Developing a Comprehensive Index for Beaches to Enhance Sustainability and Visitor Experience Through Holistic Monitoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this submission, it is a good contribution towards the improvement of beach management and the already growing body of knowledge regarding different systems that can be used to assess beach quality.

I only have one comment:

The index is clearly based on a social science study using a questionnaire survey. While the authors argue that indexes tend to focus on the assessments of physical elements of the beach and propose a novel and original instrument centering on human dimensions, it is also true that this index is solely based on social dimensions and does not take into account any physical/biological or other measurements. Other indexes include social dimensions (questionnaires) as well as actual environmental measured parameters, and economic ones. This makes them holistic and multi-disciplinary.

Therefore, I would suggest the authors make it clearer that the index they present still has its limitations as it is only based on people's perceptions and does not include any external measurements to assess/cross-check these perceptions and to provide a more holistic picture of the beach.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and Editor,

We sincerely appreciate your time and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below, we address the comments and detail the revisions made to strengthen our study.

To the Editor:

Thank you for your insightful suggestions. Regarding your recommendation:

"The paper is interesting and the research is well written. However, I suggest you to reinforce the discussion section with public policies and future research directions. They are missing in the current version of the paper. Also, a deep literature review could be performed because I have noted some relevant papers related to your research that are not mentioned. For example: Cervantes, O., & Espejel, I. (2008). Design of an integrated evaluation index for recreational beaches. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51(5), 410-419."

We have made the following revisions:

• Reinforcement of the discussion section: We have expanded the discussion to incorporate an analysis of public policies and future research directions. Specifically, we now discuss how the Comprehensive Index for Beaches (CIB) can guide policy decisions related to beach management, including strategies for regulating visitor behavior, minimizing environmental impact, and enhancing social experiences. Additionally, we highlight the potential of the CIB to shape policies addressing overcrowding, noise pollution, and antisocial behavior.
• Future research directions: We have outlined several areas for further study, including cross-cultural comparisons of user perceptions, longitudinal assessments of the CIB’s effectiveness, and its applicability across diverse environmental and socioeconomic contexts.
• Expanded literature review: We have incorporated additional relevant studies, including the work of Cervantes and Espejel (2008), as suggested. This enhances the comprehensiveness of our review and aligns our study with prior research in beach management.

To Reviewer 1:

Regarding your suggestion:

*"The index is clearly based on a social science study using a questionnaire survey. While the authors argue that indexes tend to focus on the assessments of physical elements of the beach and propose a novel and original instrument centering on human dimensions, it is also true that this index is solely based on social dimensions and does not take into account any physical/biological or other measurements. Other indexes include social dimensions (questionnaires) as well as actual environmental measured parameters, and economic ones. This makes them holistic and multi-disciplinary.

Therefore, I would suggest the authors make it clearer that the index they present still has its limitations as it is only based on people's perceptions and does not include any external measurements to assess/cross-check these perceptions and to provide a more holistic picture of the beach."*

We have made the following revisions:

• Clarification in the limitations section: We now explicitly state that the CIB is currently based solely on user perceptions and does not integrate objective environmental or biological measurements. This limitation is now clearly acknowledged in the manuscript.
• Future research considerations: We highlight the need for future studies to incorporate empirical environmental data—such as water quality tests, pollution levels, and biodiversity assessments—to cross-validate user perceptions and provide a more holistic assessment of beach conditions.

We appreciate the valuable feedback from both the editor and reviewer, which has allowed us to strengthen our manuscript significantly. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your further comments and the opportunity to contribute to your esteemed journal.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript " Developing a Comprehensive Index for Beaches (CIB) to Enhance Sustainability and Visitor Experience through Holistic Monitoring ". It presents the development of the Comprehensive Index for Beaches (CIB) offering a multidimensional approach that includes environmental, infrastructural, social, and safety-related dimensions. This is a topic of scientific interest in beach management.

The approach to the problem and the basis for the proposed index focuses on: Most efforts in beach management and monitoring have focused on physical parameters, this approach has often overlooked the social dimension of beach systems.

The manuscript has the following positive aspects:

1) Addresses beaches as socio-ecological systems.

2) Proposes an index incorporating the social dimension.

3) Describes the fundamentals of the social factors to be considered.

However, I have detected some weak points:

1) the literature review section, although congruent with the objective of the article, needs to be strengthened with updated literature. Fifty-two percent of the citations in this section correspond to contributions made before 2010. References should be updated.

2) Results: the description of results from page 15 line 399 to page 16 line 417 corresponds to a description of the methodological procedure. Likewise, on page 16 in the paragraph from line 431 to 433 corresponds to a description of the methodological procedure. This should be addressed because it generates confusion.

3) Discussion: The first paragraph of the discussion (lines 441-455), actually corresponds to the statement of the problem, it is not a discussion of results. After the paragraph of lines 476-483, it is suggested to make a comparison of the contributions of the CIB with what is presented in table 1, and to support it with what is presented in the paragraph of lines 561-568. After paragraph of lines 492-499, include the limitations of the CBI, as presented in paragraph of lines 568-573. All of the above would enrich the discussion.

4) Conclusions: eliminate the word limitations in subtitle. In future research section, leave only the text of lines 574-578.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. Below is our response to your comments, outlining the revisions made:

1. Literature Review:
   We appreciate your suggestion to update the literature. We have reviewed recent studies and incorporated new citations, particularly in the areas of crowding, social-ecological systems, and beach monitoring. These updates include insights from recent publications, and all changes have been highlighted in yellow for clarity.
2. Results Section:
   Thank you for pointing this out. The sections describing methodological procedures (page 15, lines 399-417, and page 16, lines 431-433) have been relocated to the methods section, ensuring that the results section focuses solely on findings.
3. Discussion Section:
   We have addressed your suggestions by removing the first paragraph of the discussion (lines 441-455) as it was more aligned with the problem statement rather than the discussion of results. Additionally, we have included a comparative analysis of the contributions of the CIB with Table 1, supported by the insights from lines 561-568. The limitations of the CIB, previously in lines 568-573, have now been incorporated after the paragraph in lines 492-499 to enhance the discussion structure. All modifications have been highlighted.
4. Conclusion Section:
   Following your recommendation, we have removed the word "limitations" from the subtitle. Regarding the future research section, we have retained only the text from lines 574-578. However, due to suggestions from other reviewers, we could not eliminate all the information as initially requested, but we have reduced the section accordingly.

We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. Please let us know if there are any additional aspects that need further refinement.

Best regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a Comprehensive Index for Beaches (CIB), aiming to address the limitations of traditional beach monitoring systems by integrating social and ecological dimensions within a socio-ecological systems (SES) framework. The index was developed and validated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with data from over 600 beach visitors across key coastal destinations. Although this paper is well structured, presented in a coherent manner and bringing interesting insights into beach monitoring studies, there are certain issues which should be improved.

In the introduction, the research questions or hypotheses should be presented and then tested in the results section.

The title of section 2.1.  should be corrected: Beaches as socio-ecological systems.

Considering its length, table 1 can be moved to the appendix, and designed in a more attractive manner. I have the same recommendation for Table 3.

In section 3.2. Second Step: Purifying Items, the authors should provide further details regarding the questionnaire design (e.g. scale) and even consider presenting it as an appendix to the paper.

Finally, some recent references (2024-2025) could be added in the paper, to make it more up to date with the latest scientific work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Your input has helped us refine and strengthen our manuscript. Below are our responses to your comments:

1. Research Questions in the Introduction:
   As this is an exploratory study utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to expand current models of beach monitoring, hypothesis testing may not be the most appropriate approach. While the Social-Ecological Systems (SES) framework inherently considers social and natural components as inseparable, we acknowledge the importance of clearly articulating the research question. Therefore, we have revised the introduction to better outline the research question. Please refer to page 3, lines 83-96 for these changes.

2. Correction of Section 2.1 Title:
   The typo in the section title has been corrected to Beaches as Socio-Ecological Systems.

3. Relocation and Formatting of Tables:
   Tables 1 and 3 have been moved to the appendix as per your suggestion. However, their formatting remains unchanged, as we must adhere to the journal's formatting guidelines. While we agree that a more visually appealing presentation could enhance readability, we are required to maintain the prescribed format.

4. Details on Questionnaire Design in Section 3.2:
   The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale, which is widely recommended for measuring perceptions in social science research. Although the full survey could not be included due to length constraints, we have provided a statement indicating that it is available upon request for further transparency.

5. Incorporation of Recent References:
   We have updated the manuscript with more recent citations, particularly in the introduction, to ensure alignment with the latest scientific advancements (2024-2025).

We appreciate your insightful suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and rigor of the paper. Please let us know if any further refinements are needed.

Best regards,

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a beach monitoring indicator system integrating socio-ecological systems, effectively addressing the current research gap in social system metrics. The study holds both theoretical significance and practical relevance. However, the following substantive improvements should be addressed:

1. Section "2.4. Crowding"
    While this section provides a detailed discussion on the impact of crowding on visitor experience, subsequent sections show limited reflection of related  items. It would be beneficial to incorporate additional evaluation metrics (e.g., "effective management of visitor flow at intersections").
2. Section "3.1. First Step: Generating and evaluating items"
   The expert validation process requires enhanced methodological transparency. Specifically, the manuscript should supplement:
   
   • professional background
   • areas of expertise
   •  educational qualifications
3. Results Section
   The absence of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model fit indices (e.g., CFI, TLI, RMSEA) constitutes a critical methodological omission. Should CFA have been conducted, comprehensive reporting of these psychometric parameters is essential for validity assessment.

4. Formatting Revisions
4.1 Avoid using abbreviations in the title
4.2 Rectify terminal punctuation omissions in lines 38, 180, 232, and 341
4.3 Implement hierarchical numbering for headings at lines 272, 501, and 535
4.4 Figure 2 annotations:
- Replace "Lit review" with full terminology: "Literature Review"
- Quantify the final entry count in Step 3
4.5 Restructure Section 5 into discrete subsections: - 5.1 Conclusions - 5.2 Limitations

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. Your review has significantly contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your observations:

1. Section 2.4 - Crowding:
   We appreciate your insightful observation regarding the need for better integration of crowding-related items in subsequent sections. To address this, we have incorporated a paragraph at the end of the results section and in the discussion, ensuring that crowding and related evaluation metrics, such as effective management of visitor flow at intersections, are more explicitly considered. All changes have been highlighted for easy reference.

2. Section 3.1 - Expert Validation Process:
   Your recommendation to enhance methodological transparency in the expert validation process is well taken. We have added a paragraph in Section 3.1 detailing the experts' professional backgrounds, areas of expertise, and educational qualifications. This addition ensures clarity regarding their selection and the rigor of the validation process. The new content has been highlighted.

3. Results Section - CFA Model Fit Indices:
   We acknowledge the importance of including CFA model fit indices to support the validity of our measurement model. In response, we have now incorporated CFI, TLI, and RMSEA values in the second paragraph of the results section, ensuring a comprehensive psychometric assessment.

4. Formatting Revisions:
   We have implemented all suggested formatting adjustments, including:

   • Removing abbreviations from the title.
   • Correcting punctuation in lines 38, 180, 232, and 341.
   • Implementing hierarchical numbering for headings at lines 272, 501, and 535.
   • Updating Figure 2 annotations by replacing "Lit Review" with "Literature Review" and quantifying the final entry count in Step 3.
   • Restructuring Section 5 into discrete subsections: 5.1 Conclusions and 5.2 Limitations.

We truly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work so thoroughly. Your suggestions have been invaluable in refining our manuscript, and we believe the revisions have strengthened its overall clarity and methodological rigor.

Best regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All first-round review comments have been addressed and incorporated into the manuscript. It is recommended that the manuscript be accepted.