Exploring the Ecological Effectiveness of Taiwan’s Ecological Check and Identification Mechanism in Coastal Engineering
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents a comprehensive review of the evolution and current state of environmental legislation in Taiwan. By analyzing key legal developments and regulatory frameworks, the authors provide valuable insights into the country’s approach to environmental governance. The review is could be of interest not only to local academics and stakeholders, but also to international readers seeking to understand Taiwan's environmental context and its relevance within the broader global sustainability discourse. They also present a review of the state of the environmental assessment on coastal engineering projects in Taiwan.
I believe the paper requires grammar revision and improvements in certain sections. Also, I recommend considering the possibility of reorganizing some of them. Below are my point-by-point comments:
Please review the title for grammatical errors.
It is advisable that all figures and tables be mentioned for the first time in the main text before they appear visually. Whenever possible, they should be placed immediately after their first mention to ensure clarity and support the flow of information. Also, if the size of the table allows, it is preferable to present it on a single page. Please verify along the manuscript, for example, for Table 2 and 3.
For presentation purposes, I suggest that all figures use the same font type.
L34 Please mention the year of this first appearance. I’m assuming it was before than the mechanism mentioned in L49 (2003).
L45 I suggest to delete “However” since this paragraph introduces a hypothetical scenario not related to the previous one.
L53-56 You mention “recent years” but one of your references is from 2008, clarify what is the oldest year you are referring to (2008 is hardly “recent”) or change your reference.
L57-67 This paragraph seems odd located, previously and after you are talking about the ecological check, why are the coast types here? Please relocate.
L68 “which” seems odd, please revise grammar.
Figure 1. why 2003 is not mentioned (as in L49)? Was this figure taken from ref 2? Or the data was compiled from 1? If the case is the first one, please verify if copyrights are needed.
L94 a comma is missing before “in”
L101-103 this sentence seems repetitive with L87-90, please revise.
Section 2.1 Were these regulations applied in Taiwan? not all of them? only number 6? worldwide? I suggest you clarify it on the description of each regulation, as presented for number 1 and 3. Also, add the sites of implementation of the regulations as a new row in Table 2.
L214-128, this seems another introduction for Table 3, similarly to L208,212. I suggest you combine both sections. And then proceed to the definition of the characteristics shown in Table 3.
Table 3: “Establish specific specifications” sounds redundant, I suggest using alternative wording.
A more detailed definition of the characteristics shown in Table 3 is required:
L210-221, Please clarify which condition is being referred to in stages 1 to 5, as this information is not clearly stated.
L222-224, what king of characteristics are included in this form?
L224, what 1 or 2 means?
L226 what kind of requirements?
L237-253 These paragraphs offer conclusions and discussion related to “literature review” of “this study”. If Section 2 contains findings (2.1-2.3), I suggest integrating this as part of the study by reorganizing the content under the appropriate sections—methodology, results, and discussion."
Sections 2.4 and 2.5 could be included in the introduction, integrating here the text about the types of coast.
L306-333 I suggest you consider condensing this explanation.
You missed to mention Figure 2 in the text.
Figure 2: I suggest you add another chart showing a wider view of the location of Taiwan, just to ensure the reader can correctly identify the location.
Figures 6,7,8,9. Was all the content of these figures created by the authors? If not, please provide the appropriate citation and verify whether any copyright permissions are required.
Figure 7. The labels in the panels in the left upper part are illegible, please fix it.
L526-532, this explanation should be in the description of Table 3.
L550-553 This idea has been already mentioned many times, I suggest you delete it.
L698 you are talking about case B, but from L700 it refers to cases A and B? I suggest a new paragraph from L700, specifying that the following discussion is for both cases.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper requires grammar revision, starting from the title.
Author Response
Round 1
Ref. No.: water-3579269
Title: Exploring the Ecological Effectiveness of Taiwan Ecological Check and Identification Mechanism on the of Coastal Engineering
Reviewer #1:
This article presents a comprehensive review of the evolution and current state of environmental legislation in Taiwan. By analyzing key legal developments and regulatory frameworks, the authors provide valuable insights into the country’s approach to environmental governance. The review is could be of interest not only to local academics and stakeholders, but also to international readers seeking to understand Taiwan's environmental context and its relevance within the broader global sustainability discourse. They also present a review of the state of the environmental assessment on coastal engineering projects in Taiwan.
Answer: Thank you very much for your positive and encouraging feedback on our article.
We are pleased that you find our review of Taiwan's environmental legislation and environmental assessment on coastal engineering projects valuable and relevant to both local and international audiences.
Your recognition strengthens our motivation to continue refining the manuscript and ensuring it contributes meaningfully to the broader sustainability discourse.
- Please review the title for grammatical errors.
Answer: Thank you for your comment. We have carefully revised the title to correct the grammatical error and improve clarity. The original title was:
“Exploring the Ecological Effectiveness of Taiwan Ecological Check and Identification Mechanism on the of Coastal Engineering.”
We have now corrected it to:“Exploring the Ecological Effectiveness of Taiwan’s Ecological Check and Identification Mechanism in Coastal Engineering.”
We hope this revised title improves the grammatical accuracy and clarity of our manuscript.
- It is advisable that all figures and tables be mentioned for the first time in the main text before they appear visually. Whenever possible, they should be placed immediately after their first mention to ensure clarity and support the flow of information. Also, if the size of the table allows, it is preferable to present it on a single page. Please verify along the manuscript, for example, for Table 2 and 3.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. We reviewed all figures and tables to ensure they are cited before appearing visually. Table 2 and Table 3 have been repositioned to follow their first mention, and formatting was adjusted to fit within a single page where possible.
- For presentation purposes, I suggest that all figures use the same font type.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion on figure presentation. We have revised all figures to use a consistent font type to enhance visual coherence and presentation quality.
- L34 Please mention the year of this first appearance. I’m assuming it was before than the mechanism mentioned in L49 (2003).
Answer:
Thank you for pointing this out regarding the year of first appearance. We clarified that the institutional promotion of the ecological check and identification mechanism in Taiwan began in 2003, as initiated by the Public Construction Commission, while legislative developments began later in 2006 with the Special Regulations on the Improvement of Shimen Reservoir and Its Reservoir Watershed.
- L45 I suggest to delete “However” since this paragraph introduces a hypothetical scenario not related to the previous one.
Answer: Thank you for your recommendation to improve paragraph transitions. We have deleted “However” at L45 to improve the logical flow between paragraphs.
- L53-56 You mention “recent years” but one of your references is from 2008, clarify what is the oldest year you are referring to (2008 is hardly “recent”) or change your reference.
Answer: Thank you for highlighting the need to clarify the timeline.
We revised the sentence to specify that ecological check and identification was initially applied to engineering projects as early as 2008 [4], with widespread adoption in recent years [5].
- L57-67 This paragraph seems odd located, previously and after you are talking about the ecological check, why are the coast types here? Please relocate.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out the paragraph coherence issue. To improve coherence, , we revised the paragraph to explain that understanding the typology of Taiwan’s coastlines contextualize the application of ecological check and identification in coastal engineering.
- L68 “which” seems odd, please revise grammar.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to improve sentence structure. We revised the sentence to : “The evolutionary process of ecological check and identification can be categorized into three distinct stages based on its development (Figure 1).”
- Figure 1. why 2003 is not mentioned (as in L49)? Was this figure taken from ref 2? Or the data was compiled from 1? If the case is the first one, please verify if copyrights are needed.
Answer: Thank you for your detailed comment. We confirmed the institutional promotion started in 2003, as noted in Reference [2]. The error indicating 2007 has been corrected to 2003. We updated the figure caption to clarify it is adapted and modified based on Reference [2], ensuring proper attribution.
- L94 a comma is missing before “in”
Answer: Thank you for identifying the missing punctuation. A comma was added before “in” as suggested.
- L101-103 this sentence seems repetitive with L87-90, please revise.
Answer: Thank you for noting the redundancy in the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed both passages and agree that the content in L101–103 overlaps with the earlier discussion in L87–90. To improve clarity and avoid redundancy, we have revised the earlier paragraph (L87–90) to integrate both institutional and implementation-level challenges. As a result, we have removed the repetitive sentence in L101–103 and retained only the relevant statistical data and contextual explanations in that section.
Thank you for the suggestion. We have reviewed both passages and agree there was overlap. We have integrated the discussion into the earlier paragraph (L87-90) and deleted the repetitive sentences in L101-103.
- Section 2.1 Were these regulations applied in Taiwan? not all of them? only number 6? worldwide? I suggest you clarify it on the description of each regulation, as presented for number 1 and 3. Also, add the sites of implementation of the regulations as a new row in Table 2.
Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified the geographic scope for each regulation and added a new “Implementation Region” column to Table.
- L214-128, this seems another introduction for Table 3, similarly to L208,212. I suggest you combine both sections. And then proceed to the definition of the characteristics shown in Table 3.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have combined the two introductory sections for Table 3 to enhance logical flow.
- Table 3: “Establish specific specifications” sounds redundant, I suggest using alternative wording.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to revise wording for clarity. We have changed "Establish specific specifications" to "Agency-Specific Guidelines."
- A more detailed definition of the characteristics shown in Table 3 is required:
Answer: Thank you for requesting a more detailed definition of the characteristics. We have revised the description of each characteristic included in Table 3 by adding clearer definitions and examples. These clarifications aim to enhance reader understanding of the differences among agency guidelines and their practical implications for ecological check and identification implementation.
- L210-221, Please clarify which condition is being referred to in stages 1 to 5, as this information is not clearly stated.
Answer:
Thank you for your comment regarding stage clarification. We have clarified that the five stages refer to proposal, planning and design, construction, completion acceptance, and maintenance and management, and noted that stage implementation depends on ecological sensitivity, scale, and administrative requirements.
- L222-224, what king of characteristics are included in this form?
Answer: Thank you for raising the need to specify the types of characteristics. We have supplemented the paragraph with a description of the common fields included in ecological check forms, such as project location, ecological type, engineering phase, sensitive habitats, indicator species, and mitigation strategies.
- L224, what 1 or 2 means?
Answer: Thank you for your question about the meaning of Level 1 and Level 2. We have clarified the definitions of Level 1 and Level 2 in the two-tier inspection systems, and Level 1 to Level 3 in the three-tier system. These levels are based on ecological sensitivity, public concern, and urgency. Specific examples from agencies such as the Highway Bureau, Soil and Water Conservation Agency, and Forestry and Nature Conservation Agency have been incorporated into the revised paragraph.
- L226 what kind of requirements?
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to clarify the types of requirements. We have revised the paragraph to include examples of specific requirements commonly adopted by agencies. These include holding a relevant professional license, possessing at least two years of ecological or EIA-related experience, completion of certified training courses in ecology, or having an academic background in ecology, biology, or environmental sciences. This clarification better reflects the current implementation practices in Taiwan.
- L237-253 These paragraphs offer conclusions and discussion related to “literature review” of “this study”. If Section 2 contains findings (2.1-2.3), I suggest integrating this as part of the study by reorganizing the content under the appropriate sections—methodology, results, and discussion."
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. We have moved this discussion to the Discussion section to better reflect its purpose.
- Sections 2.4 and 2.5 could be included in the introduction, integrating here the text about the types of coast.
Answer: Thank you for your recommendation regarding section integration. As suggested, we have integrated content about Taiwan’s coastal types and ecological considerations into the Introduction.
- L306-333 I suggest you consider condensing this explanation.
Answer: Thank you for your advice to condense the background explanation. We have condensed this background information to keep the focus on the main study content.
- You missed to mention Figure 2 in the text.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out the missing mention of Figure 2. We have added a mention of Figure 2 in Section 4.1 to link the text to the figure.
- Figure 2: I suggest you add another chart showing a wider view of the location of Taiwan, just to ensure the reader can correctly identify the location.
Answer: Thank you for suggesting the addition of a wider location map. A regional map showing Taiwan’s location in East Asia has been added to Figure.
- Figures 6,7,8,9. Was all the content of these figures created by the authors? If not, please provide the appropriate citation and verify whether any copyright permissions are required.
Answer: Thank you for your important question about figure authorship and attribution. Figures 7 and 9 were created by the authors as part of the ecological check and identification process. Figures 6 and 8 are based on project design information provided by the engineering teams of the respective case studies. We have updated the figure captions to include proper attributions. Where necessary, permissions have been obtained or indicated.
- Figure 7. The labels in the panels in the left upper part are illegible, please fix it.
Answer: Thank you for your comment. Labels in Figure 7 have been enhanced for better readability.
- L526-532, this explanation should be in the description of Table 3.
Answer: Thank you for highlighting the best placement for the explanation. As suggested, we have condensed the explanation and directly incorporated it into the relevant discussion.
- L550-553 This idea has been already mentioned many times, I suggest you delete it.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out the redundant content. We have deleted the repetitive content.
29.L698 you are talking about case B, but from L700 it refers to cases A and B? I suggest a new paragraph from L700, specifying that the following discussion is for both cases.
Answer: Thank you for your observation regarding paragraph structuring for case discussion. We have started a new paragraph at L700 to distinguish between Case B and the combined discussion of Cases A and B.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors
Although well written, the manuscript is too long for a single paper. Although reading is quite easy and reader-friendly from the point of view of sentence structure, it lacks a more synthetic approach.
Below are some suggestions that I believe can improve the readibility of the manuscript.
Introduction
The first paragraph is very long and could be split into at least 3 paragraphs: Extreme weather, Engineering development, Focus on structure management. Furthermore, only a single reference is used, which seems remarkably little to me.
Lines 68-81: Here are also a very long paragraph and authors could benefit from dividing it up by describing about each stage or phase, paying attention not to leave any orphan sentence. The literature presented here in line 72 is well done but could be better if modified to the format [12-14].
Ln 101: from “Although…” should be another paragraph.
Literature review
The text does not contain a reference to Table 2. I suggest that it should appear on line 117.
In table 2 where it is written “Concentrated in a particular habitat” it might be better to change it to “Focussed in a particular habitat”.
Ln 199: although the authors cite some works as being of great importance, there are references that make it difficult to see their importance. An example of this is reference [48], which is grey literature and not available in search portals.
Ln 219: each stage should come in an independent paragraph but taking care not to leave orphan sentences.
Ln 274: there is a small typo “Cological” should be amended to “Ecological”.
Ls: 330-3: this is not a method but part of the objective and has already been mentioned before. Therefore, it is repeated information.
Results
Ls 363-4: Reference should be made to Figure 2.
Figure 2 lacks a scale which should be in kilometers. In the figure lower caption box, it will be easier to read if the abbreviations are in alphabetical order.
Ls:426-7: It should be better justified that this statement is based on the literature review. So, I suggest rewriting the sentence.
L 438: It is always a little inaccurate to write about percentages when we have a value less than 100. In this case, the authors present only have 35 studies and repeatedly write on percentages. Here the only suggestion I give is to avoid using percentages as much as possible.
L 457: Here a new paragraph should be made.
Ls 501-4: here examples could be given from literature in other geographies highlighting the importance of consulting multiple groups of stakeholders in similar processes. For example, the following studies:
- Ramos, J., Soma, K., Bergh, Ø., Schulze, T., Gimpel, A., Stelzenmüller, V., ... & Gault, J. (2015). Multiple interests in European coastal waters: the importance of a common language. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(2), 720-731.
- Li, T.H., Thomas Ng, S., & Skitmore, M. (2016). Modeling multi-objective multi-stakeholder decisions during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: A decision rule approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(3), 04015087.
Figure 8 will benefit from having an additional scale in meters below “S: 1/750”
Discussion
Ln 570: the study referred to [66] is related to the UK and not the US as allegedly described.
Ln 574-5: This is an orphan phrase. I suggest it be rewritten to be a paragraph with at least 2 sentences.
Ln 578: it is a small typo, the sentence must begin with a capital letter, or some words are missing.
Ls:702 and 709: the numbers 1. and 2. in these cases confuse the reader.
Ls 732-3: The literature reference given is not an International case. This is a Taiwan-only case.
Other small typos:
L 736: the reference for this line is 2019 and not 2021.
L 746: In “…assessments [84].Chang et al. (2004)…” a space is missing.
Table A1. Other and Trail have the same upper letter...
Literature
At least references 48 to 50 are grey literature and cannot be found in search engines. These references do not seem correct and was possibly done with the help of artificial intelligence. Please amend or justify accordingly.
Author Response
Round 1
Ref. No.: water-3579269
Title: Exploring the Ecological Effectiveness of Taiwan Ecological Check and Identification Mechanism on the of Coastal Engineering
Reviewer #2:
Although well written, the manuscript is too long for a single paper. Although reading is quite easy and reader-friendly from the point of view of sentence structure, it lacks a more synthetic approach.
Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and constructive feedback.
We appreciate your positive recognition regarding the clarity and readability of the manuscript.
In response to your suggestion, we have carefully revised the paper by restructuring and condensing several sections to enhance conciseness and improve the overall synthesis of the content.
- Introduction-
(1)The first paragraph is very long and could be split into at least 3 paragraphs: Extreme weather, Engineering development, Focus on structure management. Furthermore, only a single reference is used, which seems remarkably little to me.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. , We have revised the introduction by dividing the original paragraph into two clearly structured thematic paragraphs: (1) climate-induced challenges to infrastructure, and (2) the historical development of Taiwan’s ecological check and identification mechanism. We have also added additional references, including the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (Working Group I) and Taiwan’s National Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan, Phase III (2023–2026) to provide both global and local perspectives.
(2) Lines 68-81: Here are also a very long paragraph and authors could benefit from dividing it up by describing about each stage or phase, paying attention not to leave any orphan sentence. The literature presented here in line 72 is well done but could be better if modified to the format [12-14].
Answer: Thank you for your recommendation. We have separated the paragraph into three thematic sub-paragraphs corresponding to the distinct stages of development: early research, operation/testing, and empirical validation. We also updated the reference format to the compressed numerical form [12–14] in line with journal style.
(3) Ln 101: from “Although…” should be another paragraph.
Answer: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the paragraph structure by starting a new paragraph at line 101 to clearly separate the general overview from the analysis of ongoing challenges. The sentence structure has also been adjusted for improve clarity and flow.
- Literature review
(1) The text does not contain a reference to Table 2. I suggest that it should appear on line 117.
Answer: Thank you for the comment. We have added a reference to Table 2 in line 117 to guide readers to the comparative overview of past regulations summarized in the study.
(2) In table 2 where it is written “Concentrated in a particular habitat” it might be better to change it to “Focussed in a particular habitat”.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to improve the wording in Table 2. We have revised the wording in Table 2 from “Concentrated in a particular habitat” to “Focussed in a particular habitat” to better reflect the intended meaning of targeted ecological focus within specific habitat types.
(3) Ln 199: although the authors cite some works as being of great importance, there are references that make it difficult to see their importance. An example of this is reference [48], which is grey literature and not available in search portals.
Answer: Thank you for your observation. We have clarified the reference by correcting the author's name to “Shih, C.H. (2022)” to match the citation style and reference list. Reference [48] is a peer-reviewed journal article published in the Journal of Leisure and Recreation Management, and it is available through the Airiti Library online database (https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail/P20151002001-N202312260004-00004). We have revised the in-text citation to reflect the standard format and ensure clarity.
(4) Ln 219: each stage should come in an independent paragraph but taking care not to leave orphan sentences.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to improve paragraph structure. We have revised the section by separating each implementation feature (operation stage, checkup form, grading system, and professional requirements) into independent paragraphs. We also adjusted the sentence structures to improve coherence and avoid orphan sentences.
(5) Ln 274: there is a small typo “Cological” should be amended to “Ecological”.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out the typo.We have corrected "Cological" to "Ecological."
(6) Ls: 330-3: this is not a method but part of the objective and has already been mentioned before. Therefore, it is repeated information.
Answer: Thank you for noting the redundancy in the methods section. As this information had been previously mentioned in the introduction and to avoid redundancy, we have removed the sentence in lines 330–333.
- Results
(1) Ls 363-4: Reference should be made to Figure 2.
Answer: Thank you for suggesting to add a reference to Figure 2. We have added a reference to Figure 2 in the description of case distribution to help guide readers to the visual representation of the geographic data.
(2) Figure 2 lacks a scale which should be in kilometers. In the figure lower caption box, it will be easier to read if the abbreviations are in alphabetical order.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion to add a scale and reorder abbreviations. We have added a scale bar (in kilometers) to Figure 2 and reordered the abbreviations alphabetically.
(3) Ls:426-7: It should be better justified that this statement is based on the literature review. So, I suggest rewriting the sentence.
Answer: Thank you for your comment to strengthen the literature basis. We revised the sentence to explicitly state it is based on literature review findings and added supporting references.
(4) L 438: It is always a little inaccurate to write about percentages when we have a value less than 100. In this case, the authors present only have 35 studies and repeatedly write on percentages. Here the only suggestion I give is to avoid using percentages as much as possible.
Answer: Thank you for your recommendation regarding the use of percentages. We agree that percentages can be misleading when based on a relatively small sample size. Accordingly, we have removed percentage expressions and retained the absolute case numbers to present the data in a more straightforward and accurate manner.
(5) L 457: Here a new paragraph should be made.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion regarding paragraph structuring.
We started a new paragraph at Line 457 to distinguish data interpretation from subsequent discussion.
(6) Ls 501-4: here examples could be given from literature in other geographies highlighting the importance of consulting multiple groups of stakeholders in similar processes. For example, the following studies:
- Ramos, J., Soma, K., Bergh, Ø., Schulze, T., Gimpel, A., Stelzenmüller, V., ... & Gault, J. (2015). Multiple interests in European coastal waters: the importance of a common language. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(2), 720-731.
- Li, T.H., Thomas Ng, S., & Skitmore, M. (2016). Modeling multi-objective multi-stakeholder decisions during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: A decision rule approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(3), 04015087.
Answer: Thank you for suggesting adding international literature support. We added two internationally recognized references [68, 69] to support the importance of multi-stakeholder participation in planning processes, and to align our discussion with broader experiences in environmental and infrastructure governance.
(7) Figure 8 will benefit from having an additional scale in meters below “S: 1/750”
Answer: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We added a graphical scale bar of 20 meters to Figure 8, based on the confirmed map scale of 1:750 and site dimensions. The revised figure is now included in the updated manuscript for better spatial interpretation.
- Discussion
(1) Ln 570: the study referred to [66] is related to the UK and not the US as allegedly described.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out the error. We have corrected the geographical reference from "the East Coast of the United States" to "the East Coast of the United Kingdom" according to the original source.
(2) Ln 574-5: This is an orphan phrase. I suggest it be rewritten to be a paragraph with at least 2 sentences.
Answer: Thank you for highlighting the orphan phrase issue. We have expanded the orphan phrase into a complete paragraph with at least two sentences to improve clarity and coherence.
(3) Ln 578: it is a small typo, the sentence must begin with a capital letter, or some words are missing.
Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the sentence by capitalizing the initial word to ensure proper grammar and clarity.
(4) Ls:702 and 709: the numbers 1. and 2. in these cases confuse the reader.
Answer: Thank you for your observation regarding numbering clarity. We have revised the numbering format to avoid confusion, reorganizing the points
as distinct subheadings clearly differentiate them from Case A and Case B.
(5) Ls 732-3: The literature reference given is not an International case. This is a Taiwan-only case.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out the reference misclassification.
We have clarified that Su et al. (2020) presents a national perspective from Taiwan and adjusted the section title and introductory sentence accordingly.
- Other small typos:
(1) L 736: the reference for this line is 2019 and not 2021.
Answer: Thank you for pointing out the citation error. We have corrected the publication year of Powell et al. form 2021 to 2019.
(2) L 746: In “…assessments [84].Chang et al. (2004)…” a space is missing.
Answer: Thank you for noting the formatting issue. We have added the missing space after the reference [84] for correct formatting.
(3) Table A1. Other and Trail have the same upper letter...
Answer: Thank you for pointing out the superscript duplication in Table A1. We have revised the superscript labeling in Table A1 to ensure each category has a unique and unambiguous identifier.
- Literature-At least references 48 to 50 are grey literature and cannot be found in search engines. These references do not seem correct and was possibly done with the help of artificial intelligence. Please amend or justify accordingly.
Answer: Thank you for your critical observation. We have carefully reviewed references 48 to 50 and made the following adjustments
(1)Reference 48: : Verified as a peer-reviewed journal article in the Journal of Leisure and Recreation Management (2022), available through Airiti Library. We corrected the citation details.
(2)Reference 49: Replaced with a peer-reviewed article: Yang, L.; Yuan, C.S. (2019). Analysis of Carbon Sink Effects for Saline Constructed Wetlands Vegetated with Mangroves to Treat Mariculture Wastewater and Sewage. Water Science and Technology, 79(8), 1474–1483.
(3)Reference 50: A government-issued technical report by the Institute of Transportation, Ministry of Transportation and Communications (Taiwan). We provided the direct official PDF link: https://www.iot.gov.tw/uploads/asset/data/6619e146367376304acd544a/B0951310.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2025).
This document is publicly accessible and contains empirical data on ecological coastal protection practices in Taiwan. We hope these revisions clarify the validity of our references and demonstrate our commitment to academic rigor and transparency.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors satisfactorily addressed my suggestions and comments.
I have jus one minor comment: I noticed that they implemented the use of the acronym ECI throughout the text, instead of the full name. I agree with that; I only suggest that its meaning be defined the first time it is mentioned in the main body of the MS, not just in the abstract, which would be in L47.
Author Response
1.The authors satisfactorily addressed my suggestions and comments.
I have jus one minor comment: I noticed that they implemented the use of the acronym ECI throughout the text, instead of the full name. I agree with that; I only suggest that its meaning be defined the first time it is mentioned in the main body of the MS, not just in the abstract, which would be in L47.
Answer: Thank you for your positive feedback and valuable comment. As suggested, we have added the full term "Ecological Check and Identification (ECI)" when it first appears in the main body of the manuscript (Line 38). We appreciate your careful review.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere was concern about improving the manuscript with the support of review suggestions. Other than the final check regarding the polishing done on the manuscript, I have no further suggestions.
Author Response
There was concern about improving the manuscript with the support of review suggestions. Other than the final check regarding the polishing done on the manuscript, I have no further suggestions.
Answer: Thank you for your follow-up and confirmation. We have carefully rechecked the entire manuscript and ensured that all suggestions from the previous round have been fully addressed. Final polishing and language improvement have also been completed to enhance readability.
