Fine Spatial Scale, Frequent Morphological Monitoring of Urbanised Beaches to Improve Coastal Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed manuscript is an example of interesting, important, and so to say dedicated writing. The research project is well developed, and its outcomes are communicated in the proper way. The authors address a really urgent topic of coastal management, their paper is well-organized, well-written, and well-referenced, and this work will attract attention of the international research audience. I strongly recommend its acceptance after small amendments.

• Subsection 2.1: can you inform about the rates of tectonic subsidence/uplift in the study area?
• Subsection 3.1: why not to indicate the dominant type of sediments on each profile? On Fig. 3, I see sand and boulders – so the segments differ by sediments? Are these boulders natural or artificial?
• 8: are these artificial structures? If yes, you need to call them accordingly (e.g., as artificial structures or protection structures) – alternatively, the only word 'structure' is misleading (especially to sedimentologists).
• Lines 358-361: this is excerpt from the journal's template. Please, delete (and check in the other places for any instance).
• Discussion: many readers would prefer to see a brief comparison of the outcomes of the present study with the previous research in the other areas of Colombia, the Caribbean, or the world.
• Discussion: I suggest (but do not insist) to discuss the relevance of your findings to the local tourism/recreation development and aesthetic properties of coastal landscapes. If you agree, please, look at various papers by Dr. Ilaria Rodella and some other specialists and cite these works.
• The writing is ok, but, please, check the text again for small errors and typos. E.g., Line 86: has -> is.
• Avoid the word 'Legend' on your figures.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

The reviewed manuscript is an example of interesting, important, and so to say dedicated writing. The research project is well developed, and its outcomes are communicated in the proper way. The authors address a really urgent topic of coastal management, their paper is well-organized, well-written, and well-referenced, and this work will attract attention of the international research audience. I strongly recommend its acceptance after small amendments.

 

We appreciate your comments for the ms improvement, we included all of them in the revised version. You will find highlighted in cyan the changes made in the ms according to your suggestions.  The lines numbers for the following responses are referenced to the CLEAN version of the ms.

 

1. Subsection 2.1: can you inform about the rates of tectonic subsidence/uplift in the study area?

The observation was attended and a maximum value of subsidence registered in the Gulf was added, with its respective reference. Lines 125-130.

 

2. Subsection 3.1: why not to indicate the dominant type of sediments on each profile? On Fig. 3, I see sand and boulders – so the segments differ by sediments? Are these boulders natural or artificial?

This information was included in Lines 448-453 in Appendix A, since section 3.1 was moved to this section.

 

3. 8: are these artificial structures? If yes, you need to call them accordingly (e.g., as artificial structures or protection structures) – alternatively, the only word 'structure' is misleading (especially to sedimentologists).

The term was corrected along the ms

 

4. Lines 358-361: this is excerpt from the journal's template. Please, delete (and check in the other places for any instance).

The lines were deleted

 

5. Discussion: many readers would prefer to see a brief comparison of the outcomes of the present study with the previous research in the other areas of Colombia, the Caribbean, or the world.

The observation was welcomed and compared with results in different sectors of the Colombian Caribbean. Lines 280-289.

 

6. Discussion: I suggest (but do not insist) to discuss the relevance of your findings to the local tourism/recreation development and aesthetic properties of coastal landscapes. If you agree, please, look at various papers by Dr. Ilaria Rodella and some other specialists and cite these works.

We included this reference in the discussion, lines 299-307.

 

7. The writing is ok, but, please, check the text again for small errors and typos. E.g., Line 86: has -> is.

Thank you for your observation. The ms was reviewed and the necessary editorial changes were made.

 

8. Avoid the word 'Legend' on your figures.

The figures were edited by removing the word legend.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My specific comments to this manuscript are as follows:

• Method of shoreline retreat calculation is missing in the abstract. Add it! What is the take home messages of this study? I don’t see any take home messages in this study!!
• Why this study is important? Add justification of it! What are the research gaps?
• Why beach profiles are measured at 8 places? Why not more? What is the justification of using 220 m space between two beach profiles?
• Any reference for the method used for sedimentary balance (line 146-147)?
• In multiple places EPR has been reported as ERP!!!!! E.g. line 279, 281
• How did you create shoreline for different years from 2014 – 2019 (Figure 7)? Did you use satellite data for this? What is the method you used for quantifying it?
• In line 322 – What did you mean by someone segments?
• In line 353, you have mentioned that the k index is not an adequate indicator of the protection efficiency offered by coastal structures, then why did you used k index in your study?
• In the conclusion, I don’t see anything mentioned regarding the shoreline retreat rate though you have mentioned in the abstract.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

My specific comments to this manuscript are as follows:

 

We appreciate your comments for the ms improvement, we included all of them in the revised version. Also, some editorial changes were made.

 

You will find highlighted in green the changes made in the ms according to your suggestions. The line numbers for the following responses are referenced to the CLEAN version of the ms.

 

1. Method of shoreline retreat calculation is missing in the abstract. Add it! What is the take home messages of this study? I don’t see any take home messages in this study!!

According to the recommendation, the methodology applied for measuring the beach profiles and coastline is indicated in a general way in the summary. Likewise, the importance of the study was indicated. Lines 18-22.

 

2. Why this study is important? Add justification of it! What are the research gaps?

Lines 84-97 and 99-104 were added to clarify the study importance and relevance.

 

3. Why beach profiles are measured at 8 places? Why not more? What is the justification of using 220 m space between two beach profiles?

The methodology was modified to specify this selection. Lines 147-150.

 

4. Any reference for the method used for sedimentary balance (line 146-147)?

The method for calculating sedimentary balances was indicated. Lines 153-155.

 

5. In multiple places EPR has been reported as ERP!!!!! E.g. line 279, 281

The acronym ERP was replaced with EPR.

 

6. How did you create shoreline for different years from 2014 – 2019 (Figure 7)? Did you use satellite data for this? What is the method you used for quantifying it?

This method is detailed in section 2.2.3, Lines 160-173.

 

7. In line 322 – What did you mean by someone segments?

An incorrect word was used, it has been changed for “some”

 

8. In line 353, you have mentioned that the k index is not an adequate indicator of the protection efficiency offered by coastal structures, then why did you used k index in your study?

These lines were rewritten to better state the authors´ view in the discussion. Lines 290-298.

 

9. In the conclusion, I don’t see anything mentioned regarding the shoreline retreat rate though you have mentioned in the abstract.

A conclusion related to the evolution of the coastline was included. Lines 359-355.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the article is not very new (morphological coastal changes), although it is always probable that something new can be contributed. The authors did detailed work in the format of graphs and tables. However, from the title onwards it is more of a monitoring report than an article presenting something new. Surely when the authors decided to submit it to the journal it was because they felt that there is a contribution to the scientific community, but unfortunately, I could not identify it. Consequently, the manuscript must be highly improved, in the sense of highlight which is the contribution of new knowledge for the international scientific community.

 

Some specific comments and changes suggested to do:

1. The title should be changed, highlighting the novel contribution, not the case study
2. In the introduction mentions a data period from 2014 to 2019 but in the methodology and data only six data between 2017 and 2019
3. A general description is given at the beginning of the methods section, which is not necessary. What is expected is that the authors go directly to the methods they used, mentioning why each technique was used and why was the most appropriate.
4. The methodology section is repetitive and lacks references to the original methods in almost all the techniques. Nor does it justify the use of almost any of the techniques used. This section should be rewritten, ensuring that it is clear, well supported and relevant.
5. The results section is too long for such a small case study (2.2 km). It should be halved, leaving only the results that are later highlighted in the discussion.
6. The discussion focuses solely on explaining the results at the local scale, without contributing anything to the new knowledge of coastal geomorphology. This section should be rewritten, leaving a maximum of two paragraphs on the case study and the rest explaining why these results are useful for the scientific community that will read the article. A case study is rarely consulted by other scholars, more than a topic that has been published so many times.
7. The conclusions are a summary of the results and the discussion, not a novel contribution to science. They should be rewritten, not thinking of repeating what has already been said, but concluding what is the contribution of the research to the international scientific community
8. Only eight of 55 references are in English, which means that more than 80% of the cited bibliography will be impossible to consult by non-Spanish-speaking researchers. The trend should be the reverse: a maximum of 20% of the references should be from gray literature documents and/or in a language different from English.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The subject of the article is not very new (morphological coastal changes), although it is always probable that something new can be contributed. The authors did detailed work in the format of graphs and tables. However, from the title onwards it is more of a monitoring report than an article presenting something new. Surely when the authors decided to submit it to the journal it was because they felt that there is a contribution to the scientific community, but unfortunately, I could not identify it. Consequently, the manuscript must be highly improved, in the sense of highlight which is the contribution of new knowledge for the international scientific community.

 

We appreciate your comments for the ms improvement, we included all of them in the revised version. Also, some editorial changes were made.

 

You will find highlighted in yellow the changes made in the ms according to your suggestions. The line numbers for the following responses are referenced to the CLEAN version of the ms.

 

 

Some specific comments and changes suggested to do:

 

1. The title should be changed, highlighting the novel contribution, not the case study

The title now reads: Fine Scale, Frequent Morphological Monitoring of Urbanised Beaches

2. 
   In the introduction mentions a data period from 2014 to 2019 but in the methodology and data only six data between 2017 and 2019

Two different sets of data were used, one from 2014-2019 (previously recorded data) and the other from 2017-2019 (field data measured in situ). This was clarified in Lines 96-97.

 

3. A general description is given at the beginning of the methods section, which is not necessary. What is expected is that the authors go directly to the methods they used, mentioning why each technique was used and why was the most appropriate.

The first paragraph in section 2.2 was deleted.

 

4. The methodology section is repetitive and lacks references to the original methods in almost all the techniques. Nor does it justify the use of almost any of the techniques used. This section should be rewritten, ensuring that it is clear, well supported and relevant.

The methodology section was rewritten to improve it according to these observations.

 

5. The results section is too long for such a small case study (2.2 km). It should be halved, leaving only the results that are later highlighted in the discussion.

Thank you for your observation. The new results section is more concise. The additional information was put as appendices.

 

6. The discussion focuses solely on explaining the results at the local scale, without contributing anything to the new knowledge of coastal geomorphology. This section should be rewritten, leaving a maximum of two paragraphs on the case study and the rest explaining why these results are useful for the scientific communitythat will read the article. A case study is rarely consulted by other scholars, more than a topic that has been published so many times.

The discussion was rewritten including all the reviewers’ comments. Particularly, paragraphs in lines 338-356 were added.

 

7. The conclusions are a summary of the results and the discussion, not a novel contribution to science. They should be rewritten, not thinking of repeating what has already been said, but concluding what is the contribution of the research to the international scientific community

The conclusions were rewritten including all the reviewers’ comments. Particularly, paragraphs in lines 359-375 were added.

 

8. Only eight of 55 references are in English, which means that more than 80% of the cited bibliography will be impossible to consult by non-Spanish-speaking researchers. The trend should be the reverse: a maximum of 20% of the references should be from gray literature documents and/or in a language different from English.

We appreciate your observation, this was absolutely necessary to improve. Most of the references in Spanish were replaced, they are marked in yellow in the ms.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I found that the manuscript has been adequately improved. However, I still see some spelling errors (e.g. ERP in place of ERP -line 215). After minor grammatical correction and spelling check, this manuscript might be accepted. Thanks.

Author Response

Thank you for your observation and recommendation. We made a language revision along the ms.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript was highly improved and now covers a wider audience. Nevertheless, some specific comments and additional changes are suggested:

1. The title is not clear, and it does not reflect the content of the manuscript

2. The last statement of the abstract is not clear. Is it a suggestion? Is it a conclusion? It is repeated in the discussion, but it is not even clear there. The abstract must be highly improved.

3. The period of data is still confusing. The mention of the year 2020 is not clear, and the response by authors is even more confusing. Please, check carefully this period all along in the manuscript.

4. Paragraphs between lines 258 and 280 should be merged or eliminated. They discussed a very narrow result, with too many details not interested for a wide public.

5. Some references are too old. In a quick search, I found many other articles published in this topic and study area of Columbia.

6. Some English language mistakes need to be corrected (i.e. line 317)

7. About the mention of the 'fine scale', which looks to be the base to adjust the title, stronger support is needed. There are tons of studies about morphological changes in many temporal and geographical scales. But the authors stated that only two measures by year are enough to make decisions for the medium and long term. It must be demonstrated with more than six samples.

8. Conclusions are almost the same that the previous version, but double in length. Very interesting conclusions were added, however, this section is too long and full of details not pertinent for a conclusions section.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The manuscript was highly improved and now covers a wider audience. Nevertheless, some specific comments and additional changes are suggested:

Thank you for your comments and your additional suggestions. The line numbers for the following responses are referenced to the CLEAN version of the ms.

1. The title is not clear, and it does not reflect the content of the manuscript

The title was changed: Fine Spatial Scale, Frequent Morphological Monitoring of Urbanised Beaches to improve coastal management

2. The last statement of the abstract is not clear. Is it a suggestion? Is it a conclusion? It is repeated in the discussion, but it is not even clear there. The abstract must be highly improved.

The abstract was rewritten. Also, lines 319-322 in the discussion were rephrased.

3. The period of data is still confusing. The mention of the year 2020 is not clear, and the response by authors is even more confusing. Please, check carefully this period all along in the manuscript.

Table 1 (in 2.2 Methods section) was modified by adding a column with the details of the activities carried out during each field campaign.

4. Paragraphs between lines 258 and 280 should be merged or eliminated. They discussed a very narrow result, with too many details not interested for a wide public.

The first paragraph was deleted and the second one was reduced (Lines 260-268).

5. Some references are too old. In a quick search, I found many other articles published in this topic and study area of Columbia.

We made a revision and updated/included some references.

6. Some English language mistakes need to be corrected (i.e. line 317)

Thank you for your observation. We made a language revision along the ms.

7. About the mention of the 'fine scale', which looks to be the base to adjust the title, stronger support is needed. There are tons of studies about morphological changes in many temporal and geographical scales. But the authors stated that only two measures by year are enough to make decisions for the medium and long term. It must be demonstrated with more than six samples.

For this work the spatial scale is ideal (fine scale) and the temporal scale is acceptable, according to the classification in Silva et al. 2019. A differentiation of fine temporal and spatial scales was stated along the ms. Lines: 86-92 (introduction), 319-322 (discussion), 333-334 (conclusions).

8. Conclusions are almost the same that the previous version, but double in length. Very interesting conclusions were added, however, this section is too long and full of details not pertinent for a conclusions section.

Lines 342-358 (of the previous clean ms version) were deleted to eliminate the unnecessary details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

No comments