Grounding the SHIELD Model for Tropical Coastal Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

In this manuscript, the authors adopted  the SHIELD model  in the context of geomorphology for effective management of coastal environments. This paper describes the customization of the SHIELD model for tropical coastal environments as a way of validation for a specific environment. Overall, the manuscript fits in teh scope of the journal.

I have the following comments for teh authors to furtehr clarify:

(1) Will this manuscript provide new contribution to Fuzzy system or just use it as a black box for the simulation.

(2) Is it possibel to compare with otehr researchers' model or results?

(3) How to determine the weighted average in teh fyuzzy model shown in Figure 3?

(4) Can the authors provide a case study for a specific site by applying the model? Readers may be more interest to see the real application of the moel.

Author Response

Comment (1)

Will this manuscript provide new contribution to Fuzzy system or just use it as a black box for the simulation.

Response

The research used the fuzzy logic as a method to analyze the data. The paper has not the intention to give new contributions to fuzzy theory, only to apply it. This use of fuzzy logic is explained within lines 126 to 138 (Methods section).

Comment (2)

Is it possible to compare with other researchers' model or results?

Response

Yes, it is possible to compare it with other models related to environmental impact assessment. Indeed, in our previous paper, in which we explain in depth the SHIELD model (Pereira et al, 2021 – DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2021.101343), some references about other approaches for the early stages of environmental licensing were analyzed within the paper.

Comment (3)

How to determine the weighted average in the fuzzy model shown in Figure 3?

Response

The weighting procedure is explained within lines 141 to 146, and table 1. The ranges were established based on the normal distribution of Gauss (10% - 25% - 20% - 25% - 10%). A brief mention was included in the revised manuscript to properly clarify this point.

Comment (4)

Can the authors provide a case study for a specific site by applying the model? Readers may be more interest to see the real application of the model.

Response

In fact, we plan to publish a new paper with the application of the model. Unfortunately, we could not include it in the current manuscript, because it will need at least 1500 words to give only a slight description. The application of the model merits a more detailed explanation.

Thank you and best regard.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

the authors have made the modifications required

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

The authors have made the modifications required

Response

Dr. Benjamin Cuker, one of the coauthors of the manuscript, is an English native speaker and he has been very attentive to the language issues. Nevertheless, he checked again the manuscript and improved some sentences.

Thank you and best regard

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

changes in the English language need to be checked and be oriented in technical writing style.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Changes in the English language need to be checked and be oriented in technical writing style

Response

Dr. Benjamin Cuker, one of the coauthors of the manuscript, is an English native-speaker and he has been very attentive to the language issues. Nevertheless, he checked again the manuscript and improved some sentences.

Thank you and best regard

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

I have the following comments for the authors to consider:

(1) Format of citation in the text should be [number], not (year) [number]. for example, Line 37. Please check the whole manuscript.

(2) This manuscript seems to be teh second part of Reference [1} (the authors' previous work) for the validation of SHIELD. This somehow reduce the new contrbutions. Is there any reasonw why the contente were not includedin thier previous work?

(3) Since the SHIELD model was published in the authors' previous paper [1], new contribution of this manuscript is limited. This manuscript is only an application of [1]. The authors may need to clearly clarify the new contribution of thi smanuscript.

(4) How to validat the model and results?

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper with the topic Grounding the SHIELD model for tropical coastal environments has an important objectives to evaluates the geomorphological approach of susceptibility in the context of tropical coastal environments. The paper is well structured but before accepted to be published need some modification.

Specific comments:

1. the abstract must be rewritten because in this form is just a description of the methodology used without any connection to the results

2. at the end of the introduction part the authors must clearly estate their objectives and the novelty of the assessment made

3. The conclusion section needs significant improvement, generally, it is recommended to address this section in at least three separate and brief paragraphs the following: i) main findings and novelty of the paper; ii) limitations of this work and future research; iii) broader impacts (what others in the field or different fields can do with the findings presented in this work)

4. some English language modifications are required.

Reviewer 3 Report

paper entitled “Grounding the SHIELD model for tropical coastal environments” presents an approach to identify the coastal susceptibility with respect to the geomorphological aspects.

The study identified 21 geomorphological processes for the model preparation. And used fuzzy logic decision tool for the model formulation.

It seems that the author also had similar work in the same model (? “Pereira, C.I.; Milanes, C.B.; Correa, I.; Pranzini, E.; Cuker, B.; Botero, C.M. A Geomorphological Model of Susceptibility to 494 the Effect of Human Interventions for Environmental Licensing Determination (SHIELD). Geosci. Front. 2022, 13, 101343, 495 doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2021.101343.”) the article needs a discussion of how this work is different from the existing model.?

The authors developed an approach for the tropical coastal environment, how the possibility of replicating the model for other coastal environments, what changes are required in the model, which can be discussed in the discussion session, and that will help in replication for a global perspective.

How this model is different from existing Susceptibility models for the coastal regions. How are the results give different from the other models?

Although, the manuscript presents a systematic approach, as a theory. It could develop more understanding if a case study with the model is presented in the manuscript. So, the validation of the model can be highlighted.