Preserving Coastal Heritage: A Review of Climate Adaptation Strategies on Ilha de Moçambique (Mozambique)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Preserving Coastal Heritage. A Review of Climate Adaptation Strategies on the Ilha de Moçambique, Mozambique” mentions a relatively understudied but important case, especially as it is one of the important Portuguese-speaking countries.

(1) The current version of the abstract seems to describe a process. However, it would be better to list the key findings in points.

(2) It would be better to add a year when describing “current population of approximately 17,000 residents”. Otherwise, it is difficult to tell whether this is the current year 2025, a certain year in the past, or the year when the author conducted the research.

(3) Compared with the carefully summarized text, Figure 1 corresponding to Section 2.2 seems to be less informative. For example, the image lacks a scale bar and a north arrow, which may make it difficult for readers to understand the specific scale of Mozambique Island and which islands in the world it can be compared to. In addition, the risk of sea level rise was mentioned earlier, and this image may be clearer if it takes into account the altitude. Figures 2 and 3 also have similar problems.

(4) The summary in Chapter 3 is very rich. It would be better if the network relationships between them could be shown.

(5) The title "8. Patents" is just a template for MDPI. If it is not appropriate, it can be removed directly.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your helpful comments, which allowed us to address the weaknesses of our article.

1. Abstract – We revised the abstract and reformulated the final section, presenting the main findings in a clearer and more accessible way, as suggested.

2. Regarding population data, we specified the reference year when indicating the population of the Island of Mozambique (based on estimated data from the reference used), ensuring greater temporal accuracy.

3. Figures 1, 2 and 3 – We improved the quality and informativeness of the figures. We included a scale bar, a north arrow and, where applicable, elevation overlays in Figure 2. We understand that Figure 1 could contain more information and as the intention is for it to serve solely as a geographical framework within the eastern coastal context; we add the indication of the country in the legend and the north

   orientation.

4. Chapter 3 – We acknowledge the suggestion. The redesign of Figure 4 now better demonstrates the

   planning instruments classification according to their main concerns (climate change adaptation vs. heritage) and also includes the relationships (links) established between them, functioning as a synthetic representation of the network of interconnections.

5. Section “8. Patents” – We removed the title, as it does not apply to the present study.

We thank you again for your careful review and valuable suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to improving the clarity, accuracy, and quality of our manuscript.

Best regards, The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

 

Please read the annotated PDF with a few comments.

 

These comments focus on the use of the term mitigating with a suggestion.

Also, Figure 1 is not appropriate. It lacks the scale, North, the country´s name, and the legend should be changed.

A few minor typo mistakes are highlighted.

Finally, the table legends should be placed above the table.

Regards

The reviewer

Additional comments for land-3820250

Preserving Coastal Heritage. A Review of Climate Adaptation Strategies on Ilha de Moçambique (Mozambique)

What is the main question addressed by the research? The authors review the collection of strategic plans for climate adaptation on Ilha de Moçambique by posing the hypothesis (not an RQ) that the current planning approaches are insufficient or inadequately implemented, and there is a lack of specific instruments aimed at preserving the cultural heritage while enhancing climate resilience.

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Yes, it is appropriate and original (beyond that, it is not that novel).
• Does it address a specific gap in the field? Yes, it does. The literature review encompasses an extensive and comprehensive collection of local, national, and international documents, supported by scientific literature, to address the gap between planning and climate adaptation and resilience. The authors demonstrate the lack of sufficient specific instruments, aligned with their hypothesis (which could have been an RQ).
• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? As said above, this comprehensive literature review analyses (likely) all the documents and reports on the studied issues, making the effort of integrating the architectural, land use planning, heritage conservation, climate change and extreme weather events, and (with) climate change adaptation and climate risk reduction action plans, which is original and gives some novelty to this review article.
• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? I found the methodology appropriate for the proposed goals and hypothesis. I would appreciate a bit more international comparison.
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case. Yes, they are. The authors base their extensive document-based discussion and conclusions on the content of available plans and reports, focusing on each element of the aims and hypothesis, how they address these elements, and why they are insufficient to adapt to future climate change and increasing coastal weather patterns and events.
• Are the references appropriate? Yes, they are to my knowledge.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback. Your suggestions are very valuable and have helped us to significantly improve the manuscript. Below we provide our detailed responses:

1. Use of the term "mitigating"- We appreciate the suggestion. We have revised the text and adjusted the use of the term for greater clarity and accuracy, as indicated in the annotated PDF.
2. Figure 1- We have corrected Figure 1 by including a scale, north orientation, we think it's more appropriate to add the country’s name in the legend , and revised the legend according to your recommendations.

3. Typographical errors - All minor typos highlighted have been corrected in the revised manuscript.

4. Table legends - We have repositioned the table legends above the tables as requested.

5. International comparison - We recognize that international comparisons could further enrich the discussion and, for this reason, we have included a brief reference to the case of Venice in the discussion section. However, this study focuses on the unique context of the Island of Mozambique, whose historical, cultural, and institutional characteristics make a local analysis particularly relevant. We propose in the conclusion that future research could explore broader international comparisons to increase the generalizability of the results.

We thank you again for your careful review and valuable suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to improving the clarity, accuracy, and quality of our manuscript.

Best regards, The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a well-structured review of climate adaptation strategies as applied to a coastal World Heritage Site, combining a review of national and local policy instruments with an analysis of their applicability to cultural heritage preservation in the light of climate change. Thus, the research objective is significant and relevant to the field.

Practitioners, researchers and policymakers working on related topics and on this specific regional area may be interested. Thus, it is relevant to an international audience if the authors could provide a clear and replicable methodological process.

 It is related to the scope of the Journal. To my understanding and knowledge, there is no current commercial interest in the paper.

The literature review is broad in scope. The author presents an understanding of relevant literature about the research aims and makes excellent use of both academic references and official Mozambican planning documents. The integration of local policy documents is a strong point.

It’s higly suggested to better clarify the research questions on the introduction section among assessing integration of climate adaptation and heritage policy, cataloguing instruments, evaluating implementation on the island.

The paper does not clearly outline a systematic methodology or criteria for evaluating the effectiveness. Despite the authors providing a systematic framework for comparing policy instruments using relevant criteria, the methodological section lacks depth in terms of analytical process. A suggestion could be to make the review method transparent and reproducible, and to provide a deeper methodological explanation of the literature review process.

The authors should clarify the novelty of the methodological contribution: at this stage, the research paper mostly synthesizes existing plans and reports without proposing a replicable analytical model or framework.

Another aspect is related to scientific robustness due to the lack of empirical data. The paper relies heavily on qualitative descriptions. About that, some claims would benefit from site-specific quantitative or spatial data to strengthen their scientific rigor.

The discussion section is largely descriptive. The findings are described without fully theorizing or generalizing them. They should be strongly related to the research questions that need to be clarified at the beginning of the paper. One question that immediately comes to mind for the readers: could the authors propose a typology of integration levels? Could the gaps observed serve as a model for diagnosing policy failures in other coastal heritage contexts?

In the same way, the conclusions are too generic. They should provide a critical analysis of the initiatives mentioned in the paper, discuss what kind of planning instruments or policy tools are needed, what institutional changes could be necessary, and analyse if there are models that could inspire future action.

The data visualization protocol adopted needs to be improved to support the arguments and the analysis of case studies. Diagrams could help in the critical reading of case studies.

Generally speaking, there are potential implications for different communities: researchers, practitioners, and policymakers could benefit from this research especialy if the authors clarify the methodological framework that helps to replicate the study in other contexts or scenarios.

The title of the paper is appropriate and reflects the article's content. The abstract provides a well-structured overview of the objectives but it could emphasize specific outcomes of the paper to make its impact more explicit.

The data sources are referenced clearly. There is clarity of purpose, structure, and expression. The narrative and argumentation are adequate.

Minor grammatical errors (fix spacing/punctuation) and redundancies should be addressed through careful copyediting. The “Discussion” section are overly long and include repetitive formulations (the use of parenthetical explanations). It could benefit from reorganization for smoother readability.

The quality of the illustrations is adequate. Tables are particularly useful in summarizing and comparing different strategies. Terms and contexts are explained clearly for an international audience.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback. Your suggestions are very valuable and have helped us to significantly improve the manuscript. Below we provide our detailed responses:

1. Research questions - We agree with your observation. In the revised version, we have clarified the research questions in the section introduction.
2. Methodological framework - We acknowledge the need to provide greater depth to the methodological section. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded this section to describe the analytical steps in more detail, including the criteria used to compare policy instruments. A detailed description of the criteria used is present in section 3.2. Data cataloging.
3. Methodological contribution- We would like to clarify that, although this research is grounded in the synthesis of existing reports and plans, its methodological contribution lies in the development of a systematic, criteria-based framework that enables the explicit identification of how heritage preservation measures align with climate adaptation frameworks. The characterization of planning instruments according to a common framework that allows for their comparison is not a methodological innovation. However, the themes and criteria chosen in this research allow us to summarize the content of each one in relation to the topics addressed and answer the research questions posed. In the Introduction, we clarify that our approach focuses on the interpretation of the plans rather than evaluating their effectiveness. The evaluation of effectiveness could be addressed in future research, but it is beyond the scope of the present article. 
4. The Discussion section has been revised to improve readability. We have reduced repetitions and reorganised the section into two subchapters to present the discussion in a more structured way. In addition, we have introduced three levels of integration, according to heritage preservation measures and climate adaptation frameworks. 
5. Conclusion - We have addressed this point by substantially revising the final section of the paper. In particular, we clarified the need for more robust technical instruments, including the mapping of vulnerable areas, systematic risk assessment, and the establishment of continuous risk monitoring protocols, supported by specific funding mechanisms and planning guidelines that integrate heritage preservation. We also emphasized the importance of institutional reforms, such as enhanced coordination among the Ministries of Culture, Environment, and Urban Planning, as well as the creation of intersectoral committees with active community participation. And reinforced the integration of community perceptions and traditional practices into urban planning instruments, highlighting their contribution to addressing social and environmental challenges in a more sustainable way.
6. Abstract - We have revised the abstract to emphasize the specific outcomes of the paper and highlight its impact more explicitly. Minor grammatical errors, redundancies, and issues of readability have also been corrected through careful editing.

We thank you once again for your careful review. Your insightful comments have greatly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf