Ecological Light Pollution (ELP) Scale as a Measure of Light Pollution Impact on Protected Areas: Case Study of Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors. I have read your manuscript of a scientific article, and in general I highly appreciate its quality. The article is devoted to an interesting and relevant topic, written in simple language. The study examined the effects of artificial lighting on protected areas in Poland. The need for mitigation strategies, including stricter lighting regulations and increased public awareness, is highlighted. This is extremely important and relevant. However, there are a few comments. 

1. In section 1, would you like to see an analysis of how the problem you have raised is being studied in other regions of the world? 
2. It is not clear how the ELP is calculated? How does this indicator differ from the usual measurements? If you say that this is an index, then obviously it should be dimensionless? It seems that the authors are replacing the concept of classifying the values of an indicator, introducing a new indicator. 
3. Explain Figure 2 in more detail. Based on it, it turns out that cloud cover does not play a role? 
4. There is no legend in Figure 3. What do the numbers 1-15 mean? In general, it is not clear how the patterns shown in the figure were obtained.
5. In general, I recommend that the authors structure sections 2-4 more. It is optimal to do this in the new section "2. Materials and methods of research". 
6. The authors mentioned that they used space survey data (lines 122-128 What technique was used? How do the results compare with the ELP data? What are the data processing programs? How are the statistics obtained? 
7. In general, the methodology section needs to be corrected. Specify the programs used for data processing? How was this data processed?  
8. Nature protection facilities have different areas. How were the measurements carried out? At specific points? Was the average calculated for the entire territory? What is the measurement method?
9. The authors provide a section with units of measurement (section 4). However, I got the impression that the research carried out by the authors consists of two independent blocks. How does ELP compare to the results of satellite imagery?
10. Is it unclear how the data presented in the applications was obtained? 
11. It is probably worth making a summary table with values for each national park and each Landscape park Landscape parks with the values obtained. 
12. There is no section in the article with discussions of the results obtained. 
13. Specify the limitations of the study.
In general, the article is interesting, written in simple language, but it needs a qualitative restructuring of the material.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The authors wrote a research article entitled "Ecological Light Pollution (ELP) index as a measure of light pollution impact on protected areas: case study of Poland". This paper investigates the ecological impacts of light pollution on protected areas in Poland, proposes the Ecological Light Pollution Index (ELP) as an assessment tool, and analyzes the trends of light pollution for the period 2012-2023 based on VIIRS satellite data. The research topic is of great scientific significance and practical application value, especially in the context of increasing global light pollution. The paper has a clear structure, rigorous methodology, comprehensive data analysis, and enlightening conclusions. However, some of the contents need to be further clarified and supplemented to enhance the academic quality and readability of the paper. Research themes and quality fit journals (Sustainability). I listed some minor comments in the specific comments below. I recommend major revision.

 

Some detailed comments.

1. In the Introduction, Further emphasize in the introduction section the innovative nature of the ELP index, especially the differences with existing light pollution assessment methods (e.g. TLP index). Add the potential of the ELP index to be applied in practical management, e.g. how it can guide policy development or protected area planning.
2. In the Material and methods,Add a description of the limitations of the VIIRS data (e.g., spectral range, spatial resolution) and discuss how these limitations may affect the results.
3. In the Resultsand Discussion, In the “3 Impact of cloud cover” section, it is recommended that more examples or sensitivity analyses be provided on how cloud cover specifically affects ELP classification. In “5.1.3 Radiance changes”, the analysis of the reasons for the significant decrease in light pollution in 2023 is rather brief, and it is recommended that more practical evidence (e.g., policy changes, energy price data) be included to support the conclusions.
4. In the References, The formatting of the references does not match the requirements of the journal (Sustainability). It is recommended that the format be standardized according to the requirements of the journals.

 

This paper is an important contribution in the field of light pollution research, and the ELP index provides a new tool for ecological assessment of protected areas. I would suggest that the manuscript be accepted after major revision, and the manuscript will be resubmitted after the authors have completed the above revisions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study proposes the "Ecological Light Pollution (ELP) Index" as a novel metric for assessing the potential ecological impacts of artificial lighting on protected natural areas. The methodology demonstrates notable innovation, is supported by comprehensive datasets, and holds significant value for practical applications and policy-making. The manuscript is generally well-structured, with clear and informative visualizations. However, the current version still requires improvements in several areas, including language clarity. It is recommended that the authors undertake a thorough language revision, provide clearer explanations of the model structure and indicator selection process, and incorporate more relevant international references to strengthen the academic foundation. With these revisions, the manuscript holds strong potential for publication.

In addition, the following specific issues should be addressed:

The overall language requires further refinement to meet academic standards and improve readability.

The abstract lacks quantitative presentation of key findings. It is recommended to include the main model results and numerical indicators to highlight the study’s contribution.

Figure 1 is missing a north arrow, which should be added for completeness.

The discussion section is relatively weak and would benefit from a deeper analysis of the underlying mechanisms and comparisons with previous studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing this revised manuscript, I am pleased to see significant improvements compared to the previous version. Most questions have been addressed, and I am satisfied with the revisions. I recommend can be accept.