Supply and Demand Analysis for Designing Sustainable National Earth Observation-Based Services for Coastal Area Monitoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors presented a survey regarding the design of a sustainable Earth Observation (EO) system based products to match the demand/supply for monitoring coastal zones, and studied Italy as an example. The survey offers insights about the user needs for monitoring different parameters.

Here are my comments regarding this paper:

1) In the abstract, it's mentioned that different parameters are monitored in this survey. Would the authors mention in the abstract what these different parameters are? 

2) Are all Med7 countries working on similar strategy or a different one? If different, what are the differences in their approaches?

3) What is the need of such survey? How would it be beneficial to the research community and the concerned authorities?

4) Please revise the figures quality (Figures 3, 5, 6, 7,.. are not clear/readable).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive survey of Earth Observation (EO) products supply and user demand for coastal monitoring in Italy, aiming to design a sustainable national service architecture aligned with European initiatives such as the Copernicus Coastal Hub. The topic is highly relevant to the current needs in sustainable coastal management and blue economy strategies. The structure of the manuscript is generally clear, and the methodology follows a logical and standardized approach.

However, while the survey provides valuable baseline information, the manuscript would benefit from improvements in scientific depth, analytical rigor, and presentation clarity. I believe that a major revision is required.

Below, I provide specific comments and suggestions for revision.

Major Comments:

(1) While the survey approach is appropriate, the analytical treatment is relatively basic (frequency counts). I recommend strengthening the analysis by applying multivariate statistical methods (e.g., Principal Component Analysis, Cluster Analysis) to better explore latent structures in user needs or supply gaps.

(2) Several figures (e.g., Figures 3, 5, 6, 7) are overloaded with information, making them hard to interpret. Please consider redesigning key figures with clearer grouping, simplified labels, and better color contrast to improve immediate readability.

(3) The discussion section would benefit from a comparison with international experiences (e.g., coastal EO service developments in France, Netherlands, or Australia), to better position the Italian case within a global context and highlight unique contributions.

(4) Please provide the questionnaire(s) used for data collection, either as a supplementary material or detailed description within the Methods section. Transparency regarding the design and content of the survey would enhance the credibility and reproducibility of the study.

(5) While the manuscript correctly identifies key gaps and future directions, more concrete and prioritized recommendations for policymakers and service developers would enhance its practical impact. For example, specify which coastal monitoring products should be prioritized for operational development under PNRR or Copernicus Coastal Hub extensions.

Minor Comments:

(1) Abstract: Add a statement highlighting the innovation and practical relevance of the study.

(2) Methods: Clarify the sampling framework and discuss potential biases due to uneven regional representation.

(3) Results: Add a spatial distribution map (e.g., heatmap) showing the density of available products/services along different coastal regions.

(4) Figures and Tables: Ensure all figures are self-explanatory with complete legends and consistent units.

(5) Conclusions: Briefly discuss study limitations.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made improvements