Nature Conservation and Sustainable Tourism in a Former Baltic Sea Coastal Military Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript explores the application of GIS and analytical tools in supporting nature conservation and sustainable tourism in seaside military brownfield areas. The study presents interesting findings that highlight the role of spatial analysis in managing coastal squeeze and balancing tourism development with ecological preservation. By integrating the DPSIR framework and Delphi method, the research provides valuable insights for sustainable coastal management, particularly in the Eastern Baltic region. I believe the quality of the manuscript is high; however, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Therefore, minor revision is required before this manuscript can be accepted for publication in Land.
1. In the abstract section, the phrase "indispensable" in "The main conclusion is that GIS is indispensable for this task" seems too absolute. Using "critical" might be more appropriate.
2. In the introduction section, the sentence "The coastal zone consists of diverse littoral habitats, which we categorize into two primary types: linear and areal." needs a reference to justify the basis for this classification.
3. The literature review seems to focus mainly on European studies. Adding cases from other regions, such as the Americas and Asia, would provide a more comprehensive perspective.
4. Line 171-172: "with tepid water temperatures in July (18°C) and August (19°C)"—does this refer to the monthly average temperature?
5. In section 3.2.3, when introducing the DPSIR framework, the author cites many references, which is good. However, most of these references are not recent. It would be better to retain some classic references while adding the latest publications from the past three years.
6. In the discussion section, the author compares their study with others, which is good. However, the statement "Naturally, the presented study, like any other DPSIR-based study, is prone to various limitations and biases." is not entirely appropriate. Some studies using the DPSIR model combine it with other quantitative models to reduce subjective bias (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03222). Therefore, replacing "any" with "most" would be a more accurate representation.
7. Is the main innovation of this paper the application of GIS or the combination of the DPSIR model with the Delphi method? The author should carefully consider this question and reflect it in the title.
Author Response
Comment 1: I believe the quality of the manuscript is high.
Response: Thank you for your appraisal of the manuscript‘s quality.
Comment 2: However, there are several issues that need to be addressed.
Response: We took efforts to duly address all the remarks.
Comment 3: 1. In the abstract section, the phrase "indispensable" in "The main conclusion is that GIS is indispensable for this task" seems too absolute. Using "critical" might be more appropriate.
Response: We replaced the term "indispensable" with the term “critical”.
Comment 4: 2. In the introduction section, the sentence "The coastal zone consists of diverse littoral habitats, which we categorize into two primary types: linear and areal." needs a reference to justify the basis for this classification.
Response: We added a reference.
Comment 5: 3. The literature review seems to focus mainly on European studies. Adding cases from other regions, such as the Americas and Asia, would provide a more comprehensive perspective.
Response: We added the latest publications on the subject from the Americas, Africa and Asia.
Comment 6: 4. Line 171-172: "with tepid water temperatures in July (18°C) and August (19°C)"—does this refer to the monthly average temperature?
Response: Yes, monthly, we added an explication to the text.
Comment 7: 5. In section 3.2.3, when introducing the DPSIR framework, the author cites many references, which is good. However, most of these references are not recent. It would be better to retain some classic references while adding the latest publications from the past three years.
Response: We added the latest publications on the subject from the past three years.
Comment 8: 6. In the discussion section, the author compares their study with others, which is good. However, the statement "Naturally, the presented study, like any other DPSIR-based study, is prone to various limitations and biases." is not entirely appropriate. Some studies using the DPSIR model combine it with other quantitative models to reduce subjective bias (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03222). Therefore, replacing "any" with "most" would be a more accurate representation.
Response: We replaced “any” with “most”.
Comment 9: 7. Is the main innovation of this paper the application of GIS or the combination of the DPSIR model with the Delphi method? The authors should carefully consider this question and reflect it in the title.
Response: We adjusted the title according to the research focus.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article examines the use of GIS tools and analytical methods to support nature conservation and sustainable tourism in coastal areas that were previously military training grounds. The authors analyze how to transform these degraded areas into protected coastal zones and small-scale tourist resorts, using innovative approaches such as DPSIR and the Delphi method to ensure their durability and sustainable management.
The article is a valuable contribution to research on coastal management, but requires some minor corrections:
1. It is worth adding a more detailed justification for the selection of Delphi experts and the potential limitations of this method.
2. The discussion could include a deeper comparative analysis with studies on other regions of the Baltic Sea or Europe.
3. Line 123 - it will be 2.1; line 180 - it will be 2.2 and etc.
4. Chapter 2. Materials and Methods is too extensive, some information, e.g. the description of the DPSIR and Delphi process - it is worth shortening in the methodology and moving some of the results of this analysis to the discussion section, where they can be linked to previous studies and recommendations.
Author Response
Comment 1: The article is a valuable contribution to research on coastal management.
Response: Thank you for your valuable consideration.
Comment 2: This article requires some minor corrections.
Response: We duly addressed all reviewer‘s remarks.
Comment 3: 1. It is worth adding a more detailed justification for the selection of Delphi experts and the potential limitations of this method.
Response: We added a more detailed justification for the selection of Delphi experts to the description of the Methods and added the highlighting of the potential limitation of the applied methods and the ways we addressed it (with the recommendations for future studies) to the Discussion.
Comment 4: 2. The discussion could include a deeper comparative analysis with studies on other regions of the Baltic Sea or Europe.
Response: Due to the necessity to limit the length of the paper, we have rewritten the paragraph in the discussion presenting concrete suggestions for how local communities could participate in future monitoring or management phases based on the results of this study and other regions of Europe and worldwide.
Comment 5: 3. Line 123 - it will be 2.1; line 180 - it will be 2.2 and etc.
Response: We corrected the numbering.
Comment 6: 4. Chapter 2. Materials and Methods is too extensive, some information, e.g. the description of the DPSIR and Delphi process - it is worth shortening in the methodology and moving some of the results of this analysis to the discussion section, where they can be linked to previous studies and recommendations.
Response: We shortened the description of the DPSIR methodology by summarizing the key issues in Table 1 and moved some of the results to the discussion section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer
The paper titled Using GIS and analytical tools to support nature conservation 2 and sustainable tourism in seaside military brownfield areas is skillfully written and provides a clear overview of the literature related to the research. The paper makes a significant contribution to the field of sustainable tourism and protected coastal area management, with a particular focus on converting military brownfield sites into tourism and conservation areas. The use of GIS tools, combined with DPSIR and Delphi methodologies, demonstrates an interdisciplinary approach and integration of modern technologies into sustainable development planning. However, the paper in its current form requires certain improvements to reach its full scientific potential. I recommend it be accepted with revisions as noted in the comments to the authors.
Abstract
The title accurately reflects the content and methodological approach of the paper. The abstract clearly states the objectives, methodology, and key findings of the study.
Recommendations for improvement - It would be useful to highlight specific results of the quantitative analyses in the abstract and emphasize concrete benefits for policy-making and management practices (e.g., specific measures proposed through GIS and DPSIR analysis). The term "seaside military brownfield areas" could be explained further for an international audience who may not be familiar with the post-communist European context.
Introduction
The introduction establishes a clear theoretical framework, with examples from previous research on linear and areal littoral habitats. It emphasizes the significance of the “coastal squeeze” concept and provides regional context (Lithuania, the Eastern Baltic area).
Recommendations for improvement - Consider summarizing the section that addresses sustainable tourism and ecotourism concepts (especially references 20-25) to maintain a sharper focus on the paper’s specific contribution. Add a broader comparative analysis of similar cases of military area conversions in Western Europe or elsewhere in the world, to strengthen the international relevance of the research.
- Materials and Methods
Detailed descriptions of data collection steps and analytical methods (GIS layers, Delphi panel, DPSIR approach).Transparent presentation of study locations and technologies used (e.g., Pyro Evo automatic counters).
Recommendations for improvement - Provide a clearer explanation of the selection criteria for Delphi experts (currently only the number and general profile are mentioned). Include information on their qualifications or institutional affiliations (anonymized, if necessary). Explain more precisely why the DPSIR framework was chosen instead of DAPSI(W)R(M), even though the paper acknowledges the advantages of the latter. A comparison of both frameworks could strengthen the analysis. A more detailed description of the validation of the questionnaire is needed, particularly regarding the assessment of reliability and validity.
- Results
A detailed analysis of land-use conflicts and tourism based on GIS data and DPSIR components is provided.Tables and figures are clear and informative (especially Tables 1-3).
Recommendations for improvement - It would be beneficial to include spatial maps showing conflict layers and proposed measures with detailed legends. Currently, the text references GIS layers, but key findings are not easily visualized for the reader. Clearly distinguish which results derive directly from the Delphi process and which from GIS/DPSIR analyses, to enhance transparency.
Discussion
The interpretation of differences between linear and areal approaches in tourism and nature conservation is well-developed. The findings are well-linked to the theoretical framework and previous studies.
Recommendations for improvement - A deeper analysis of the potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed measures is missing (e.g., how local communities might respond to access restrictions or zoning limitations). Limitations of the study should be discussed in more depth (e.g., sample bias, transferability of the model to other CMPA areas). In the section on “citizen science” initiatives (page 16), it is recommended to provide concrete suggestions for how local communities could participate in future monitoring or management phases.
Conclusion
The conclusions clearly summarize the findings, emphasizing GIS and DPSIR as decision-support tools.Future research directions are outlined.
Recommendations for improvement - Provide more specific recommendations targeted at decision-makers and clarify which stakeholders are being addressed. Consider adding a separate section titled “Practical Implications” or “Policy Recommendations” to enhance the practical contribution.
Review the consistency of references and numbering (especially [6], [62], [69], which are frequently repeated).
Consider shortening certain paragraphs for better readability (especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections).
Author Response
Comment 1: The paper titled Using GIS and analytical tools to support nature conservation 2 and sustainable tourism in seaside military brownfield areas is skillfully written and provides a clear overview of the literature related to the research.
Response: Thank you for your appraisal of the manuscript.
Comment 2: However, the paper in its current form requires certain improvements to reach its full scientific potential. I recommend it be accepted with revisions as noted in the comments to the authors.
Response: We took efforts to duly address all the remarks.
Comment 3: Abstract. Recommendations for improvement - It would be useful to highlight specific results of the quantitative analyses in the abstract and emphasize concrete benefits for policy-making and management practices (e.g., specific measures proposed through GIS and DPSIR analysis).
Response: We highlighted specific results of the quantitative analyses and emphasize concrete benefits for policy-making and management practices in the abstract.
Comment 4: The term "seaside military brownfield areas" could be explained further for an international audience who may not be familiar with the post-communist European context.
Response: We additionally explained the term "seaside military brownfield areas" in the introduction.
Comment 5: Consider summarizing the section that addresses sustainable tourism and ecotourism concepts (especially references 20-25) to maintain a sharper focus on the paper’s specific contribution.
Response: We summarized the introduction to maintain a sharper focus on the paper’s specific contribution.
Comment 6: Provide a clearer explanation of the selection criteria for Delphi experts (currently only the number and general profile are mentioned). Include information on their qualifications or institutional affiliations (anonymized, if necessary).
Response: We added a more detailed justification for the selection of Delphi experts to the description of the Methods.
Comment 7: Explain more precisely why the DPSIR framework was chosen instead of DAPSI(W)R(M), even though the paper acknowledges the advantages of the latter. A comparison of both frameworks could strengthen the analysis.
Response: We summarized the comparison of DPSIR and DAPSI(W)R(M) methodologies in Table 1.
Comment 8: A more detailed description of the validation of the questionnaire is needed, particularly regarding the assessment of reliability and validity.
Response: We added an additional paragraph to describe the pilot testing ensuring the reliability and validity of the questionnaire.
Comment 9: It would be beneficial to include spatial maps showing conflict layers and proposed measures with detailed legends. Currently, the text references GIS layers, but key findings are not easily visualized for the reader.
Response: We supplemented the conflict layer with proposed measures and detailed legends in the GIS map (Figure 6) and revised the text accordingly.
Comment 10: Clearly distinguish which results derive directly from the Delphi process and which from GIS/DPSIR analyses, to enhance transparency.
Response: We added a paragraph summarizing the Results section to clarify, which results derive from the visitor field survey, which from the conjoint DPSIR/Delphi analysis, and which from the GIS interpretation.
Comment 11: Discussion: A deeper analysis of the potential socio-economic impacts of the proposed measures is missing (e.g., how local communities might respond to access restrictions or zoning limitations). In the section on “citizen science” initiatives (page 16), it is recommended to provide concrete suggestions for how local communities could participate in future monitoring or management phases.
Response: Due to the necessity to limit the length of the paper, we have rewritten the paragraph in the discussion presenting concrete suggestions for how local communities could respond to access restrictions or zoning limitations and participate in future monitoring or management phases based on the results of this study.
Comment 12: Discussion: Limitations of the study should be discussed in more depth (e.g., sample bias, transferability of the model to other CMPA areas).
Response: We added the highlighting of the potential limitation of the applied methods and the ways addressed it (with the recommendations for future studies) to the Discussion.
Comment 13: Conclusion: Provide more specific recommendations targeted at decision-makers and clarify which stakeholders are being addressed. Consider adding a separate section titled “Practical Implications” or “Policy Recommendations” to enhance the practical contribution.
Response: We added an additional paragraph to the Conclusions addressing concrete practical implications and policy recommendations targeted at decision-makers and clarifying, which stakeholders are being addressed.
Comment 14: Review the consistency of references and numbering (especially [6], [62], [69], which are frequently repeated).
Response: We reviewed the consistency of references and numbering.
Comment 15: Consider shortening certain paragraphs for better readability (especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections).
Response: We shortened most of the paragraphs, especially in the Introduction and Discussion sections.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
