The Spatial and Governance Dilemma of Small and Medium-Sized Italian Ports (SMPs): Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) as a Potential Response

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article introduced the dilemma in details between space and governance of SMPs in the Italian coast, focusing particularly on Adriatic Sea between Italy and Croatia. The authors made a status fixation on this topics and concluded that with rethinking regulation. That's big issues, a lot directives and laws.

The MSP is quite complicated, to many issues related to it, and is ecologically and economically speaking in Italy. In this article ecological points were not however detailed. 

However, there are some syntax error in the text and uncompleted sentences in the article. e.g. line 95. 

Fig2 has no good quality appearance, must be redrawn to improve the Fig. 

Author Response

We want to thank Reviewer 1 for the provided suggestions that were extremely useful in improving the article. We agree and we are conscious of how MSP is a very broad and complex topic, but our intent in this article was to stress and highlight that MSP as a process, tool, and plan could contribute to valorizing and setting the basis for SMPs new governance model. We did not, on purpose, include the ecological point of view because the article would have had another meaning and another shape. In that case, we believe we should have addressed the coastal pressure and analyzed the impact of the passengers on the natural protected areas.

Regarding syntax errors, we corrected all the typos errors, completed some sentences that were unfinished by mistake, and ultimately wrote some sentences again. 

We have also re-designed the fig.2 and oriented it vertically to facilitate readability. Now it should be clearer.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper focuses on developing effective sustainable management for small and medium size ports (SMPs) which avoids spatial and governance fragmentation while it provides effective sustainable management among the activities (tourism, fishing sector) and reduce pressures on the land-sea interaction. They present two solutions to support a steady establishment of governance and a systematic harmonized development of these SMPs: Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) as a strategic and legal tool, and European projects, programs, and initiatives such as Framesport as drivers in establishing a common ground among public and private interests and as a cooperation engine at a local scale.

The paper is well written. However, it still needs editing in some areas. For example, on page 20, line 673, the sentence needs restructuring perhaps by dropping ‘while’.

“The article has argued that while big ports are hard to be changed due to strong economic and cultural dependencies (e.g. energy dependence).”

Author Response

We want to thank Reviewer 2 for the provided suggestions that were extremely useful in improving the article. We have modified the sentence on line 673, as underlined by the Reviewer, and checked the entire text to correct specific important steps and ease the readability of our contribution.

Reviewer 3 Report

Few minor observations

104                     TEN-T?

123                     is it necessary to cite the title?

126                     RIS3?

145                     of the

311                     maybe the other one

313-314             maybe you could explain better the division in different classes

331                     why different to cite Authors?

456 and 460    something is lost

467 – 485         551 better formatting is possible:

1                                            the number at the beginning of the line and the first line paragraph indents

528                     acronyms of what? But maybe it is my fault

551                     I am sure that the Secretariat will appreciate a better advertising of the Interreg framework: within the whole text you do not cite the Interreg.

588 – 595         like 467-485

616                     again

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 3 for the extreme attention and punctual observations that he dedicated to our article. We really appreciated it. All the lines he underlined have been corrected. In particular, we integrated all the missing acronyms (lines 104, 126, 456-460, 467-485, 538). Moreover, we have edited all the sentences that were not clear and added specific information and elements to make the text clearer. We quoted and described the relevant role of the Interreg projects. As for the comment at lines 313-314, we have expanded the concept and explained better the type of classes and their characteristics.

We really hope to have met the expected outcomes the reviewer indicated.