Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting to hear about the loss of built heritage, promontory fort, caves and inlets on Inishark destruction of cultural heritage along coastal settings.

In introduction give some examples of eroding heritage and causes in Ireland

Line 93 I think it needs to be more specific than ‘multiple islands’ with examples of the destruction

Line 128 It is ‘Discovery Programme’ not ‘Discovery Program’

There are the advantages of remote sensing are there any disadvantages

Lines 91-93 ‘Since 2008 members of the Cultural Landscapes of the Irish Coast research project 91(CLIC) have witnessed the destruction of abandoned historical buildings and features on multiple islands on the west coast of Ireland and been confronted by the episodic’ Are there some more examples of this - is it all just erosion?

Moreover, as in many other archaeological projects, our CLIC research is primarily focused on documentation of cultural heritage through archaeological excavation

Are there reasons for the 2010 satellite in Figure 2 to less clear than the 2010 satellite?

Table 1 should be referenced on line 195. Is it possible to add to this table max wind speed, direction and location of these storms so know if they directly hit Co. Galway?

Line 221 – reference needed for the1898 hand-drawn map

Figure 3 – can the well be shown on the map?

Figure 4 Line 250 the reference to ‘stone fence’ should probably be ‘stone wall’ unless there is fencing along the wall as well.

Figure 6 there should be a reference for the 1838 historic map

Figure 8 ‘Heritae’ in the key should be ‘heritage’

Author Response

Please see attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Monitoring Irish Coastal Heritage Destruction: A Case Study from Inishark, Co. Galway, Ireland” presents a thorough and well-organized analysis of cultural heritage dynamics on Inishark Island, Western Ireland. The integration of digital elevation models derived from airborne LiDAR and UAV photogrammetry, together with historical maps and multi-temporal satellite imagery, provides basis for documenting and interpreting coastal and archaeological changes over time. The manuscript is clearly written and the case study is both relevant and engaging.

However, several limitations reduce the manuscript’s relevance and appeal to the international readership of Remote Sensing, in particular: a) Limited interest to an international audience, b) Journal scope, c) Unclear objectives and focus and d) some deficiencies in methods application.

1. The manuscript does not clearly show the significance its findings beyond the local context. While the Inishark case study is interesting, the discussion remains narrowly focused, with limited reflection on how the methodology or insights might inform similar efforts in other coastal regions or contribute to global discussions in remote sensing. Strengthening the discussion of generalizability and potential applications elsewhere would significantly increase the manuscript’s impact.
2. The manuscript focus appears to be on site-specific heritage documentation rather than advancing remote sensing science. While the use of RS technologies is fairly well executed, the work may be appropriate to other journals, like ones in cultural heritage or archaeology. Articles in Remote Sensing should demonstrate methodological innovation or theoretical advances with broad international relevance.
3. The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit statement of its objectives in the abstract and main text. For me, it remains unclear whether the primary aim is to assess cultural heritage at a local scale or to explore and validate remote sensing methodologies. In the latter case, a more in-depth analysis of the technical aspects and methodological challenges is recomended.
4. The comparative evaluation of different data sources (LiDAR, UAV, historical maps, satellite imagery) lacks depth. Key methodological considerations, such as the georeferencing accuracy of historical maps, the ambiguity in shoreline delineation (e.g., it represent cliff base or cliff top), and limitations due to the absence of intermediate mapping periods — should be addressed. Furthermore, the potential for satellite imagery to quantify coastal evolution is mentioned but not exploited. A more robust and critical comparison would strengthen the technical value of the study. Also acquired Drone data could give insights on horizontal and vertical surface documentation, that is referred in the conclusions.

In conclusion, the study is methodologically sound and the authors are to be commended for their work. However, in its current form, the manuscript does not clearly position itself within the core scope of Remote Sensing, nor does it demonstrate clear methodological or theoretical contributions for an international remote sensing audience. I encourage the authors to enhance the discussion of broader implications and methodological insights or consider submitting the work to a more specialized journal in cultural heritage or archaeological science, where the study’s contributions may be more appreciated.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a brief paper but one that deserves attention because it clearly demonstrates the need to protect archaeological records in a robust, cost-effective, and efficient way. Hopefully, publishing these concise case studies will highlight approaches that public administrations can adopt or commission to strengthen increasingly necessary preservation strategies.

Estimating the magnitude of measurable error when comparing point clouds from multi-temporal dataset might be complex. However, during the last years several papers, also predicting erosion in archaeological sites did address this issue. I recommend you look for them and cite them. Co-registration of point clouds is perhaps the most convenient way to overcome the limitation of not using ground control points. I would also use a bootstrapping procedure to determine the nature and magnitude of the errors involved when comparing the datasets, as some authors have already done in archaeological study cases facing erosion. This statistical procedure renders robust coefficients about the estimation of errors.

Overall, this is strong work. The methodology, results, and interpretations are quite compelling and coherent. My suggestions are limited to minor corrections.

Specifically, the observation in lines 244–246 could be clarified. Collapse or erosion rates are inherently unpredictable, influenced by a combination of highly variable factors over time. This calculation could be refined accordingly. Similarly, for lines 301–302, it’s unclear if these represent maximum values within a distribution of more varied differences. Clarifying this point, particularly to exclude the possibility that these measurements are outliers, would be helpful.

I was positively impressed by the precision of the 18th-century topographic survey.

Additionally, I would recommend the work of colleagues from England, Spain, and France who are active in the analysis of erosion in the Atlantic shorelines. Unfortunately, the journal policy disallows me to recommend specific references, but I trust you will be able to locate them without difficulty. Making visible that other teams are also undertaking similar case studies reinforces the notion that the use of these technologies can—and should—be implemented as part of a shared endeavour in the broader struggle for heritage preservation.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx