The Environmental Legal Framework of Mexican Caribbean Dunes: A Retrospective Case Study of Vegetation and Coastal Dune Loss in the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting study with a good topic in the context of global change. But, the manuscript needs improvement.

1. Abstract

   - The abstract is less concise. It is important to summarize the key findings and recommendations more directly.

   - Observed trends in vegetation cover should be mentioned more explicitly to highlight the main results.

2. Introduction

   - While the context is well-established, including recent global statistics on coastal dune degradation would strengthen the situation's urgency.

   - The introduction should address what is known about the topic, what gaps exist, and how the current study contributes to filling these gaps. How is the study area relevant to addressing the issue of coastal dune degradation?

   - The study objectives should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction to guide the reader on what will be addressed.

   - The introduction lacks a hypothesis.

3. Materials and Methods

   - In Figure 1, the water (H2O) abbreviation is incorrect. The '2' in the formula should be a subscript, so the correct notation is H₂O.

   - Technical aspects are less detailed. For example, it would be beneficial to include more details on the criteria for selecting Landsat images and data processing. An explanation of the choice of vegetation indices (such as SAVI) and their relevance to coastal dune studies could strengthen this section.

4. Results

   - Results are presented clearly, but it would be helpful to include subheadings for each subsection to facilitate navigation. Additionally, a key message should be inserted at the end of each result interpretation.

   - Figures should be of high quality and well-captioned.

   - Figure captions should include brief interpretations of the presented data to help the reader understand their significance without having to re-read the text.

5. Discussion

   - Incorporate comparisons with other similar studies in the region or elsewhere.

   - The discussion should make a more explicit link between the obtained results and their implications for coastal dune management (preferably creating a separate section for this). A section on methodological limitations and future perspectives should be added to the discussion.

6. Conclusion

   - What are the limitations of this study?

   - The conclusion should summarize recommendations in a more structured manner, focusing on concrete actions to be taken to improve legislation.

   - A call to action for policymakers could enhance the impact of this section.

7. References

   - Ensure uniformity in the presentation of references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper mainly distinguishes dynamic changes through remote sensing imagery from the perspective of regulations and the regions where projects are implemented. From a research methodology standpoint, it uses general remote sensing analysis without actual technological advancements. From an application perspective, any infrastructure development involves some vegetation clearance, but whether this truly affects the dunes and whether the dunes have genuinely disrupted the local ecological status lacks any substantial analytical conclusions. The paper devotes a large portion to listing and counting relevant laws, regulations, and project numbers, which is meaningless. It does not evaluate the ecological impact of these implemented projects, and there is no data analysis to support the conclusions. The mentioned changes in dune vegetation, palm tree vegetation, and the relationship between the dune environment and the environmental legal framework are not observed. The logic is relatively chaotic.Currently, this paper does not meet the publication standards of the journal. I recommend that the author carefully revise it before resubmitting.

Some suggestions for the author are as follows:

1. Please adhere to the mapping standards when drawing the maps. There are three maps in Figure 1, but they lack corresponding numbering. Ensure the legends for the northern and southern regions are consistent (e.g., scale) (Lines 108-109).

2. The introduction contains a lengthy discussion on the background of the study area but lacks references to related research by other scholars.

3. Please explain in detail the statement, "The adjustment factor used for this analysis was 0.05[66]."

4. The analysis of the relationship between regulations and dune environmental protection uses only quantitative measures rather than statistical analysis. The reliability of its conclusions is questionable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the Introduction, use "organisations" rather than "organisms".

The text divides the SKBR into three zones, whereas the diagram in Figure 1 divides it into two. Which is correct?

There follows is a long and difficult-to-digest discussion of the legal status, or otherwise, of dunes in the region, and the potential for modifications to their vegetated state or geomorphology. This hard to follow, contains many acronyms of local interest only, and it is not always clear how it fits into an overall methodology. This is the main weak point of the paper, for me; I am not entirely sure what it is that you want to achieve with this research?

The conclusions later on seem sound enough. Perhaps you could support them by providing a few more specific examples of where regulations were in place, were ignored, development occurred and dunes were damaged? I think this would be more interesting that the long legalistic sections that currently dominate the paper.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I notice that the authors have incorporated the comments and adequately justified the mentioned aspects. When integration was not possible, they provided a clear explanation.

Author Response

Comment 1: I notice that the authors have incorporated the comments and adequately justified the mentioned aspects. When integration was not possible, they provided a clear explanation.

Response: We deeply appreciate this review, which has been a great learning experience. Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the author for carefully considering my previous suggestions and making detailed revisions to the manuscript. While there may be some differences in academic perspectives and frameworks, such as the logical structure of the manuscript and the emphasis of the research, I still maintain my viewpoint. However, these differences fall within the normal scope of academic discussion and do not affect my recognition of the author's work. Upon review, I can see that the author has made significant improvements to the content of the manuscript, demonstrating diligence and a rigorous attitude. Therefore, I generally agree to accept this manuscript.

 

Author Response

Comment 1.- Thank you to the author for carefully considering my previous suggestions and making detailed revisions to the manuscript. While there may be some differences in academic perspectives and frameworks, such as the logical structure of the manuscript and the emphasis of the research, I still maintain my viewpoint. However, these differences fall within the normal scope of academic discussion and do not affect my recognition of the author's work. Upon review, I can see that the author has made significant improvements to the content of the manuscript, demonstrating diligence and a rigorous attitude. Therefore, I generally agree to accept this manuscript.

Answer: We deeply appreciate all this review process and the final opinion the reviewer provides, it help us very much to better develop our research in the future. best regards.