211: subscripts are wrong in vir.
line 257: "with advisory opinions of local experts and responsible authorities" -->have they validated this information??. Why have the indicators for the AIS not been chosen with more objective analytical methods (e.g., sensitivity analysis)? Please further justify the choice of indicators.
Figure 4: In this conceptual model, two different and antagonistic dimensions are mixed at the same level (Human activities): Pressure and Response. I consider that they are dimensions that should be separated. This idea is supported by the fact that the pressures affect the states directly, an aspect that is not represented in the conceptual model.
Table 1: I consider that the authors should better specify how they have selected the indicators, how they justify their importance and they should justify why they have included them in each criterion. Table 1 should come after paragraph 270-283. I believe that the weights of each indicator should have a measure of variability at the smallest time scale that the data allows.
Line 278: It is stated that EEC or HA would have a predominant effect on changes in MECC. The question is: are these effects statistically significant? The authors should apply some inferential technique to more objectively determine the real significance of these indicators.
Lines 313-345: much of the content in these lines should go in the discussion section
Section 3.4. they are not results derived from the analyzed data. I would suggest to the authors that they move all this content to the part of conclusions and implications, and adequately justify these proposals in relation to the data and the results obtained.
Section 4.1.: Statements are made about the ability of the conceptual model to generate indicators without, in results, having analyzed or assessed that ability. The indicators used have come out of a superficial consultation process, without having been verified and/or validated in any way. I suggest to the authors that they re-elaborate this paragraph and provide evidence of that supposed capacity for the conceptual model.
Section 4.2.: Most of this section describes the "properties" of the proposed methods without any type of contrast or validation. There is no "argument". I suggest the authors re-elaborate this section making a true discussion of the corresponding results.
Section 4.3.: results are not discussed nor are the statements with results supported. These comments should be in conclusions.
Conclusions: the authors "editorialize" too much about the benefits of the method and many statements already exposed in the results are repeated
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, you are presenting a very good paper. I only ask you to enhance/improve your Discussion section, it is limited. More details in the attached PDF.
All the best.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have just finished my review of MS entitled "Applying a set of potential methods to the integrated assessment of marine eco-environmental carrying capacity in coastal areas" by Kanjan et al.
The authoring team claimed that results can offer a reference for the decision making of coastal management from an environmental and
ecological perspective. Furthermore, this approach may provide a potential feasible way to the integrated Marine eco-environmental
carrying capacity assessment in other coastal areas.
I dont find a problem statement in this MS. Even the authoring team dint clearly state what are your hypothesis that launched the research. The introduction doesn’t provide a good, generalized background of the topic that quickly gives the reader an appreciation. The main point is the data accumulated through this research is not sufficient for publication in Journal like Sustainability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, you have done a good job improving the manuscript. I recognize it is a quite complex issue but you provide a very interesting and acceptable contribution to environmental science. Many thanks for that.
About the new version:
line 253: "mormolize" maybe means "normalize"??
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We are the authors of the paper “Applying a set of potential methods for the integrated assessment of marine eco-environmental carrying capacity in coastal areas”.
Thank you very much again for your support and valuable comments to our article. We have revised the manuscript with further English-language-edting according to the recommended editorial revisions . We will re-submit the new revised version (Sustainability-1642330-revised version-R2) in the online system. Our explanations for one question proposed by you, which are showed as follows.
Point: line 253: "mormolize" maybe means "normalize"??
Response : Revised. Thanks for your comments, we are sorry for this mistake. We have revised “mormolize” to "normalize".
Yours sincerely,
Kankan Wu (First author, Ph.D)
Reviewer 3 Report
I am happy to see this version and it is upto the standard for sustainability.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
We are the authors of the paper “Applying a set of potential methods for the integrated assessment of marine eco-environmental carrying capacity in coastal areas”.
Thanks very much again for your support and valuable comments on our study. We have revised the manuscript with English-language-edting according to the recommended editorial revisions . We will re-submit the new revised version (Sustainability-1642330-revised version-R2) in the online system.
Yours sincerely,
Kankan Wu (First author, Ph.D)
