Sustainable Management of Erosive Shores: An Interdisciplinary Approach Integrating Engineering and Social Sciences at a Tide-Dominant Beach Area
Alessio Valente
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article addresses a relevant issue, which is beach morphodynamics, with focus on beach erosion. The mannuscript analyses the case of Kkotji Beach, a tourist destination on the west coast of South Korea. Despite of the local contribution of the study, this paper requires enhancement in several aspects, as detailed below.
Abstract: the abstract provides information only on the paper's objective and methods. The authors should briefly introduce the studied object and also highlight the most relevant obtained results.
References: very few references are cited along the text. Among the 11 cited references, 10 are older than 2020.
Lines 64 - 65: this should be informed in the introductory chapter, since the goal of the study is not clearly stated in the introduction.
Figure 2: which is the year of the dates in the time axis?
Figure 4: this figure is not clear. Please explain. Is it a time series diagram, or a spatial distribution map? The "grid spacing" axis title, in my undestanding, would refer to a spatial grid.
METHODS: several results are presented in the "Methods" chapter and are not discussed.
Numerical models applied: the authors should provide further information (governing equations, for instance) on the applied models.
Since the evaluated mannuscript presents serious issues in aspects which are fundamental for a scientific paper, I believe this article should be rejected. If the authors perform the requested corrections, I believe it would be interesting to resubmit the paper in the future.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title of the manuscript, ‘Sustainable management of erosive coasts: an interdisciplinary approach integrating engineering and social sciences in a tidal coastal area’ is not entirely consistent with the content. The authors apply a computer programme called MIKE 21, which simulates flows, waves and sediments in coastal areas and seas in two dimensions, mainly to explain the erosion phenomenon affecting this beach. While this approach highlights the coastal processes at Kkotji Beach, the social aspect is speculative and somewhat generic. To improve this part, I suggest including data from administrative sources that highlight the impact on the coastline and thus the worsening of the erosion phenomenon. If this information is not included, I would suggest changing the title. The introduction provides only limited information on the subject with a rather small number of references. The section on the study area is incomplete because it does not analyse the characteristics of Kkotji Beach from a geomorphological point of view. It is a beach subject to tides, but neither the characteristics of the beach nor the dominant process are described. The authors are therefore asked to address this issue so that readers can learn about this place. There are also some gaps in the methodology: from the instruments used for bathymetry to the parameters included in the MIKE 21 programme without understanding their origin. As already mentioned, the social sciences section was developed without presenting an analysis methodology that could support the comparison with the flow simulation with data. The discussion of the results reflects this imbalance, which tends to focus almost exclusively on the computational approach. The manuscript becomes less fluid in some passages (see details listed in the attached file) due to both its form and the use of scientific terms that are not entirely appropriate. Most of the figures and tables aid understanding of the text, although they are not always well described. The bibliography is rather sparse and therefore does not sufficiently support the initial knowledge base or the discussion. A substantial addition to the bibliography is definitely required. Based on the above, major revisions are requested.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research addresses the issue of erosive shores, which is an important topic given its economic, social, and environmental threats. But it was observed that the paper requires substantial effort to improve academic quality.
The introduction is too limited and lacks a proper literature review, even for relevant issues, methods, the study area, clear motivation, and objectives. Furthermore, the research's scientific contribution should be highlighted.
Further details and descriptions about the study area should be presented. Also the coordinates and north direction should appear in the figures. In addition, all the figures need to be represented in more clearer resolution.
The method lacks sufficient details about the applied numerical model/simulation (MIKE 21) setup, boundary conditions, calibration, and validation procedures.
The discussions should be relevant to the results and related factors, investigations, comparisons, etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is based on methodological development to identify the causes and consequences of erosion in a coastal area of South Korea, at Kkotji Beach. It includes field observations and numerical simulations using Mike21.
Coastal erosion worldwide is a relevant topic that has gained special interest due to the forcing factors generated by climate change. This manuscript addresses the case of Kkotji Beach and attempts to include a link to coastal management and sustainable development in the area. However, in its current state, the document is addressed superficially and needs to be strengthened to make it more robust.
Below are some points the authors may consider to improve the manuscript:
1) Field measurements are important; however, in coastal erosion, a two-month measurement period is insufficient and, in most cases, is not representative of seasonal variability. This requires measurements over a longer period of time.
2) MIKE21 is a state-of-the-art software that adequately represents hydrodynamic, wave, and sediment transport phenomena. This manuscript could be more robust if model validation is presented and error analyses are included.
3) Annual volume quantification in the area should be included in the analysis.
4) Some deficiencies were found in the images: Figure 1 could include a wind rose, scale, and geographic information. Figures 6, 7, and 8 correspond to results and are found in the methodology section, attempting to support this section. Figure 12 has larger legends. In summary, the images should be properly integrated into the text.
5) The document is more focused on the engineering field, resulting in the social focus being lost or very weak. Information on coastal zone management should be expanded, and information on successful cases of nature-based solutions to combat erosion could even be included.
6) The behavior of the northern and southern zone profiles can be quantified, in addition to quantifying annual transport.
7) The conclusions should be strengthened, especially those related to management and public policy, as they are general and there is no evidence that they are derived from the results obtained.
8) Few references; it is suggested to include more references, again, focused on coastal zone management, public policies, and related to the social approach the manuscript seeks to address.
9) In the discussion, it is suggested to include some proposed solutions or comparisons with other countries on successful solutions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn comparison to the first presented version of this mannuscript, the authors provided now notable improvements on the latest submited text. However, some aspects still require enhancement.
1) Figure 4: now it is clear to me what the figure means. However, it is not georreferenced. Instead, it is in local coordinates. In this virtue, I cannot see a relationship with the study area. I suggest the authors to present Figure 4 in georreferenced coordinates.
Although not incorrect, spatial results of U and V are not easily comprehensible. Instead of U and V, I suggest the authors to present spatial distribution of velocity vectors, as presented in Figure 7.
2) Response: We added the following description in Section 3.2 Numerical simulation to document the governing equations of each module (p.4, line 122-124):
“The SW module is based on the spectral wave action balance equation, the HD module on the depth-integrated continuity and momentum equations, and the ST module on an advection and diffusion formulation for sediment transport.”
R: In numerical modeling, it is a praxis to literally present the governing equations of the apllied models. As one may find in most of published numerical modeling papers, I suggest the authors to please provide along the text the model's governing equations.
If the authors can perform this corrections, I believe this mannuscript may be published in Land.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the authors' detailed consideration of most of the observations and suggestions made in the manuscript "Sustainable Management of Erosive Shores: An Interdisciplinary Approach Integrating Engineering and Social Sciences at a Tide-Dominant Beach Area" The additions to the manuscript have better balanced the content of the various sections, making the title more coherent. Furthermore, the text is more readable, resulting in better content organization. Although I still have some small concerns, the simulation used to highlight the erosion phenomenon is now reasonably supported by the information included in the text. I still highlight the lack of in-depth analysis of the physical characteristics of the beach and the tidal phenomenon, but perhaps this would have distorted the multidisciplinary approach. The figure captions have been correctly integrated; in Table 3, the "value" in the right-hand column header needs to be corrected. The increased bibliographical references provide further support for the analysis performed. In conclusion, the publication of this manuscript may provide a valuable contribution to our understanding of erosion on a tidal-dominated sandy beach, given its recreational use. It is considered appropriate to publish this version without further modifications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript now presents a relatively clearer and more rigorous presentation
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been updated by the authors based on reviewer feedback. The improvements to the manuscript have made it more robust. The information is presented more clearly and in a better-structured way for the reader, demonstrating the relevance of the work and the research. The manuscript is ready for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
