Review Reports
- Luana Carla Portz1,*,
- Yacira Sheilla Pérez Torres2 and
- Rogério Portantiolo Manzolli1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Nicola Cantasano
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see my comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of English language is fine in general and the manuscript is well written. A review is needed for minor issues.
Author Response
Attached are the letters of rebuttal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a baseline study of a relatively unspoiled area before additional development for tourism occurs. Recommendations for dune protection and careful studies before implementing hard structures on the shorelines could be stated more strongly. The potential for an eco-resort given a relatively unspoiled coastline could be considered, along with other measures for sustainability. The goal is to evaluate and promote the Atlantico beaches for sustainable tourism. Their relatively remote and less developed status could be enhanced as positive traits.
I have some suggestions for the figures. The data are clear but could be clearer.
Figure 1 should show the other beach areas, Magdalena and Bolivar, in the small inset map as well.
Figures 3, 5, 7, 9 is it possible to provide numerical comparisons of area of cover by infrastructure between the paired maps? It is also of interest that some of the new development seems to be placed on top of existing dune habitat, especially at Salinas Del Rey, so numbers about loss of that kind of habitat would also be useful.
Figure 11, the white color is hard to tell from the beach sand; hatching or some other color would be helpful, or perhaps an outline of the polygons in another color.
Line 359, “breakwaters and breakwaters”?
Language is fine, with minor editing needed. For example, "occupancy" has multiple meanings and should be defined to be clear. Is it population, infrastructure, use by tourists?
Author Response
Attached are the letters of rebuttal
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please, see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Attached are the letters of rebuttal
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the Authors for providing a detailed and comprehensive point to point response to my comments. The quality of the revised manuscript has improved significantly.
Minor editing of English language required.