A Novelty Methodological Approach to Coastal Scenic Quality Evaluation—Application to the Moroccan Mediterranean Coast

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The paper presents a methodology and important data of interest to the international audience. Also, the manuscript is well written and structured, so I recommend its publication. I have only some minor comments, which are listed below.

- In text citation- 21 and 22- Could more recent references be considered for the estimates given for 2025?

- In text citation - 38- It refers to a draft manual. I wonder if this reference could be replaced by a final publication related to this manual, such as the following:

Scott, A. (2002). Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience. Landscape research, 27(3), 271-295.

- Although data are presented to justify the methodology proposed in this paper, I would suggest to highlight more explicitly its validity, novelty and contribution to the field in comparison to other methods and practices found in the literature. For example, a sentence could be included in the Abstract and the Conclusions, as well as a brief comparison in the Discussion. Mention could also be made of the validity of the methodology for application to other regions worldwide or that related to the variables and scoring selected for the indicators.

- Figures- I would suggest to improve the resolution of Figures 6 and 7, also increasing the Font size for better visibility.

Author Response

Please see attached file. Thank you very much. Regards, Giorgio

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Conclusions have to be rewritten. In the present form, they are superficial and unconvincing. The conclusions must provide a brief yet clear link with the quantitative findings of the research, prove the relationships between the drivers and the responses and forecast future trends. 

Author Response

Please see attached file. Thank you very much. Regards, Giorgio

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript assessed the landscape quality of 50 sites along the Moroccan Mediterranean coasts using a novel coastal landscape assessment approach. The improved methodological approach was described in detail through referring to a large number of literatures. The landscape dimensions and their variables were selected reasonably, and the evaluation results are also consistent with the actual situation at the sites selected. This paper made a detailed analysis of each landscape variables, and put forward the existing problems and the need of sound management.

The paper is well written with a reasonable method, detailed analysis and sufficient discussion, which provides a good case study for strengthening management of tourist beaches.

Author Response

Please see attached file. Thank you very much. Regards, Giorgio

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors

I have read your paper with interests dealing on the assessment of landscape quality in Morocco. Authors have already used some data to discuss coastal scenic quality. The paper is generally well written and easy to read. However, you should pay attention when reusing the data of a previous paper (https://doi.org/10.3390/w14121837) already published. The aims of the present paper are to assess the quality of 50 beaches along the Moroccan Mediterranean coast based on a novelty coastal landscape assessment methodology carried out by analyzing a set of selected variables and indicators and ii) identify and enhance potential tourist sites, while the aims of the previous paper were similar: characterization of 50 beaches along the Moroccan Mediterranean coast, according to their typology assessing their scenic values.

Could you please add a definition of coastal landscape quality in the introduction. Landscape’ means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.” (Article 1 of the European Landscape Convention – Definitions), but other definitions can be used

Could you please explain how the beaches have been selected. In the description of the sites, could you please add some information regarding the tourism activities (number of tourists for instancesù)

In the introduction you have mentioned that you will develop a robust tool, however in the method you have indicated “the methodological approaches developed by Pérez-Hernández et al. [40] and Peña-Alonso et al. [41] were adopted and adapted to the Moroccan context according to the type/availability of data and the specific natural characteristics of the beaches investigated”, please explain

My principal observation concerns the method and especially the selection of the different variables that should be better explain: Maybe you need first to define landscape, and landscape quality and successively explain how variables where selected.

 Could you please better specify how you identify and select the variables (Step 1 of the method) used to assess the coastal landscape through an exhaustive literature research? bibliographic review with keywords, criteria?

Similarly, could you please better explain step 3 and 4 of the method in order to allow the reader to eventually re-apply your method. How did you select the variables in relation to the landscape quality. For instance, how did you the nature and texture of your substratum, not clear. Bibliographic research as indicated in line 277-278? Maybe you could add this information in table 1?

Could you better explain how water contamination will influence the landscape quality?

Also, the terms used for the landscape assessment are not fully adapted: cobble to fine sand for instance cannot be of poor quality, or absent/present….

Do you believe that each descriptor has the same weight (substratum, sea-coastal areas, vegetation, and scenic background when assessing the coastal landscape quality? Maybe the scenic background is more important than the substratum for instance?

The results discussion section is well organized and focus on i) Landscape assessment of selected beaches; ii) Assessment of dimensions and landscape variables, iii) Correlation among landscape dimension variables, iv) The need to manage Moroccan coastal areas

I have the following minor issues:

-     -     Maybe you could delete l278-280 related to beach nourishment, since color is a factor that should be considered when planning such intervention. Similarly, it should be not appropriated to perform beach nourishment with white sand in a volcanic beach!

-     -     Maybe you should better explain why you have considered marine litter as a factor for landscape assessment. How did you perform the marine litter assessment?

-    -      L.447-448: dunes are absent due to microtidal conditions? For instance, dunes are present in Camargue characterized by microtidal conditions? Maybe the dunes are smaller (height) but they may also form in microtidal conditions. Please address. Maybe the short-mid term evolution of the Morocco coastal areas may assess the presence of coastal dunes before tourism development?

-   -      Paragraph from l488-507 (Recent works on coastal engineering planning…. at the Martil and M'Diq sites (Figure 8).) is not based on your results. This paragraph focus on hydrid solutions or NBS but from my point of view should be removed. Identifying engineering solutions without identifying the cause of the coastal problem (erosion) is not “safe”. In addition, how do you assess that hybrid solutions will increase landscape quality?

-    -      Regarding beach litter please see previous comments, paragraph l544-552 can be removed, not necessary (In Morocco, beach tourism is one…. estimated between US$29 and US$37 million).

Maybe the authors can reorganize the results and discussion section, with results including section 4.1 and 4.2, while discussion can be rewritten using the elements of section 4.3 and 4.4

Best regards

Minor checks

Author Response

Please see attached file. Thank you very much. Regards, Giorgio

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have correctly addressed all the issues and I believe the paper can be accepted in its present form