Coastal Adaptation to Climate Change and Sea Level Rise: Ecosystem Service Assessments in Spatial and Sectoral Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topics presented by the authors are very interesting, novel, and useful for decision-making stakeholders. The article has been prepared quite well, but a few things need to be added, and the English must be corrected:
Line 30-34: need citation/references.
L 132-139: a more explicit justification for the difference in the hypothetical situation is needed.
L 207-208: Why is the determination of ecosystem services not carried out by experts or the results of discussions with experts? If determined by the authors, each ecosystem service should be accompanied by justification based on the reference/citation.
L 139: The method described is quite long, so a flowchart should be made to make it easier for readers to understand the flow of this research.
L 140: In both locations, conditions up to 2020 should no longer be scenarios but actual conditions?
L 217-224: need citation/references.
L 260-262: Based on the interview results, can the authors replace the assessment form filled out by an expert?
Author Response
Line 30-34: need citation/references.
The reference has been added. The reference is a comprehensive overview article covering all addressed aspects.
L 132-139: a more explicit justification for the difference in the hypothetical situation is needed.
We added: "Criteria for the case study choice was that they reflect different aspects of planning and are located in areas with the highest risk of flooding."
We further expanded the objectives to better clarify the role of the case studies.
L 207-208: Why is the determination of ecosystem services not carried out by experts or the results of discussions with experts? If determined by the authors, each ecosystem service should be accompanied by justification based on the reference/citation.
We provided a set of potentially relevant ecosystem services, to ensure that all aspects are covered and to ensure a balance between the service groups. The pre-selection is based on CICES. Its documentation describes all ES in detail. In the assessment the experts can provide their view of how important they find a certain ecosystem service (RI score). This mean in fact they decide if a service is relevant or not and can provide their detailed individual view (see Appendix A).
L 139: The method described is quite long, so a flowchart should be made to make it easier for readers to understand the flow of this research.
A sketch has been added
L 140: In both locations, conditions up to 2020 should no longer be scenarios but actual conditions?
We added the explanation "The term scenario refers to the description of a situation, independently whether it describes a past, the present or a hypothetical future state." In the figures we added the information that partly past and present states are addressed. Using the term 'scenario' for all assessments/times makes it much easier in the text.
L 217-224: need citation/references.
There are no references. This is simply a description of the methods that we applied. The complexity of methods partly resulted from the Corona pandemic situtation, that required adaptations.
L 260-262: Based on the interview results, can the authors replace the assessment form filled out by an expert?
Appendix A shows an expert assessment including scores, but without personal information. This shows as well how experts can judge the relvance of every service.
Beyond that we added and modified text to better address the objectives in the conclusions, better summarize the role of ESA in planning (new figure 9b) and to pinpoint the comparison between planing systems (EU/US).
Reviewer 2 Report
General comment
This work addresses a particularly important problem of our time, namely climate change. The effect of these climate changes on coastal areas is already visible. The erosion process affects this type of ecosystems on a large scale. Administrative and political measures must be taken so that severely damaged ecosystems do not threaten people's lives and well-being. That's why the paper represents an important way to draw the attention of decision-makers to the problem caused by climate change. Therefore, a language easier to understand for non-specialists would be useful for increasing awareness of the phenomena
I recommend the publication in the journal after minor revision.
Specific comments
Clearer reformulation of the article's objectives
The section 2 Study site and methods is too long compared to the results and discussions.
Please see the manuscript
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Clearer reformulation of the article's objectives
We added and modified text to better address the objectives in the conclusions, to better summarize the role of ESA in planning (new figure 9b) and to pinpoint the comparison between planing systems (EU/US).
The section 2 Study site and methods is too long compared to the results and discussions.
To make it easier to follow the methods, we added an overview sketch (new figure 4). The complexity of methods partly resulted from the Corona pandemic situtation, that required adaptations.
The comments in the document were taken into account: We added the explanation "The term scenario refers to the description of a situation, independently whether it describes a past, the present or a hypothetical future state." In the figures we added the information that partly past and present states are addressed. Using the term 'scenario' for all assessments/times makes it much easier in the text.
