Land–Sea Interaction: Integrating Climate Adaptation Planning and Maritime Spatial Planning in the North Adriatic Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper about a conceptualization, operationalization and validation (in the North-Adriatic) of a framework / spatial analysis model to measure land-sea interactions for 'climate proof planning'. The topic is important and the paper has many interesting and useful ideas. Unfortunately, these are not always presented in a clear and concise manner. Major revisions can and should make the argumentation and presentation much stronger. I annotated in the text where and how. Here is a summary.

1. Check and improve title: is 'proofing' the correct term? (it does not come back in the text, is not defined, only 'proof' is used).
2. Check and improve keywords (see text annotations, some key words missing, some are partial sentences, not alphabetical etc.)
3. Check and improve quality of academic writing and execute spelling and grammar corrections. I recommend to have the manuscript edited by a professional academic editor.
4. Reduce the number of words at least with 1/3 rd. I copy / pasted the text from pdf to word and then word counted 15k words in the manuscript. This is far too much. The length of the paper negatively affects the engagement of the reader. Improve focus, structure and make it more concise. Interesting ideas snow under.
5. Problematize and conceptualize better the key notion of 'land-sea interaction' (title) and be consistent in the use of terms (is it the same as land-sea interface?). Where is it defined? What do I know more about land-sea interaction after the research has been done?
6. The term Climate Proof Planning and how it is used, feels a bit awkward. It is casually introduced in the introduction, but not well defined. It is also not used or even spelled consistently. Is it possible to reconsider the use of this term? We don't proof the climate do we, rather make plans that are climate change proof? Is this really an accepted term in scientific climate research? (just a few references in google (scholar) search).
7. Add and use research questions: The paper has an objective (although not very clear) but lacks a proper presentation of the conceptual, emp. or design-oriented research questions. This is particularly relevant for the empirical validation part. because it does not seem to be guided by research questions. Something like: What is land-sea interaction, how can it be conceptualized and operationalised so that can be used in planning support? What is the validity of the land-sea interaction methodology in determining ... in the North Adriatic sea basin? (Note: just as an example, not necessarily the best questions!) The emp. validation (test?) part needs a few very clear emp. research questions to guide it.
8. Improve and clarify method / methodology. The method section confuses the research method / approach with the planning methodology / spatial analysis model itself. There is an object of your (design) research - the framework, your planning methodology etc - but the authors also need to explain how they designed it, and why they did it like this. Second, they want to validate the framework on the basis of the Adriatic case, and need to explain how they validated it. 
9. The presentation of the testing (I d prefer validation) can be much more concise. Because the method of validation has not been explained (question, approach, data collection, procedure, limitations) the reader is drowning in details. When is it good enough? When does it pass the test?
10. The objective and conclusions are presented in a too careful and unclear manner, with words such as 'suggest', 'propose', 'rethink' etc. Shorten and focus the conclusion part. What is the question, what is the answer to the question, and why is that relevant?

Good luck

 

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review	Row - Paragraph	Integration	Note
1 Check and improve title: is 'proofing' the correct term? (it does not come back in the text, is not defined, only 'proof' is used). [Dare un omogeineità linguistica]	Article's Article	Corrected
2 Check and improve keywords (see text annotations, some key words missing, some are partial sentences, not alphabetical etc.) [Riverifica da Elsevier]	Abstract	Updated	Authors changed the Keywords and corrected the Abstract
3 Check and improve quality of academic writing and execute spelling and grammar corrections. I recommend to have the manuscript edited by a professional academic editor.	All document	Corrected	The paper was revised to improve the style of academic writing, to correct its writing and organization errors.
4 Reduce the number of words at least with 1/3 rd. I copy / pasted the text from pdf to word and then word counted 15k words in the manuscript. This is far too much. The length of the paper negatively affects the engagement of the reader. Improve focus, structure and make it more concise. Interesting ideas snow under. [Denis]	All document	Updated/Corrected	The document is reduced to about 3000 words, making the structure of the article more concise and direct. The most significant reductions concern the following chapters / paragraphs: 1. Introduction; 3.2. Methodology with: 3.2.1.1. Urban Heat Island assessment and 3.2.1.2. Surface runoff assessment; 5. Discussion; 6. Conclusions
5 Problematize and conceptualize better the key notion of 'land-sea interaction' (title) and be consistent in the use of terms (is it the same as land-sea interface?). Where is it defined? What do I know more about land-sea interaction after the research has been done?	1. Introduction; 5. Discussion; 6. Conclusions	Updated/Corrected	The term 'land-sea interface' refers to the concept of land-sea interaction (LSI). Following the review, the paper uses only the term Interaction: which is applied in relation to land use and planning models in chapters 1, 5 and 6
6 The term Climate Proof Planning and how it is used, feels a bit awkward. It is casually introduced in the introduction, but not well defined. It is also not used or even spelled consistently. Is it possible to reconsider the use of this term? We don't proof the climate do we, rather make plans that are climate change proof? Is this really an accepted term in scientific climate research? (just a few references in google (scholar) search).	1. Introduction (Figure 1); 3. Planning Method (Figure 3)	Corrected	CPP has been replaced with the term Climate Adaptation Planning (CAP). The term CAP refers to a spatial planning process for adaptation to climate change, in reference to human settlements and land ecosystems. In particular, it is a concept used by the EU and the IPCC in addition to the principle of mitigation of greenhouse gasses.
7 Add and use research questions: The paper has an objective (although not very clear) but lacks a proper presentation of the conceptual, emp. or design-oriented research questions. This is particularly relevant for the empirical validation part. because it does not seem to be guided by research questions. Something like: What is land-sea interaction, how can it be conceptualized and operationalised so that can be used in planning support? What is the validity of the land-sea interaction methodology in determining ... in the North Adriatic sea basin? (Note: just as an example, not necessarily the best questions!) The emp. validation (test?) part needs a few very clear emp. research questions to guide it.	1. Introduction	Corrected	The introduction is integrated, in its final part, with the Research Questions that guide the writing of the paper. The RQs guide the operational conceptualization of LSI through the use of a work methodology tested and validated in chapters 4. Results and 5. Discussion
8 Improve and clarify method / methodology. The method section confuses the research method / approach with the planning methodology / spatial analysis model itself. There is an object of your (design) research - the framework, your planning methodology etc - but the authors also need to explain how they designed it, and why they did it like this. Second, they want to validate the framework on the basis of the Adriatic case, and need to explain how they validated it.	3. Planning method: 3.1 The development of the integrated approach and 3.2. Methodology	Updated	The authors proceeded to reorganize and clarify the methodology. The reasons behind the work process can be traced back to the contents of Figure 4
9 The presentation of the testing (I d prefer validation) can be much more concise. Because the method of validation has not been explained (question, approach, data collection, procedure, limitations) the reader is drowning in details. When is it good enough? When does it pass the test?	4. Results	Corrected	The validation of the results has been partially revised. The authors emphasize that the method is oriented towards the construction of multi-disciplinary and multi-scalar cognitive frameworks, open and shared. The results obtained and the analysis techniques used allow to develop a planning synergy between land and sea.
10 The objective and conclusions are presented in a too careful and unclear manner, with words such as 'suggest', 'propose', 'rethink' etc. Shorten and focus the conclusion part. What is the question, what is the answer to the question, and why is that relevant?	6. Conclusions	Corrected	The Conclusions are updated on the basis of the research questions, the results achieved and their effectiveness

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General

The manuscript describes two ecosystems characterized by complex socio-economic and environmental relationship, using a general interpretative model of land-sea intersection (LSI) in Gulf of Trieste. The subject is interesting and topical.

I have only minor comments.

Minor Comments

1. The introduction is extremely long and contains too many details. I think it should be simplified.
2. At line 47 the authors does not specify what the abbreviation “LSP approach” means. The same goes for figure 1 for the term "Med Coasts".
3. In formula (1), n, was used as no. of used indicators, but at section Results did not specify the value of this indicator.
4. In table 3, first line, at Urban Heat Island it is mentioned that data are used for LST, NDVI and NDMI but these are not mentioned in table 2. The same for the data mentioned in line 376 “LC08_L1TP_191028_20170706 - USGS)”.
5. The authors should mention the source for Figure 7b .

Author Response

Review	Row - Paragraph	Integration	Note
1 The introduction is extremely long and contains too many details. I think it should be simplified.	1. Introduction	Updated	The introduction was corrected and partially reconceptualized according to the indications of the reviewers
2 At line 47 the authors does not specify what the abbreviation “LSP approach” means. The same goes for figure 1 for the term "Med Coasts".	1. Introduction (and Figure 1)	Updated	The acronym LSP has been replaced with 'Climate Adaptation Planning' (CAP)
3 In formula (1), n, was used as no. of used indicators, but at section Results did not specify the value of this indicator.	3.1.2. Vulnerability assessment and 3.2.1.1. Urban Heat Island assessment	Updated	3.1.2: equation (1) is integrated. 3.2.1.1: Equation (10) has been added with the sum steps for calculating the vulnerability from UHI
4 In table 3, first line, at Urban Heat Island it is mentioned that data are used for LST, NDVI and NDMI but these are not mentioned in table 2. The same for the data mentioned in line 376 “LC08_L1TP_191028_20170706 - USGS)”.	3.1.3 Data sources (table 2)	Updated	Table 2 is integrated with the data and sources relating to Landsat 8 satellite processing
5 The authors should mention the source for Figure 7b .	4.2 Sea based assessment results	Updated	The caption of figure 7 has been updated with the data source relating to the sea and maritime approach

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has improved and is shorter. The authors have added research questions and followed up on previous comments. However, I think this paper can / deserves to have another iteration of major revisions. Some of my dissatisfaction has to do with the fact that still, many sentences are unclear and imprecise in wording, explanation, structure, and argumentation.

Main issue: Although the authors claim and refer to 'research', 'study' etc. it remains unclear what the (scientific) research part actually entails? Yes, there is the new planning framework etc. and application to a case, but where and what is the actual research problem, the theory, and / what is the research methodology? 3.2 Methodology is absolutely NOT a research methodology. It states: "The methodology presents the development of the knowledge framework for each of the two approaches." The authors seem to rush forward to describe MSP, case area, and then to design and analyze the frameworks. But the underlying scientific problem, the method, the data collection, analysis, evaluation is short, superficial, and all over the place.

The research questions seem to be added merely to satisfy the reviewer, but hardly used to structure the paper. I find it very difficult to see where and how the questions are answered in the conclusion.

The questions themselves can be better, for instance 'is X possible ... ' is not a very good research question. Why would it not be possible? What is possible? Maybe it is possible but not a good idea, or very ineffective? However, section 3.2.1 and further and 4. results that are interesting by itself and core of the paper contain all kinds of research activities while the research questions and meth. steps have not been explained or justified. Perhaps you want to design something and then validate it against a case. But then you first ! have to come up with some validation measures and approach. Keep it simple! As a reader, I want the authors to tell me early, very clearly and convincingly what problem they see, why that is relevant, what research questions they are going to address and answer, and how they are going to do it, then do exactly and only that and give me the answers.

My recommended revisions in short:

1. Title: Recommend to add planning also after climate adaptive, so climate adaptive planning and maritime spatial planning
2. Significantly improve abstract. The first part reads like an intro and is redundant. It needs to cover problem, questions, methods, analyses, conclusions. Some parts of the discussion sector read more like an abstract than the abstract itself.
3. Improve structure further. The introduction can be more clearly focussed on the core (scientific) problem. Explanation of MSP CAP etc. perhaps better a separate section together with case area? Research questions and research methodology, data collection, and analysis belong together. I want to understand better what the research actually entails. Then you design a framework (design research) and you validate / apply it. The latter part is empirical research.
4. Discussion as it is now, reads like the summary.
5. How does the conclusion answer the research questions?
6. The sentence structure, spelling, and clarity can still be improved.
7. I recommend to always (also) submit a clean version of the manuscript without track changes, comments. The track changes and coloring that mark the author's changes are too many, and make it difficult to read and evaluate.
8. Good luck

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer	Review	Row - Paragraph	Integration	Note
1	1.                Title: Recommend to add planning also after climate adaptive, so climate adaptive planning and maritime spatial planning	Article’s Title	Updated	Authors integrated the Title in order to give more consistency to the definitions used in the paper (CAP and MSP)
	2.                Significantly improve abstract. The first part reads like an intro and is redundant. It needs to cover problem, questions, methods, analyses, conclusions. Some parts of the discussion sector read more like an abstract than the abstract itself.]	Abstract	Corrected	Authors updated the Abstract rewriting part of it and integrating those generic description reported in the previews Discussion.
	3.                Improve structure further. The introduction can be more clearly focussed on the core (scientific) problem. Explanation of MSP CAP etc. perhaps better a separate section together with case area? Research questions and research methodology, data collection, and analysis belong together. I want to understand better what the research actually entails. Then you design a framework (design research) and you validate / apply it. The latter part is empirical research.	All document	Corrected	The paper was revised to improve its structure and to develop in a clearer way the research phases transforming the “methodology” into “research methodology” , and to better present RQs.
	4.                Discussion as it is now, reads like the summary	Discussion	Updated	The Discussion was reviewed to better present the limitation and the possible implication of the research.
	5.                How does the conclusion answer the research questions?	Conclusion	Updated	The Conclusion relates to the reviewed RQ reported in the Introduction.
	6.                The sentence structure, spelling, and clarity can still be improved	The entire Article	Corrected	Sentence structure, spelling and clarity have been improved generally in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has significantly improved on the main points in my previous research. Research questions, methodology, and structure are now satisfactory/good. However, the abstract is still unclear and not precise. Crucial information that should summarize the research such as the case study in the Adriatic is missing. Starting to read the body text, I soon came across several spelling and grammar mistakes, unclear sentences, and reference errors. I marked a few of them, then stopped checking. The authors should again dust comb the clean version of the manuscript before submission. Has the paper been checked by a professional editor service or native speaking colleague?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we updated the Article with your comments and we improved the English of the paper. We really appreciated your suggestion and the time you dedicated to our contribution. We also modified the Abstract as indicated. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf