On the Need for an Integrated Large-Scale Methodology of Coastal Management: A Methodological Proposal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a methodological framework for sustainable  management of coastal areas, with a focus on managing risks. The methodology is based on the experience acquired through a number of international research projects, with particular examples within the context of Italy. The manuscript is well written and provides a good overview of issues faced during the process of devising management plans. However, I have a series of concerns that prevent me from recommending the manuscript for publication.

First, I find that the document is not stating explicitly its aims and objectives, beyond the generic issue of proposing a framework for sustainable coastal management (that also accounts for risks). Coastal management is a well known and documented process and it is unclear how the manuscript contributes to existing literature and what is novel in the framework that the authors are proposing. Further, coastal management involves numerous processes that are not explicitly accounted for in the framework that is presented in the manuscript.

Second, despite mentioning a series of research projects (which are however mostly restricted to regional or European regions), the authors fail to account for a very wide range of international literature on the topic. Most studies are their own or drawn from national or regional research, thus failing to provide a good overview of the current state of research on the topic. A simple search on WoK or Scopus with the keywords "coastal management" provides numerous such papers, which would need to be considered for setting the context of the study.

Third, the document tends to be very unfocused and repetitive in parts as sections are repeating basic information on processes (e.g. on coastal erosion, but also others) without any specific aim. Moreover, important processes (e.g. interaction with stakeholders) are not given enough weight while it is unclear which types of barriers and limitations the proposed method will help coastal managers to overcome.

Last, the region and scale at which this method should operate is unclear.  I would assume that the method is proposed for local scale management due to the amount of information that is required for its implementation (although this is not what the manuscript says). I would also assume that the paper has been written with the Mediterranean region in mind, but this is also unclear. These points need to be explicitly addressed.

Overall, I would propose the authors to:

• Clearly state the aims and objectives of the manuscript, with respect to how their work advances current knowledge on the topic
• Review the extensive international literature on the topic
• Focus the manuscript (also reduce length by removing unnecessary information) and clarify the steps that need to be undertaken for the implementation of the method
• Point out the barriers and limitations that the proposed methods helps us overcome, as well as the scale/region at which this framework can operate

Given the above limitations I would reject the manuscript. However, as the information included is generally interesting, I would propose the authors to address the above comments and resubmit.

Please note that my aim is not to be overly critical, but to help the authors improve the manuscript and I hope that my comments are somehow useful in this respect.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

After reviewing the paper, I think it´s a good contribution for this journal. The theme is interesting and it has a social importance. Beyond this, some revisions are required. Here are my comments.

(1) In Figure 6, what kinds of environmental Performance Indicators are defined and employed to make qualitative-quantitative comparison?

(2) The Observatory plays an important role in coastal management system. How to analyze the current scenario and the value of the effects and impacts produced from the various management strategies and territorial policies by integrated assessment with environmental, social and economic qualitative and quantitative observations?

(3) Identified potential environmental criticalities are necessary in this system. How to integrate assessment through quantitative data (Such as impacts affecting the environmental fields of water, air, soil and subsoil, waste, energy consumption, etc.) and qualitative analysis (such as SWOT analysis)?

(4) In this article a possible methodology to support decisions related to coastal environments is proposed, it would be better that the application of cases study can show the method performs well.

(5) Are there any missing words between lines 510 and 511?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I feel that this paper lacks focus and/or clarity. The objective to integrate coastal hazard and sustainability in integrated coastal zone management as described in the abstract is worthwhile, but I think not entirely new. If I'm not mistaken, the authors suggest that the issue of scale is vitally important, but this is not clearly presented.

The framework is potentially useful, but I don't understand the paper's progression from the objective through to the tool descriptions. I'd focus more from the start on the need for a new framework, citing the shortcomings of existing frameworks. I think this was hinted at in regards to the issue of scale, but I'm not certain. 

It is possible that I am missing the point, and that a good english review and revision would clarify the document. I'd recommend revisiting the structure of the paper and revising to clearly progress from beginning to end. That and a thorough english review may clarify this paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is much improved from earlier versions. It is clearer in purpose and structure. The purpose to propose a new methodology that incorporates both issues of scale and coastal hazards into coastal sustainability assessment and planning is potentially an important contribution and the structure of the paper now focuses more appropriately on these advances.

However, I still major have concerns about english language use. There are many sections that have serious enough grammar and syntax errors that the intent of the sentence and section is unclear. A thorough review by a native english speaking scientist in the field would provide needed clarity to the manuscript and improve the quality of the presentation. 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for the comments on our paper and for your useful suggestions about the modifications necessary to improve the manuscript.

We have carefully revised the grammar and syntax of each section. We have eliminated some repetitive sentences to make the concepts presented as clear as possible and to improve the quality of the presentation.

Our best regards.