Literature Review on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Design of New Ports and Other Maritime Projects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Literature Review on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Design of New Ports and Other Maritime 3 Projects
Abstract
Row 9 – the “weather” includes all the phenomena that take place in the earth's atmosphere and not include marine phenomena
Rows 37–43 are a repetition of the previous sentences
The most part of the abstract seems more like an introduction and not suitable for the abstract section.
Introduction
Row 71-73 References would be appropriate
Methodology
(From row 127 onwards)
Step 3: What was the “preliminary screening” about? It is not clear how the authors went from 704 articles to 159
Step 4: How “the contents of these articles were checked to confirm their relevance”?. The check mode is not clear
Step 5: How the selected papers have been analyzed?. It is not clear if the authors used specific analysis tools.
Results
Row 168-171: It would be appropriate to indicate the use of VOSviewer in “Methodology” section, also specifying the chosen counting method (What? Why?). In the diagram (Fig. 4), the most important information according to the subject of the paper and its title, seems to be not so much the topics specified in the rows 170-171 as their “distance” from the topic (ports and harbors). This point should be highlighted and explained, in my opinion.
Row 190-193: With the term “relevance”, do the authors refer to step 5 in the “Methodology” section? These rows would be to better explain.
Figure 6 : The name of x axis in the figure is not clear. More details in the caption would be appropriate
Row 223: Warning. Is there an omitted comma?
Rows 259, 261, 267, 278: Warning to square brackets to reference number
CONCLUSION
Major revisions are requested especially due to: 1) abstract (should be rewritten with more care); 2)methods (should be better clarified; VOSviewer tool, including corresponding reference, should be introduced
Author Response
Literature Review on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Design of New Ports and Other Maritime Projects
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewers for the time dedicated to reading the paper and for the constructive comments, suggestions, and recommendations. We have taken into account the comments and reviewed the paper accordingly. Main changes have been made to the abstract, introduction and methodology. Minor comments have been made in other sections. The authors believe the article is now more robust.
The following paragraphs highlight the revisions introduced in the paper, following the comments of the reviewers. Major changes in the manuscript are written in red colour, identified with the “track changes” option, as per MDPI’s instructions.
Abstract
Point 1: Row 9 – the “weather” includes all the phenomena that take place in the earth's atmosphere and not include marine phenomena
Response 1: The reviewer’s comment regarding the length and complexity of the abstract are well undesrtood. The abstract has been reviewed and became more concise, integrating all comments related to this section.
Where applicable,“wheather” was replaced with “climate”.
The revised text is found in rows 9-25 of the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Rows 37–43 are a repetition of the previous sentences
The most part of the abstract seems more like an introduction and not suitable for the abstract section.
Response 2: As mentioned in the previous reply, The reviewer’s comments regarding the length and complexity of the abstract have been considered and this section has been reviewed and became more concise, integrating all comments related to this section.
The revised text is found in rows 9-25 of the revised manuscript.
Introduction
Point 3: Row 71-73 References would be appropriate
Response 3: The comment was integrated and additional references have been included, as suggested.
The revised text is found in rows 41 of the revised manuscript.
Methodology
Point 4: Step 3: What was the “preliminary screening” about? It is not clear how the authors went from 704 articles to 159
Response 4: As suggested, the methodology used in the preliminary screening process has been further detailed to clarify how articles were excluded. Figure 1 was also improved, with added detail regarding this step.
The most significant change includes the addition of the text ”This exclusion process allowed for the quick identification and exclusion of papers that clearly related with other scientific fields (biology, sociology, economics) and different types of projects (urban water, dams, cities and urban planning, sea transport and logistics chains)”.
The revised text is found in rows 91-96 of the revised manuscript.
Point 5: Step 4: How “the contents of these articles were checked to confirm their relevance”?. The check mode is not clear
Response 5: As suggested, the detailed screening method was clarified to explain that each article’s contents was analized to identify those that were relevant to this the theme of this literature review. Figure 1 was also improved, with added detail regarding this stage.
The most significant change in the paper includes the addition of the text ”This process, which consisted in reviewing the contents of each article in sufficient detail to confirm its relevance to this literature review, led to a further refinement of the selection (...)”.
The revised text is found in rows 100-101 of the revised manuscript.
Point 6: Step 5: How the selected papers have been analyzed?. It is not clear if the authors used specific analysis tools.
Response 6: Each paper was read in sufficient detail to allow for a clear understanding of the contents and how these related to the theme of the literature review. During this stage, the software VOSviewer was also used to assist in understanding how the selected articles (and their authors) related to eachother. Figure 1 was also improved, with added detail regarding this stage.
The most significant changes in the text relate to the specific mention that the papers were “ (...) read and analyzed (...)” and that” (...) the software VOSviewer [23] (...)” was used.
The revised text is found in rows 104-105 of the revised manuscript.
Results
Point 7: Row 168-171: It would be appropriate to indicate the use of VOSviewer in “Methodology” section, also specifying the chosen counting method (What? Why?). In the diagram (Fig. 4), the most important information according to the subject of the paper and its title, seems to be not so much the topics specified in the rows 170-171 as their “distance” from the topic (ports and harbors). This point should be highlighted and explained, in my opinion.
Response 7: As suggested, the use of the VOSviewer software package is now clearly mentioned. Additionally, a reference to the corresponding manual has been added.
The counting method was used as, after testing different methods, this was the one that better illustrated the connections between articles.
An observation regarding the distance from “ports and harbors” has been added, with the text “Figure 4 also shows that, within the universe of Climate Change, the central themes of this literature review – port/ports and harbors/coastal protection – are located at the periphery of the diagram, at some distance from Climate Change”.
The revised text is found in rows 141-143 of the revised manuscript.
Point 8: Row 190-193: With the term “relevance”, do the authors refer to step 5 in the “Methodology” section? These rows would be to better explain.
Response 8: The Reviewer’s interpretation is correct. A reference to Step 5 of the methodology has been added to the text “The criteria below were defined as part of Step 5 of the methodology, during the analysis process and were based on the relevance for the greater theme of “Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Design of Ports and Maritime Projects”.
The revised text is found in row 163 of the revised manuscript.
Point 9: Figure 6 : The name of x axis in the figure is not clear. More details in the caption would be appropriate.
Response 9: The name of the x axis was changed to “Article Nr. (Chronological Order)”, following the Reviewer’s suggestion.
A small asjustment to the text was also made (see row 169) of the revised manuscript.
Point 10: Row 223: Warning. Is there an omitted comma?
Response 10: The Reviewer is correct, a comma was missing. This error has been corrected.
The revised text is found in row 196 of the revised manuscript.
Point 11: Rows 259, 261, 267, 278: Warning to square brackets to reference number
Response 11: The references have been validated and formatted with square brackets.
The revised text is found in rows 232, 240, 243 and 251 of the revised manuscript.
Reviewer’s Conclusion
Point 12: Major revisions are requested especially due to: 1) abstract (should be rewritten with more care); 2)methods (should be better clarified; VOSviewer tool, including corresponding reference, should be introduced.
Response 12: All comments raised by the Reviewer have been incorporated in a new version of the document. Main adjustments include:
- Revised, more concise abstract;
- Revised, more concise introduction;
- Addition of clarifying statements in the methodology section, including clearer references to the VOSviewer software.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract
The reviewer’s opinion is that the Abstract is too long. We don’t use references in Abstract (see line 36).
General comments
Also you can write an extra chapter with the wave energy conversion into seaports or generally for the coastal hydrodynamics.
Characteristic papers are:
Stansby, Peter K. Coastal hydrodynamics - present and future, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 51:4, 341-350, 2013. DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2013.821678.
Cascajo, R., García, E., Quiles, E., Correcher, A., Morant, F. Integration of marine wave energy converters into seaports: A case study in the port of Valencia. Energies 2019, 12, 787.
How many of the papers in the literature analyze the environmental conditions and how they propose new structures (near shore/ offshore) for the Climate Change Adaptation?
Author Response
Literature Review on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Design of New Ports and Other Maritime Projects
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewers for the time dedicated to reading the paper and for the constructive comments, suggestions, and recommendations. We have taken into account the comments and reviewed the paper accordingly. Main changes have been made to the abstract, introduction and methodology. Minor comments have been made in other sections. The authors believe the article is now more robust.
The following paragraphs highlight the revisions introduced in the paper, following the comments of the reviewers. Major changes in the manuscript are written in red colour, identified with the “track changes” option.
Abstract
Point 1: The reviewer’s opinion is that the Abstract is too long. We don’t use references in Abstract (see line 36).
Response 1: The reviewer’s comment regarding the length and complexity of the abstract are well undesrtood. The abstract has been reviewed and became more concise, integrating all comments related to this section.
General comments
Point 2: Also you can write an extra chapter with the wave energy conversion into seaports or generally for the coastal hydrodynamics.
Response 2: While the mentioned subject is of interest, it does not directly relate with the central theme of the literature review. For this reason, an extra chapter was not added.
In what relates to the identified references (characteristic papers), these were not found during the systematic literature review that resulted from the selected keywords and, therefore, were not included in the analysis. However, the case study for the Port of Valencia shows the growing interest in mechanical protection measures and a reference to it will be made in a separate paper by the same authors that focuses on a specific methodology to integrate mitigation measures in the design of ports and other maritime projcts.
Point 3: How many of the papers in the literature analyze the environmental conditions and how they propose new structures (near shore/ offshore) for the Climate Change Adaptation?
Response 4: Through the systematic literature review, no paper was found to propose a practical approach and/or design guidelines that can be used to incorporate climate change mitigation measured to new projects.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript sustainability-2179882 entitled “Literature Review on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Design of New Ports and Other Maritime Projects”. Please notice the following:
General view: The manuscript expressed a good idea in good language and grammar. The manuscript might require a little extent of copyediting and proofreading for a higher degree of simplification and understanding.
The manuscript could be accepted for publication after minor revision.
Title: Clear to a greater extent but preferred to be modified into “Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the New Ports Design and Maritime Projects”.
Abstract: Clear to a greater extent but very long and have to be more concise and simplified to give a higher understanding.
Keywords: Please rearrange the words in alphabetical order.
Introduction: Expressed using 12 paragraphs which is too much. It would be better to rearrange the introduction into three paragraphs only i.e., 1. Introduction 2. Significance of the study, and 3. Aim of the study. Some modifications have to be carried out to simplify and enhance readability and understanding.
The aim: Clear, informative, and concise.
Body of the review:
1. Methods: Clear, systematic, informative, and brief.
2. Results: Clear and comprehensible.
3. Discussion: Clear to a greater extent, informative, and contributing to knowledge. Some modifications have to be carried out to enhance the readability.
Conclusion: Although the importance of the written words, the conclusion is too long and requires some trimming and concise for more simplification and an increase in readability and understanding.
Authors’ contributions: NA.
Funding: NA.
Acknowledgment: NA.
References: Excellent as only 76.8% (43 out of 56) were published in the past five years.
Tables: Well organized and presented.
Figures: Well organized and presented.
Author Response
Literature Review on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the
Design of New Ports and Other Maritime Projects
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewers for the time dedicated to reading the paper and for the constructive comments, suggestions, and recommendations. We have taken into account the comments and reviewed the paper accordingly. Main changes have been made to the abstract, introduction and methodology. Minor comments have been made in other sections. The authors believe the article is now more robust.
The following paragraphs highlight the revisions introduced in the paper, following the comments of the reviewers. Major changes in the manuscript are written in red colour, identified with the “track changes” option.
Title
Point 1: Clear to a greater extent but preferred to be modified into “Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the New Ports Design and Maritime Projects”.
Response 1: The reviewer’s comment is understood. However, the proposed title, more concise, is the theme of the broader project under development by the authors. This paper relates only to the Literature Review on this subject. For this reason, while the comment is relevant, the change could not be made.
Abstract
Point 2: Clear to a greater extent but very long and have to be more concise and simplified to give a higher understanding.
Response 2: The reviewer’s comment regarding the length and complexity of the abstract are well undesrtood. The abstract has been reviewed and became more concise.
Keywords
Point 3: Please rearrange the words in alphabetical order.
Response 3: As per reviewer’s comment, the keywords have been rearranged in alphabetical order.
Introduction
Point 4: Expressed using 12 paragraphs which is too much. It would be better to rearrange the introduction into three paragraphs only i.e., 1. Introduction 2. Significance of the study, and 3. Aim of the study. Some modifications have to be carried out to simplify and enhance readability and understanding.
Response 4: The comment is well understood, and the Introduction has been re-written with the objective of providing a clear and concise text that frames the study and details its objectives.
Conclusion
Point 5: Although the importance of the written words, the conclusion is too long and requires some trimming and concise for more simplification and an increase in readability and understanding.
Response 5: The comment related with the length and readability of the Conclusion was taken into consideration. However, after careful deliberation, the authors did not find it possible to significantly reduce the contents of the conclusion without impacting its structure and content.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Literature Review on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Design of New Ports and Other Maritime 3 Projects
Abstract
The abstract is improved but it remains too long and not scrollable in the reading. We don't usually argue too much in an abstract section but only we very succinctly introduce the topic and methods, and anticipate the conclusion.
The intention to give a significant basis for writing specific guidelines (as the title of the paper suggests) would have to be clearly said because this goal gives special meaning to all the work and it strengthens the reading motivation.
The rows 26-32 seem repetition of previous statements.
I suggest to authors to write the abstract section in a new version, changing the structure of the text; actually the only rows elegible for a section abstract, in my opionion, seem to be the rows 9-12, 15-20, 22-25.
Introduction
Row 58 – Do the “specific case studies” include that ones cleary declared at rows 64-66? If yes the statements 58 and 64-66 would have to be sequential in the text structure.
In general the reading is not so fluent; the previous version of the Introduction section seemed to be better written and clear
Methodology
Doubts about Methodology are raised after reading the Results
Results
Rows 150-152 raise significant doubts about the correct use of the methodology.
The term “relevance”, as introduced in the 4 and 5 steps of Methodology section (steps 4 and 5) seems to have two interpretations: 1) “relevance” respect to content (i.e. How/How much times the term Climate-Change is discussed in the selected paper - Step 4); “relevance” respect to the co-citations (i.e. How many and which authors (experiences in structures designing or environmental impacts?) discuss these contents).
This apparent distinction introduced in Methodology section seems confused in Result section. The Figure 4 is a co-occurrence (not co-citation) map. Anyway, the corresponding parameters used in Analysis technique should have to be specified in Methodology, introducing clustering/layout parameters and Normalization method.
Why “flooding” and “flood” are both represented in Figure 4? Are there important differences?
The contribute of the Figure 5 to the discussion doesn't seem relevant or it is not clear
Discussion
Rows 212-223..These rows seem to be best suited to Conclusion section
In co-occurrence map (Figure 4) the distance “coastal protection -Climate Change” seems shorter respect to distance “port and harbor-Climate Change”. This result and the clear composition of the two well visible clusters (orange and blue) seem to say that there is not a literature that incorporates Climate Change in “ports and harbor”; on the contrary it is incorporated in a literature about coastal protection (meant as “coastal protection structures”, according to cited bibliography and discussion of the authors).
This is well argued in Discussion section, but this argument seems to be based more on the study of specific articles (Table 2?) and professional experience and expertise than on a correct bibliometric analysis (VOSviewer)
Conclusion
The Conclusion section highlights the importance of the topic
CONCLUSION OF REVIEW
The paper raises a reflextion about a very important issue and it is the basis for a significant future contribute either to scientific community and to decision-makers.
Precisely for this reason it would be very important making robust the work writing more carefully Results, according to Methods used; at the same time, part of Methodology section should be improved
The perception is that the authors based their discussion especially on own professional experience while specifying that one step of the methodology is based on use of a specific tool of bibliometric analysis (VOSviewer). The use of a tool supporting objective (not subjective) investigation of literature data is an important challenge and makes a review work as more robust
Just due to significant gaps in methodology and consequential description of Results, I asked major revisions.
Neverthless, I know that a review paper can have many different structures and it can be worthy of pubblication even when it is based exclusively on the professional experience and expertise of the authors.
Both if the authors decide to improve the Result and Methodology using VOSviewer or if they will prefer only refer to own professional expertise, excluding the use of VOSviewer, in addition to the consequent corresponding variations of the entire manuscript, the structure of the Abstract (in particular) should be completely revised.
Finally, first 11 rows of Discussion section should be appropriately merged and integrated in Conclusion section
Author Response
Literature Review on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Design of New Ports and Other Maritime Projects
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The authors wish to thank the reviewers for the time dedicated to reading the paper and for the constructive comments, suggestions, and recommendations. We have taken into account the comments and reviewed the paper accordingly. Main changes have been made to the abstract, introduction and methodology. Minor comments have been made in other sections. The authors believe the article is now more robust.
The following paragraphs highlight the revisions introduced in the paper, following the comments of the reviewers. Major changes in the manuscript are written in red colour, identified with the “track changes” option, as per MDPI’s instructions.
Abstract
Point 1: The abstract is improved but it remains too long and not scrollable in the reading. We don't usually argue too much in an abstract section but only we very succinctly introduce the topic and methods, and anticipate the conclusion.
The intention to give a significant basis for writing specific guidelines (as the title of the paper suggests) would have to be clearly said because this goal gives special meaning to all the work and it strengthens the reading motivation.
The rows 26-32 seem repetition of previous statements.
I suggest to authors to write the abstract section in a new version, changing the structure of the text; actually the only rows elegible for a section abstract, in my opionion, seem to be the rows 9-12, 15-20, 22-25.
Response 1: The reviewer’s comments are relevant and the abstract has been reviewed. The sections related with details regarding methodologies and those that partially repeated contents were removed.
Introduction
Point 2: Row 58 – Do the “specific case studies” include that ones cleary declared at rows 64-66? If yes the statements 58 and 64-66 would have to be sequential in the text structure.
In general the reading is not so fluent; the previous version of the Introduction section seemed to be better written and clear
Response 2: The references clearly indicated in rows 58 and in rows 64-66 refer to different subjects of articles and none of them correspond to case studies.
Adjustments have been made for clarity.
Methodology
Point 3: Doubts about Methodology are raised after reading the Results
Response 3: The comments raised in Point 4 are replied in that section.
Adjustments were made to Step 5 of the methodology to better clarify use of the VOSViewer software.
Results
Point 4: Rows 150-152 raise significant doubts about the correct use of the methodology.
The term “relevance”, as introduced in the 4 and 5 steps of Methodology section (steps 4 and 5) seems to have two interpretations: 1) “relevance” respect to content (i.e. How/How much times the term Climate-Change is discussed in the selected paper - Step 4); “relevance” respect to the co-citations (i.e. How many and which authors (experiences in structures designing or environmental impacts?) discuss these contents).
This apparent distinction introduced in Methodology section seems confused in Result section. The Figure 4 is a co-occurrence (not co-citation) map. Anyway, the corresponding parameters used in Analysis technique should have to be specified in Methodology, introducing clustering/layout parameters and Normalization method.
Why “flooding” and “flood” are both represented in Figure 4? Are there important differences?
The contribute of the Figure 5 to the discussion doesn't seem relevant or it is not clear
Response 4: The diagrams included in Figure 4 and Figure 5 were used to assist in the interpretation of the connections between the selected articles.
The methodology was adjusted for clarity.
Discussion
Point 4: Rows 212-223..These rows seem to be best suited to Conclusion section
In co-occurrence map (Figure 4) the distance “coastal protection -Climate Change” seems shorter respect to distance “port and harbor-Climate Change”. This result and the clear composition of the two well visible clusters (orange and blue) seem to say that there is not a literature that incorporates Climate Change in “ports and harbor”; on the contrary it is incorporated in a literature about coastal protection (meant as “coastal protection structures”, according to cited bibliography and discussion of the authors).
This is well argued in Discussion section, but this argument seems to be based more on the study of specific articles (Table 2?) and professional experience and expertise than on a correct bibliometric analysis (VOSviewer)
Response 5: The reviewer is correct in its assessment. The analysis of the articles selected for the literature review took into consideration the experience of the authors who analyzed each article and took their specific contents into consideration throughout the assessment.
The text has been adjusted and complemented to reflect this point more clearly.
Conclusion
Point 6: The Conclusion section highlights the importance of the topic
CONCLUSION OF REVIEW
The paper raises a reflextion about a very important issue and it is the basis for a significant future contribute either to scientific community and to decision-makers.
Precisely for this reason it would be very important making robust the work writing more carefully Results, according to Methods used; at the same time, part of Methodology section should be improved
The perception is that the authors based their discussion especially on own professional experience while specifying that one step of the methodology is based on use of a specific tool of bibliometric analysis (VOSviewer). The use of a tool supporting objective (not subjective) investigation of literature data is an important challenge and makes a review work as more robust
Just due to significant gaps in methodology and consequential description of Results, I asked major revisions.
Neverthless, I know that a review paper can have many different structures and it can be worthy of pubblication even when it is based exclusively on the professional experience and expertise of the authors.
Both if the authors decide to improve the Result and Methodology using VOSviewer or if they will prefer only refer to own professional expertise, excluding the use of VOSviewer, in addition to the consequent corresponding variations of the entire manuscript, the structure of the Abstract (in particular) should be completely revised.
Finally, first 11 rows of Discussion section should be appropriately merged and integrated in Conclusion section
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Literature Review on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures in the Design of New Ports and Other Maritime 3 Projects
Methodology
Rows 106- The use of VOSviewer makes the review work robust but the clustering/layout parameters and Normalization method must be specified
Results
Rows 143 -<<(….)port/ports and harbors/coastal protection – are located at the periphery of the diagram, at some distance from Climate Change>>. It is not true (the distance is not the same), as correctly declared at rows 236-241
Figure 4 - “flooding” and “flood” in figure 4 seem to be the same topic. The figure needs to be redone using a correct thesaurus file
Discussion
Rows 203-214..These rows arouse perplexity at first reading because they are suited to Conclusion section
CONCLUSION OF REVIEW
The manuscript is greatly improved and it is on its way to final publication; neverthless the requested additions in Methodology section as well as the correction of figure 4 are important in my opinion. These updates will not change the substance of the results but they will delete the gap between the results obtained as only based on own professional expertise/experience and that ones obtained as supported on correct use of VOSviewer.
The rows 203-214 should be included in Conclusion section to improve the structure of this part of the paper and make reading the Discussion section easier
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the reviewers for the time dedicated to reading the paper and for the constructive comments, suggestions, and recommendations. We have taken into account the comments and reviewed the paper accordingly. Main changes have been made to the abstract, introduction and methodology. Minor comments have been made in other sections. The authors believe the article is now more robust.
The following paragraphs highlight the revisions introduced in the paper, following the comments of the reviewers. Major changes in the manuscript are written in red colour, identified with the “track changes” option, as per MDPI’s instructions.
Methodology
Point 1: Rows 106 - The use of VOSviewer makes the review work robust but the clustering/layout parameters and Normalization method must be specified.
Response 1: The parameters considered in the VOSViewer analysis have been included for both the “co-citation” and “co-occurrence” analysis.
In both cases, the following parameters were considered:
- clustering resolution of 1.0;
- cluster size of 1;
- normalization method – association strength.
Results
Point 2: Rows 143 -<<(….)port/ports and harbors/coastal protection – are located at the periphery of the diagram, at some distance from Climate Change>>. It is not true (the distance is not the same), as correctly declared at rows 236-241.
Response 2: The text was adjusted for clarity and now reads: “(...) port/ports and harbors/coastal protection – are located at the periphery of the diagram, at a significant distance from Climate Change”
Point 3: Figure 4 - “flooding” and “flood” in figure 4 seem to be the same topic. The figure needs to be redone using a correct thesaurus file.
Response 3: Processing was reviewed to avoid the “duplication” regarding flood/flooding. The revised image replaced the previous version.
Discussion
Point 4: Rows 203-214..These rows arouse perplexity at first reading because they are suited to Conclusion section.
Response 4: The rows mentioned in the reviewer’s comment have been removed from the Discussion section. The relevant contents of these rows have been included in the Conclusion section.
The corresponding adjustments in the main text are identified with the “track changes” option.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
