Earth Observation—An Essential Tool towards Effective Aquatic Ecosystems’ Management under a Climate in Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a resubmitted version following the five reviewers’ comments and provide a response to comments in a second document. The resubmission concerning our third comment “The paper presentation is too general,” remain insufficient. Here follow, firstly minor corrections, the paper plan (not given by the authors) and our suggestions and conclusion.

Minor Corrections

May be explain the unit C line 61, and could be use the same notation line 71. Idem m and meters lines 96-97.

Cite Table 1 at line 188; Table 1 is never cited in the text.

Five ECVs is four, line 227: SST, Colour, Ice, Lakes.

Close ( line 305.

Figure 7 page 10 must be renumbered, lines 322 341, idem Fig 1 p 9, Idem Fig 6 line 324.

Check “climate change” and “satellite” line 341.

“This Table was taken from…” must be edited, Caption Table 2.

Add comment as for Lakes, line 438.

“Figure 7” must be edited line 474.

“,with.” Line 397

Paper plan (plan we observed in the paper)

1 Introduction

1.1   Earth Observation (EO)

1.2   Oceans

1.3   Lakes

1.3.1         Parameters

1.3.2         Sentinel

1.4   MAPS

1.4.1         Ecosystem

1.4.2         Satellites

2 Discussion on EO

2.1 Copernicus

2.2 Variables

3 Discussion on Bibliometry

4 Discussion on Resolution

5 Discussion on Governance

6 Conclusion

7 References

Suggestions

The structure of the abstract is:

-Policies

-data

-MAPS and Lakes

-Essential Variables

-Literature review

The paper follows the structure of a special issue gathering several papers, here five, one by section, or the structure of a book where each chapter has been started here by the different section. The introduction is here Monitoring Earth, Ocean, Lakes, MAPs, line 38.

The lines 27-29 added in the resubmission are disappointing, because it concerns mainly the section 3 on literature review.

The Table 2 contains the six variables, and it is unclear if it is linked to the error line 227 on five or four ECVS.

Conclusion

We recommend asking for a revision on the structure of the paper. Each paragraph take alone, contains valuable details on the research results. What is missing is a clear question addressed by the paper. Here the research appears as following a multi-criteria goal around several targets: EO, CC, governance, ECVS and data, Resolutions, Lakes and MAPS, bibliographic reviews.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

“,with.” Line 397

Author Response

Minor Corrections

May be explain the unit C line 61, and could be use the same notation line 71. Idem m and meters lines 96-97.

These lines were edited in the text. And “meters” were written without any notation when in context.

Cite Table 1 at line 188; Table 1 is never cited in the text.

Table 1 is now cited. Thank you very much.

Five ECVs is four, line 227: SST, Colour, Ice, Lakes.

It is indeed four and not five. Previous versions of the manuscript included five, one was out of context as suggested by a reviewer in the original submission.

Close ( line 305.

The initial parenthesis was deleted, and the sentence now includes commas. Thank you very much!

Figure 7 page 10 must be renumbered, lines 322 341, idem Fig 1 p 9, Idem Fig 6 line 324.

Thank you very much for noticing this. The figure numberings were corrected.

Check “climate change” and “satellite” line 341.

More context was given in this paragraph even though we are not sure what the respectable reviewer asks to be checked.

“This Table was taken from…” must be edited, Caption Table 2.

This caption was edited appropriately. In fact, the table was inspired by an often-cited IOCCG report and presents much more information, updated with the results of our work.

Add comment as for Lakes, line 438.

We reckon that the comment should be about MPAs and added at the end of the paragraph that starts in line 438. If that is the case, we appreciate the idea and we have done it.

“Figure 7” must be edited line 474.

We assumed that the correct line was 472 and not 474 (original manuscript) which is now corrected.

“,with.” Line 397

Thank you very much for noticing this typo. It was now corrected.

 

Paper plan (plan we observed in the paper)

1 Introduction

1.1   Earth Observation (EO)

1.2   Oceans

1.3   Lakes

1.3.1         Parameters

1.3.2         Sentinel

1.4   MAPS

1.4.1         Ecosystem

1.4.2         Satellites

2 Discussion on EO

2.1 Copernicus

2.2 Variables

3 Discussion on Bibliometry

4 Discussion on Resolution

5 Discussion on Governance

6 Conclusion

7 References

Suggestions

The structure of the abstract is:

-Policies

-data

-MAPS and Lakes

-Essential Variables

-Literature review

The paper follows the structure of a special issue gathering several papers, here five, one by section, or the structure of a book where each chapter has been started here by the different section. The introduction is here Monitoring Earth, Ocean, Lakes, MAPs, line 38.

We have changed the title of this paragraph to Monitoring Earth: from Oceans to Lakes and MAPs

The lines 27-29 added in the resubmission are disappointing, because it concerns mainly the section 3 on literature review.

This section of the abstract was re-drafted and extended. Having in mind the proposal suggested for the abstract.

The Table 2 contains the six variables, and it is unclear if it is linked to the error line 227 on five or four ECVS.

The number of variables has been corrected. Thank you!

Conclusion

We recommend asking for a revision on the structure of the paper. Each paragraph take alone, contains valuable details on the research results. What is missing is a clear question addressed by the paper. Here the research appears as following a multi-criteria goal around several targets: EO, CC, governance, ECVS and data, Resolutions, Lakes and MAPS, bibliographic reviews.

 

Thank you very much for the comments and suggestions provided. We have adapted to all of them except for the re-structuring of the text which is also in conflict with the re-structuring proposed by another reviewer. Both proposals where thought about carefully and we decided for the re-structuring proposed by the other reviewer since it was closer to the original manuscript and now follows the structure of a scientific paper. we greatly appreciate the suggestion provided by the author and we hope that the reviewer agrees.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

“,with.” Line 397

Thank you, the typo was corrected.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the author's revision. However, the manuscript need to be in a better revision before further consideration for publication in Remote Sensing journal. 

Please see my comments as follows: 

2nd REVIEW REPORT

Manuscript title: Earth Observation – an essential tool towards effective aquatic ecosystems’ management under a climate in change

Manuscript ID: remotesensing-3039612

1. Line 16, “ocean colour” data or ocean color dataset?

2. Line 18: you mentioned “ocean color” in line 16 but focused on both lake and MPAs, which will make the readers confusing about the ocean. Should change the word or revise the sentence.

3. Lines 15 - 16 should be rewrote to avoid repetition with line 27

4. Lines 27 - 33: please rewrite these sentences to clarify your ideas and to emphasize the novel points of this study

5. Line 38 “Monitoring the ocean and lakes with satellites” should be removed from the section

6. The manuscript must follow the general structure of a scientific paper. For instance, I did not see the Materials and methods section. Is this a review manuscript? So, how do you select the papers? In which techniques you used for data visualization and analysis? Where are your results and discussion? And so on...

7. Line 88 - 101: so, you wanna say about the use of EO data for Chl-a estimation or for small lake extent mapping? Please restructure the paragraph

8. The section Introduction is still a bit chaos without a clear structure to lead the mind of the readers to the ideas and novel points of this study. Introduction need to be restructured, something like brief introduction of EO system/ data, reason focusing on lakes and MPAS with unsolved challenges, then why EO data will be a good solution, in which EO data/ methods can help to remove the unsolved challenges in lakes/ MPAs management, and finally the novel contribution of this manuscript.

9. Lines 39 - 68 were complex in writing without a clear ideas in the presentation. Should be shorter. Please be back to comment 8. 

10. Material/ methods of review should be placed in front of section 2

11. Section 2, lines 128 - 159 are too long and not necessary here. You can leave the links and the readers easily to read those contents on ESA pages.

12. Line 195, “Essential Climate Variables ”: Again, what is the core challenges you wanna solve in terms of using EO data/ methods for lakes/ MPAs? You listed so many variables here, which only needed a link to the internet sources or published papers (e.g., https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/11/2716, https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.3306). You need to link which ECVs belonging to the lake/ MPA that can be monitored/ managed using EO data/ methods.

13. Regarding the MPAs, how EO data can help to detect and monitor the boundary of MPA? Without this point, EO data/ method will not work for MPAs, but only for the general habitats.

14. Line 386, section 5, the texts were only about the ECVs without a clear linkage to the “Governance and Societal Challenges”. Regarding MPAs, you mentioned about the MPAs monitoring and management, but how EO data/ methods will help? I did not see your arguments here.

15. Conclusion is long, need to be more cohesive and coherence

16. Lines 484 - 502, again the ECVs, if the authors want to review on the use of EO data/ methods for ECVs, the title of the manuscript should be changed. If not, they need to  directly discuss and conclude on the linkage between EO data/ methods and aspects of lake/ MPAs.

17. The most important thing is, when saying about the use of EO data/ methods for lake/ MPAs, we need to explain and link the characteristics of EO data (spatial resolution, radiometric/ temporal resolution, spectral resolution...) and EO methods (image classification/ estimation, image transformation...), emphasizing the advantages/ disadvantages of these data/ methods when dealing with the unsolved challenges in lakes/ MPAs management/ monitoring. The manuscript should divided into those sections to clarify the title of the study rather than the current format of a report. 

Author Response

1. Line 16, “ocean colour” data or ocean color dataset?

Thank you for noticing this. Indeed we should be referring to datasets that are specific to these environments.

2. Line 18: you mentioned “ocean color” in line 16 but focused on both lake and MPAs, which will make the readers confusing about the ocean. Should change the word or revise the sentence.

Indeed, we agree that ocean colour is a confusing term. The article actually mentions that this term should be read a broader aspect so as to encompass other scenarios not restricted to the oceans. As mentioned below, not even the term “lake colour” is currently widely used in the literature. The sentence “Ocean colour should be read in its wider term as the retrieval of water quality parameters in different scenarios not restricted to the oceans.” Was added to the introduction so as to make this point clearer.

3. Lines 15 - 16 should be rewrote to avoid repetition with line 27

Line 27 was re-written as requested by another reviewer and we think the changes are also in line with the comment by re viewer number 2.

4. Lines 27 - 33: please rewrite these sentences to clarify your ideas and to emphasize the novel points of this study

This lines in the abstract were re-written.

5. Line 38 “Monitoring the ocean and lakes with satellites” should be removed from the section

According to the comment by another reviewer the line 38 now reads “Monitoring the Earth: from Ocean to Lakes and MPAs” We believe that this subtitle makes justice to what is intended below: to give a proper context of the introduction.

6. The manuscript must follow the general structure of a scientific paper. For instance, I did not see the Materials and methods section. Is this a review manuscript? So, how do you select the papers? In which techniques you used for data visualization and analysis? Where are your results and discussion? And so on...

We agree with the suggestion from the reviewer, and we find that this approach makes sense. We have therefore added a “Materials and methods” section and provided clarity on where the results can be found in sections 3 and 4, discussion in 5 and 6 and conclusions in 7. Kindly note that this approach is not compatible with the proposal outlined by reviewer 1 and therefore we made the choice to go for the approach of reviewer 2.

7. Line 88 - 101: so, you wanna say about the use of EO data for Chl-a estimation or for small lake extent mapping? Please restructure the paragraph

We reckon that the sentence that was added at the end of the paragraph makes this point clearer. In fact, there is a resolution gap to study these small lakes. “The resolution of Sentinel-2 is 20 meters (HR2) and of Landsat-8 is 40 meters (MR1). Whilst some studies have delved into the use of these satellites for Chlorophyll-a estima-tions their low spectral resolutions suggested that these satellites can still be used but are sub-optimal to effectively assess these ecosystems since Chlorophyll-a detection is only possible under very specific conditions [18–20].”

8. The section Introduction is still a bit chaos without a clear structure to lead the mind of the readers to the ideas and novel points of this study. Introduction need to be restructured, something like brief introduction of EO system/ data, reason focusing on lakes and MPAS with unsolved challenges, then why EO data will be a good solution, in which EO data/ methods can help to remove the unsolved challenges in lakes/ MPAs management, and finally the novel contribution of this manuscript.

The introduction was redrafting taking into account a better explanation of what will the paper be about.

9. Lines 39 - 68 were complex in writing without a clear ideas in the presentation. Should be shorter. Please be back to comment 8. 

These line have been shortened and adapted to make the ideas clearer.

10. Material/ methods of review should be placed in front of section 2

Materials and methods, appropriately suggested by the reviewer in previous comments, are now before the previous section 2 ”Results on Earth observation policies and decision-making structures” (now section 3)

11. Section 2, lines 128 - 159 are too long and not necessary here. You can leave the links and the readers easily to read those contents on ESA pages.

Thank you very much, the paragraph was shortened, and the links were added.

12. Line 195, “Essential Climate Variables ”: Again, what is the core challenges you wanna solve in terms of using EO data/ methods for lakes/ MPAs? You listed so many variables here, which only needed a link to the internet sources or published papers (e.g., https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/11/2716,https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wea.3306). You need to link which ECVs belonging to the lake/ MPA that can be monitored/ managed using EO data/ methods.

We reformulated some of the sentences in this paragraph to make it clear the connection of these essential climate carriable to the habitats that were studied. We also found the suggested references useful for the scope of this article. Therefore, they were added.

In sum, we outline these four variable as we argue that they could benefit of high-resolution data.

13. Regarding the MPAs, how EO data can help to detect and monitor the boundary of MPA? Without this point, EO data/ method will not work for MPAs, but only for the general habitats.

EO data can be vital for the effective implementation of a environmental based monitoring of MPAs. In coastal areas these MPAs are generally very specific such as mangroves and regions of particular ecosystem habitats. In open seas there is practically no satellite-based monitoring in high resolution for environmental variables such chlorophyll a detection. Earth observation is still lacking in these scenarios due to the low resolution of the sensors.

14. Line 386, section 5, the texts were only about the ECVs without a clear linkage to the “Governance and Societal Challenges”. Regarding MPAs, you mentioned about the MPAs monitoring and management, but how EO data/ methods will help? I did not see your arguments here.

We recognise that the previous version of the section title was poor, and it was now changed to “Applications to Governance and Ecosystem-based Management of the Cases Studied”. EO data and methods, especially if complemented by higher resolution data is essential for the detection of harmful algal blooms in both lakes and MPAs that can have serious consequences for these habitats. Additionally, very high resolution data is essential for building timeseries over small lakes and MPAs.  Some examples are given of high-resolution satellites that can already do this, but they are not public. The article, of course, aims at providing arguments that high and very high-resolution data are essential for scientific research when now-a-days they are mostly used for civil (surveillance, illegal activities perpetrated by vessels, for example) and military applications.

15. Conclusion is long, need to be more cohesive and coherence

Thank you very much for your comment the conclusion was re-drafted, shortened and we hope it is clearer now.

16. Lines 484 - 502, again the ECVs, if the authors want to review on the use of EO data/ methods for ECVs, the title of the manuscript should be changed. If not, they need to  directly discuss and conclude on the linkage between EO data/ methods and aspects of lake/ MPAs.

We hope that the link is now clear: we provide ECVs as an example of a EO initiative to yield timeseries of very important variables but when narrowed down to smaller scenarios this is still not possible. Lake colour, for example, exists within the subdomain of Lakes-ECV but the product is not yet operational. We hope that with this re-draft our argument towards the need for higher resolution is now defended.   

17. The most important thing is, when saying about the use of EO data/ methods for lake/ MPAs, we need to explain and link the characteristics of EO data (spatial resolution, radiometric/ temporal resolution, spectral resolution...) and EO methods (image classification/ estimation, image transformation...), emphasizing the advantages/ disadvantages of these data/ methods when dealing with the unsolved challenges in lakes/ MPAs management/ monitoring. The manuscript should divided into those sections to clarify the title of the study rather than the current format of a report. 

We kindly remind that his article is not a technical one but rather a revision of the current needs and gaps for environmental management of small lakes and MPAs. We respect the view of the reviewer, but we would like to consider if these aspects are clearer in the current version, ahead of changing the current format. Kindly note that we nevertheless considered important to make a final remark on the EO data/methods relation to the EO data characteristics and application to the context being studied:

“The usage of EO data for lakes and MPAs is currently only possible via some private-ly-owned satellites especially considering the necessary EO data characteristics (higher spatial, spectral, and temporal resolutions). The EO methods necessary to perform analysis on environmental basis (such as the retrieval of algorithms) are not suitable to produce long timeseries with the biggest disadvantage being scientists needing to purchase an en-tire collection of privately-owned data to study these small environments. However, the challenges are clear: studying small lakes and monitoring MPAs over long timespans is crucial.”

This paragraph increased the size of the conclusions back again but we agree with the reviewer that the comment is important.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You can refer to my suggestion

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate fixing

Author Response

We are thankful for the suggestions of reviewer #3. The introduction was re-drafted according to the suggestions of other reviewers. The contents on ECV were changed as also proposed by reviewer #2, we have redrafted this section adding the connection between ECVs and the scope of the article, which is to apply the same environmental-based monitoring to the study of small lakes and MPAs.

We agree that this article contains literature from different years. However, we did a thorough literature research, also outlining the changes in more recent literature. We reckon that this perspective is important to provide us with an analysis on the bottlenecks that we need to surpass for better environmental-based earth observation data.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised title and the revised structure of the paper allow a better presentation of the research results. We recommend accepting the paper for publication. We note in the revised parts of the paper the prominent role of the Chlorophyll-a parameter (lines 272 293 404 409 413 521), which could take a major role in the structuration of future presentation. Table 1 gives a clear definition of resolutions used. We mention few remaining typos:

Page numbering restarts after Table 2

Ge- line 515

Edit names ref 65

We recommend also adding a small paragraph at the end of the introduction to present the plan of the paper.

Author Response

The revised title and the revised structure of the paper allow a better presentation of the research results. We recommend accepting the paper for publication. We note in the revised parts of the paper the prominent role of the Chlorophyll-a parameter (lines 272 293 404 409 413 521), which could take a major role in the structuration of future presentation. Table 1 gives a clear definition of resolutions used. We mention few remaining typos:

Comment 1: Page numbering restarts after Table 2

Response 1: Thank you very much for noticing this. The numbering has been corrected. Dear editors, for this part we have disabled track changes.

Comment 2: Ge- line 515

Response 2: Corrected. Thank you!

Comment 3: Edit names ref 65

Response 3: The names appear in the manuscript as in the original publication https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asp/asl/2017/00000023/00000003/art00224

Comment 4: We recommend also adding a small paragraph at the end of the introduction to present the plan of the paper.

Response 4: We accepted this recommendation and added a paragraph at the end of the introduction. Thank you very much!

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Line 250 - 252: Why don’t you list other ECVs that benefit from the high, very high spatial resolution and also the ECVs fitting the low spatial resolution satellite image (e.g., MODIS imagery)?

2. According to the author’s reponse, this manuscript focus on the review and analysis of the needs and policies of EO data/ tool for a variety of ECVs mapping and management. However, the introduction section was very bed, which only included a list of different ecosystems. I did not see any literature review on the current needs/ policies of EO data/ tool for the mentioned purposed? Also, any problem with the current policies? What is the scale of the EO demanding now? Why do we need to have this review/ analysis? Introduction should not complete like there.

3. Section 2: Material and Methods was too short and like a draft version.

4. Section 3: Results on Earth observation… Why do you focus only on the EU space program and not from the US? India? Or other countries? It is not clear the reason here and hence be very bias in data collection of policies and coresponding analysis.

5. Again, I don’t think MPA fitting the scope of aquatic ecosystem and in group with ocean and lake

6. The authors say about EO data, but again, only focus on optical satellite sensors. How is about the LiDAR, RADAR, UAVs? What is the scope of this study? 7. Line 380, section 4 is not deep enough to generalize the past, current, and future policies regarding the topic of this study.

Overall, the manucript provide a policy based analysis of using EO data/ tool and may contribute another piece of puzzle to the Remote Sensing journal. However, this manuscript is not good in idea, writing, and manuscript structure to be published in a high rank journal like Remote Sensing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English correction can be considered for this manuscript. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 250 - 252: Why don’t you list other ECVs that benefit from the high, very high spatial resolution and also the ECVs fitting the low spatial resolution satellite image (e.g., MODIS imagery)?

Response 1: Other studies have also specified the necessity of higher resolution for other EVCs such as temperature. However, we have focused our study on the detection of Chlorophyll-a and the variables that directly interfere with primary production because it is an essential part of phenology studies and the role of primary production under a climate in change. Primary production estimation, both in land and in water, are quite advanced in terms of maturity but when applied to lakes and small oceanic regions the data is still insufficient.

 

Comment 2: According to the author’s reponse, this manuscript focus on the review and analysis of the needs and policies of EO data/ tool for a variety of ECVs mapping and management. However, the introduction section was very bed, which only included a list of different ecosystems. I did not see any literature review on the current needs/ policies of EO data/ tool for the mentioned purposed? Also, any problem with the current policies? What is the scale of the EO demanding now? Why do we need to have this review/ analysis? Introduction should not complete like there.

Response 2: The introduction was complemented with additional sentences at the end of each paragraph to provide context on the current bottlenecks for the subject of that paragraph. At the end of the introduction – as also suggested by another reviewer – we have added a paragraph that explains the general plan and scope of the article. The article does not intend to analyse the policies but rather the available optical satellite data that can support policies in the scope of water quality. We have outlined that according to the EU Space Programme privately owned data can and should be used the article explores the possibility and current scientific applications of private and public data for environmental/based monitoring. The scale of the EO demand is to serve both civil and scientific applications we need this review to call attention to the need of higher resolutions in the particular  habitats that were mentioned: small lakes and MPAs. Surely other applications can be discussed but they would be out of scope for this publication.

Comment 3: Section 2: Material and Methods was too short and like a draft version.

Response 3: The materials and Methods section was completed with more details and redrafted for clarity. Thank you very much for your suggestion.

 

Comment 4: Section 3: Results on Earth observation… Why do you focus only on the EU space program and not from the US? India? Or other countries? It is not clear the reason here and hence be very bias in data collection of policies and coresponding analysis.

Response 4: We start with the example of Copernicus and the concept of Essential Climate variables as two very important public initiatives in terms of Earth observation. However, this does not mean that we have focused solely on Copernicus. We understand the concern of the reviewer and we also added a justification at the end of the introduction (new paragraph). We would like to recall that after these examples are given in section 3 we also provide a thorough analysis of all data providers in sections 4 & 5 showing that in spite of Copernicus and ECVs monitoring there is unneglectable scientific demand to incorporate VHR resolution data for effective ecosystem-based monitoring.

Comment 5: Again, I don’t think MPA fitting the scope of aquatic ecosystem and in group with ocean and lake

Response 5: MPAs are essential for a variety of reasons and most of the MPAs are small or very remote, proving that they are an essential use case for EO monitoring in VHR. We understand that MPAs might appear as disconnected but including them in this article is, in our view, crucial for new applications of satellite data. The need of including MPAs also underlines that some privately/owned satellites are already used in such areas, with VHR, but for other applications such as the detection of small vessels (12m) allegedly involved in illegal activities.

Comment 6: The authors say about EO data, but again, only focus on optical satellite sensors. How is about the LiDAR, RADAR, UAVs? What is the scope of this study? 7. Line 380, section 4 is not deep enough to generalize the past, current, and future policies regarding the topic of this study.

Response 6: We have now outlined in the abstract that the article is indeed about optical data from EO (line 16 of the abstract). RADAR technologies are not suitable for deriving quality control parameters and thus not a central component of a tool for effective aquatic ecosystems’ management. Direct estimation of chlorophyll using RADAR is not practical due to the inherent limitations of microwave interaction with chlorophyll. LiDAR, particularly fluorescence LiDAR, is capable of detecting chlorophyll in water, though it is not as commonly used as optical remote sensing methods. Its high resolution and ability to provide subsurface information make it a valuable tool in certain applications, despite its higher cost and complexity. For routine monitoring of chlorophyll concentrations, traditional optical methods remain the preferred approach.
For accurate chlorophyll estimation, relying on optical remote sensing techniques remains the preferred approach but we have added comments regarding the role of LiDAR in the conclusions as it enriches the article. Thank you very much!

Comment 7: Overall, the manucript provide a policy based analysis of using EO data/ tool and may contribute another piece of puzzle to the Remote Sensing journal. However, this manuscript is not good in idea, writing, and manuscript structure to be published in a high rank journal like Remote Sensing.

Response 7: We respect the opinion of the reviewer, and we hope that the changes that were made improve the quality of the work in terms of the idea and writing. In terms of structuring, we remind the editors and reviewers that the structure was revised in the previous iteration.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is not ready to be published as commented in attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

proof reading is needed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Consider major reworking of the paper following comments in PDF. Consider providing analysis of impact of ground resolution and periodicity of remote sensing to quality of monitoring of water (marine, land) ECVs.  Consider concentrating on either lake or marine variables for equal description of related ECVs. Improve styling.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see my review in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English edit should be considered for this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors address satellite imagery and observation of Marine Protected Areas and Lakes. The study crosses legislations and variables of interest for climate change. The paper presents a bibliographic study on published research articles through a web viewer tool (Vosviewer). The presentation suffers of a lack of clearness on the objectives and on the responses. The paper presentation quality is weak. We recommend the rejection of the paper. Here follows the main lacks and several edition errors.

Principal lacks

It is unclear in the title what means “very high-resolution” particularly for paper reading during coming years.

It is unclear in the title what means “governance”, it must be stated if it is between multi-states, multi-regions or local stakeholders The paper title must positioned the study between International organizations and Municipalities governances (abstract, lines 11-18).

The paper presentation is too general and not detailed enough for a research article, for example “making public data accessible” (Line 30) must be developed, because it is very restricted in the paper (lines 469-470).

Edition errors

Remove template instructions, lines 38-43, 558-563.

Use Chlorophyll-a along the paper (lines 32, 259, Table 2)

The following paragraphs are too general: lines 46-49,52-55,55-58,69-70 ,102-104,234-240, 444-447, 448-452, 478-488.

“vital”, “memory” may be explained, line 66.

The paper associates different terms without synthesis: “runoff”, ”deposition”, ”biochemical”, line 76; “light”, ”nutriments”, ”carbon”, line 87; “ecological”, ”social”, ”economic”, line 94; “biodiversity”, ”fishing”, ”carbon”, line 95.

Satellites are never presented in the introduction.

“no-take” may be explained, line 154, sciamachy declined, line 181, “eea” declined line 266.

A research presentation style seems start at line 163, with Copernicus presentation.

“is identified” line 188.

Table 1 gives the definition used for “very high resolution”, line 196.

Reference citation style changes at line 198.

Check “increase” for resolution line 249.

Swath width is never present in the paper.

Paper number inflation on a topic may be studied taking into account the total paper number inflation per year.

Text mining could be present in the paper title, line 302.

Sentences are unclear: lines 281-284, 366-367.

“d” is day in table 2.

The topic on ice cover is reduced in the paper and the topic on blooms (not introduced in the beginning) takes a significant part, it must be updated in the text.

Section 5) is reduced, and the many occurrences “maturity” and “understanding” must be clarified.

Line 458 is a subtitle.

The number 21, on policies studied is cited at the end of the paper without explanation (line 505), significantly less policies are discussed in the paper. The policies effectively studied and presented must be clearly enumerated and stated.

Pages number appears twice, line 573.

Edit no. line 577.

Edit p. line 591.

.,” line 610.

Edit ref 25.

Page number restarts at 2 closed to the end of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

“is identified” line 188.

Sentences are unclear: lines 281-284, 366-367.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is unattractive, repeats information that is already known, and personally does not lead to new knowledge or even a comprehensive review of the state of the art.

The article is difficult to read as the reader struggles to understand the parts about oceanic versus lake environments. Oceanic and lacustrine environments are very different in terms of monitoring and management policy, ecology, issues, optics and satellite resolution requirements.

The authors move from one aquatic ecosystem to another in a non-linear way that is difficult for the reader to interpret. I suggest that the authors re-read the different paragraphs carefully and make them more consistent.

The VHR resolution part is treated too superficially, in a remote sensing journal all the technological and methodological aspects should be highlighted, which are not exhaustively covered.

The research carried out with Web of Science to evaluate the applications of remote sensing for aquatic environments does not show anything new, this type of analysis is present in numerous articles already published, furthermore the keywords used are not exhaustive.

The co-occurrence maps are nice to look at, but in such a broad context they do not lead to any real information, furthermore the number of jobs compared between lakes and marine protected areas are too different and unbalanced.

In table 1 there is probably an error for the low resolution class... I think it is > 300m; on what principle and references were the dimensions of the separations of the resolution classes decided?

I believe that the paragraph on Essential Climate Variables does not add anything new to what is already known. The 5 identified ECVs are identified on the basis of what criteria? Why include land surface temperature? The entire sector bibliography on ECVs is missing.

Table 2 is by no means exhaustive, many sensors are missing, the variables that can be quantified with the various sensors are very questionable. Personally, I think it is wrong to write that cyanobacterial pigments (phycocyanins, allophycocyanins, phycoerythrins, etc.) can be quantified with Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2, which do not have bands in the absorption regions of these pigments. Even worse, wide bands above 50 nm can quantify pigments as shown in Table 2 for RapidEye.

I think it is too limiting not to include a section on benthos and seagrass in the section on MPAs. I think the benefits of using EO data are undeniable and should be listed.

For all these reasons, I believe that the paper is not suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf