Adaptation to Climate Change in Coastal Countries of the European Union—An Evaluation of Plans and Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See pdf document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See pdf document in the previous section.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers who took the time to carefully read our article. Their comments have clarified several points. We have prepared a table summarizing the responses to their valuable comments.

Comments 1. L.2-3 Title: I would recommend to change it to “Adaptation to climate change in coastal countries of the European Union - an evaluation of plans and strategies”

Response 1: Accepted (L. 2-3)

Comments 2. L.9 Delete “A”

Response 2. Corrected (L. 9)

Comments 3. L.17 Since no statistic tests have been carried out, I would recommend to avoid “significant”.

Response

3. Accepted. We have deleted ‘significant’. The abstract has been modified.

Comments 4. L.24 Your keywords overlap quite a bit with the title, I would recommend some variation.

Response 4. Accepted. We have changed all the keywords. (L. 29-30)

Comments 5. L.27-32 Change to: Climate change is a fundamental challenge that needs to be addressed on a global scale. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, water cycles, ocean acidification sand the frequency and intensity of various climatic and meteorological phenomena are amongst others, effects that have been observed.

Response 5. Accepted (L. 33-36)

Comments 6. L.39 I can’t find this information on the website you are referring to.

Response 6. Corrected. The link is correct. The reference was wrong. Now it is ok (L. 639-640)

Comments 7. L. 90-91 Table 1: Title 3?

Response 7. Corrected (L.94)

Comments 8. L.148 Change to “Number of strategic instruments for climate change adopted by coastal EU member countries in the years 2005 to 2024.”

Response 8. Accepted (L. 160-162). As we have removed figure 1 from the introduction, this figure becomes figure 2.

Comments 9. L.159-162 There is something wrong with this sentence. You should rephrase it. And it would not harm to divide it into two or three sentences.

Response 9. Corrected (L. 171-173)

Comments 10. L.166 Please color code the countries that are in the EU, but have not adopted a NAS or NAP, and indicate it in the legend as well. At the moment non-EU members and EU members without NAS/NAP are color coded the same, which makes it more difficult to get a fast overview. Additionally, you could add information on if the countries are coastal countries, the figure would provide even more information. You could do this by adding a point or line shading for example.

Response 10. Accepted (L.177-178). As we have removed figure 1 from the introduction, this figure becomes figure 3.

Comments 11. L.167 Change to “EU member countries with a NAS (National Adaptation Strategy) and/ or NAP (National Adaptation Plan). EU member countries without national adaptation instruments are color coded in…” I’m also wondering if it would be nice to have a list or table with country names that have adapted a NAS and NAP and those that have not.

Response 11. Accepted. We have changed the title of the figure. Countries without approved instruments are clarified in the legend and in the title (L.179-182). We have not included the list of countries as this information is provided in table 2.

Comments 12. L. 208 I found it difficult to understand what kind analyses you did. To make your study repeatable a more detailed description should be included in the material and methods.

Response 12. Accepted. The methodology has been completely modified (L.217-295).

Comments 13. L. 222-223 You mention which countries were excluded. Could you also mention which countries actually were included?

Response 13. Aceptado. The countries are now mentioned (L.255-268).

Comments 14. L. 242 Figure 5 This figure needs more elaboration. You need to include the total numbers as well. As a suggestion: In the fig caption: How many coastal EU member states in total? In the graph: How many EU member states apply the different approaches? After each key topic include the total number of countries in brackets. Please also color code a bit more intuitive: Natural approach green, and the economic approach in a different color. I also can’t see any order of your key topics. Either alphabetical or according to the largest percentage.

Response 14. Accepted (L.313-318). Total figures have been included.The number of countries per approach is shown next to each key theme as explained in the new title of the figure. More intuitive colours have been included. We have sorted by percentages. As figure 1 has been removed from the introduction, this figure becomes figure 4.

Comments 15. L. 263 Is this the number NAPs and NAS or is it the number of countries that have adopted NAPs and NAS. Please provide a better figure caption. You should also explain what NAPs and NAS stands for since it should be possible to read the figure without the text.

Response 15. Accepted (L.336-337). As figure 1 has been removed from the introduction, this figure becomes figure 5.

Comments 16. L. 290 Be consistent about the use of abbreviations, sometimes you use EU, sometimes European Union and now both.

Response 16. Corrected throughout the article. Added a list of abbreviations (L.625-626)

Comments 17. L. 347 Replace “the” with “that”.

Response 17. Corrected (L. 443)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a comprehensive and well-structured review of adaptation strategies and planning instruments adopted by European Union (EU) coastal countries in response to climate change. The work is timely, policy-relevant, and supported by a solid documentary basis, particularly in light of the increasing vulnerability of coastal zones to sea-level rise, erosion, and extreme events.

The authors have succeeded in synthesizing a broad range of policy instruments and adaptation measures, and have categorized them effectively using the IPCC framework. The focus on local implementation capacity and cross-national comparison is especially valuable. However, the manuscript would benefit from deeper analytical framing in some sections and minor improvements in clarity and academic tone.

I believe this manuscript holds merit for publication, but I recommend minor revisions before final acceptance.

Areas for Improvement

1. Methodological Transparency:

   • While the data sources are outlined (e.g., Climate-ADAPT), there is limited explanation of how documents were systematically reviewed and coded. What criteria determined inclusion? Were qualitative content analysis or any coding procedures applied? Clarifying this would enhance reproducibility.

   • Table 2 includes adaptation measures across countries but lacks quantitative aggregation. A matrix showing the frequency or weight of each measure type per country would add analytical depth.

2. Analytical Depth:

   • The manuscript predominantly reports descriptive findings. A more critical reflection on why certain countries lag behind in implementation, or the role of institutional capacity, funding mechanisms, or governance fragmentation, would be beneficial.

   • Some potentially significant trends—e.g., divergence between northern and southern Europe—are only briefly mentioned. The authors may consider expanding this regional differentiation.

3. Terminological Consistency:

   • The term “ecosystemic” is used instead of the more standard “ecosystem-based” (see lines 292–293). Aligning with IPCC and UNEP terminology would improve clarity and scholarly resonance.

4. Figures and Tables:

   • Figures 3 and 4 illustrate useful trends but would benefit from more detailed captions. Are the instruments shown cumulative adoptions? Are they updated policies or initial ones?

   • Table 2 is informative, but some instrument numbers (e.g., “Instrument 1”) could be more reader-friendly if cross-referenced to country names more directly in the text or a footnote.

5. Language and Style:

   • While the English is generally clear, the manuscript would benefit from minor language polishing for conciseness and academic tone. Some repetitive phrases (e.g., “this is essential” or “these measures are important”) could be replaced with more analytical statements.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewers for their time spent reading our manuscript. The comments and suggestions provided were very helpful in improving this study and were incorporated whenever possible.

Comments 1. While the data sources are outlined (e.g., Climate-ADAPT), there is limited explanation of how documents were systematically reviewed and coded. What criteria determined inclusion? Were qualitative content analysis or any coding procedures applied? Clarifying this would enhance reproducibility.

Response 1. Accepted. The methodology has been completely modified (L.217-295).

Comments 2. Table 2 includes adaptation measures across countries but lacks quantitative aggregation. A matrix showing the frequency or weight of each measure type per country would add analytical depth

Response 2. Accepted. For each adaptation measure, the instrument/country adopting the measure is specified (L.381-385)

Comments 3. The manuscript predominantly reports descriptive findings. A more critical reflection on why certain countries lag behind in implementation, or the role of institutional capacity, funding mechanisms, or governance fragmentation, would be beneficial. Some potentially significant trends—e.g., divergence between northern and southern Europe—are only briefly mentioned. The authors may consider expanding this regional differentiation.

Response 3. Accepted (L.390-412)

Comments 4. The term “ecosystemic” is used instead of the more standard “ecosystem-based” (see lines 292–293). Aligning with IPCC and UNEP terminology would improve clarity and scholarly resonance.

Response 4. Corrected (L.381-385).

Comments 5. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate useful trends but would benefit from more detailed captions. Are the instruments shown cumulative adoptions? Are they updated policies or initial ones?

Response 5. Accepted. As figure 1 has been deleted, figures 3 and 4 become 2 and 3 respectively. In figure 2 a paragraph has been added specifying country and date (L.149-158). In figure 3 the legend has been detailed (L.178).

Comments  6. Table 2 is informative, but some instrument numbers (e.g., “Instrument 1”) could be more reader-friendly if cross-referenced to country names more directly in the text or a footnote.

Response 6. Accepted. In the footer of the table, the instruments are listed by country in alphabetical order (L.383-385)

Comments 7. While the English is generally clear, the manuscript would benefit from minor language polishing for conciseness and academic tone. Some repetitive phrases (e.g., “this is essential” or “these measures are important”) could be replaced with more analytical statements.

Response 7. Accepted. Throughout the document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors
Your manuscript, "Adaptation to climate change in coastal areas of the European Union: An evaluation of plans and strategies,” has valuable ideas. Still, I prefer to provide some recommendations that are not mandatory to be applied. Still, they help to provide better quality for your manuscript, and after resolving them, your manuscript will be ready for publishing. These are as follows:
1.    The “abstract” is good, but I recommend providing some information about the research method before mentioning the outcomes.
2.    Some citations seem strange, for example, line 32 and citations 3 and 4. Please review the entire manuscript and eliminate these kinds of issues.
3.    Using figures in the introduction is uncommon; please relocate Figure 1 to another section and enlarge it so the text can be seen.
4.    All abbreviations must be explained with complete words for the first time and then used—for example, line 59. Rectify the issue, Plz.
5.    Relocate all citations to the end of sentences.
6.    The section “introduction” is very wordy. Depending on your preference, you can provide a section introduction and another section for background or literature review. However, in the current format, the first section is wordy, with a figure, a table, and many uncommon bullet points. The section only needs a brief history, importance of the subject, and then provide some valuable explanations about “main objective”, “research gap”, and “novelty of the issue”, and at the end give a paragraph which illustrates and briefly explains the following sections of the manuscript. As a result, provide a new “introduction” section based on the advice, Plz.
7. What does the research address the main question? Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case. Mention in your explanations in the introduction.
8.    Section 2, entitled "Method and Materials,” has two subsections, one concerning the materials you provided and the other related to methods. Please suitably offer them.
9.    All regulations mentioned, like the IPCC, have the latest updated version; you must use the new versions in your research. Only principal instructions and materials can be retrieved from the original. Please review your references for this issue.
10.    The manuscript sometimes suffers from unsuitable paragraphing. Suitable paragraphs must have fewer than 10 lines, depending on the texts and contexts. For example, between lines 359- 389, there is a paragraph with 30 lines; resolve these issues in the entire manuscript.
11. You have to justify in the methodology how you select these references and materials, and why they are suitable for the manuscript.
12.    The materials after Table 2 belong to the discussion. You have to separate the Results and Discussion sections, and if you would like to merge them, you have to at least provide suitable bullet points and subsections to present which parts are about the findings and which parts are regarding the discussions.
13.    In the “conclusion,” you must provide information regarding the research's main outcome, limitations, and some recommendations for future studies. However, I cannot find any relevant materials. Please provide them.
Thanks for your attention.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewers for their time spent reading our manuscript. The comments and suggestions provided were very helpful in improving this study and were incorporated whenever possible.

Comments 1. The “abstract” is good, but I recommend providing some information about the research method before mentioning the outcomes.

Response 1. Accepted. The abstract has been modified (L.9-28)

Comments 2. Some citations seem strange, for example, line 32 and citations 3 and 4. Please review the entire manuscript and eliminate these kinds of issues.

Response 2. Corrected throughout the manuscript.

Comments 3. Using figures in the introduction is uncommon; please relocate Figure 1 to another section and enlarge it so the text can be seen.

Response 3. Accepted. Figure 1 has been deleted. Its content is explained in the text (L.51-59).

Comments 4. All abbreviations must be explained with complete words for the first time and then used—for example, line 59. Rectify the issue, Plz.

Response 4. Corrected throughout the manuscript. A list of acronyms is included (L.625-626).

Comments 5. Relocate all citations to the end of sentences.

Response 5. Accepted throughout the document.

Comments 6. The section “introduction” is very wordy. Depending on your preference, you can provide a section introduction and another section for background or literature review. However, in the current format, the first section is wordy, with a figure, a table, and many uncommon bullet points. The section only needs a brief history, importance of the subject, and then provide some valuable explanations about “main objective”, “research gap”, and “novelty of the issue”, and at the end give a paragraph which illustrates and briefly explains the following sections of the manuscript. As a result, provide a new “introduction” section based on the advice, Plz.

Response 6. Accepted. It has been specified that part of the introduction is background (L.115) and all these issues are clarified at the end of the introduction (198-216).

Comments 7. What does the research address the main question? Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case. Mention in your explanations in the introduction.

Response 7. Accepted (L.198-207)

Comments 8. Section 2, entitled "Method and Materials,” has two subsections, one concerning the materials you provided and the other related to methods. Please suitably offer them.

Response 8. Accepted. The methodology has been completely modified (L.217-295).

Comments 9. All regulations mentioned, like the IPCC, have the latest updated version; you must use the new versions in your research. Only principal instructions and materials can be retrieved from the original. Please review your references for this issue.

Response 9. We use IPCC 2014 reference because this document specifies the classification of adaptation measures for the first time. The latest report does not refer to the classification of measures.

However, updated regulations have been added. (L.199, 383).

Comments 10. The manuscript sometimes suffers from unsuitable paragraphing. Suitable paragraphs must have fewer than 10 lines, depending on the texts and contexts. For example, between lines 359-389, there is a paragraph with 30 lines; resolve these issues in the entire manuscript.

Response 10. Accepted. Revised throughout the document

Comments 11. You have to justify in the methodology how you select these references and materials, and why they are suitable for the manuscript.

Response 11. Accepted. The methodology has been completely modified (L.217-295).

Comments 12. The materials after Table 2 belong to the discussion. You have to separate the Results and Discussion sections, and if you would like to merge them, you have to at least provide suitable bullet points and subsections to present which parts are about the findings and which parts are regarding the discussions.

Response 12. Accepted. An attempt has been made to clarify in each result which part belongs to the dicusion.

Comments 13. In the “conclusion,” you must provide information regarding the research's main outcome, limitations, and some recommendations for future studies. However, I cannot find any relevant materials. Please provide them.

Response 13. Accepted. A paragraph has been added to clarify this comment (L.601-605).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled: “Adaptation to climate change in coastal areas of the European Union. An evaluation of plans and strategies” is interesting and is devoted to an important topic. The topic of the research was to analyse the instruments and adaptation measures designed to combat the effects of climate change in coastal countries of the European Union (EU). Authors have used 14 information platforms to perform a bibliographic search of technical and scientific documents. In the manuscript, Authors have stressed that coastal areas face considerable pressures leading to their transformation and degradation. Authors have emphasized that coastal areas provide numerous ecological, economic, social, and cultural benefits. These areas play an important role in climate change adaptation because they help to mitigate an impacts of weather events. The obtained results indicate that there has been a significant and progressive increase in the implementation of adaptation plans and strategies that address problems and issues faced by coastal areas. Authors have concluded that the local scale is the most suitable for implementing adaptation measures in the coastal areas.  Authors have emphasized that a significant increase in the development and adoption of adaptation plans and strategies has been observed since 2012.

Below are presented specific comments to the Manuscript: applsci-3603569.

1. The aim of the study was to assess and analyse different adaptation instruments by considering implementation capacities in coastal EU member states. The objective was to provide a comprehensive analysis of strategic instruments and to offer a clear perspective on current adaptive capacities  for improvement within the context of coastal management.     Authors have stressed that the coastal countries are affected more by impacts such as sea level rise, erosion, and marine biodiversity loss.  But, in my opinion, Authors should more precisely specify the main question addressed by the research and what benefits will result from solving this question. In Abstract such research question is not clearly established.

2. The topic is original and relevant to the field. The original contribution of the article is that the analysis includes strategies to counteract climate change in coastal areas. However, in my opinion, the Authors should emphasize more clearly which specific gap in the field addresses the article.
Examples of research questions established in the manuscript could be specified:
•    Is the significant and progressive increase in the adoption of adaption plans and strategies addressing problems faced by coastal areas?
•    Is the local scale the most suitable for implementing adaptation measures?

3. Authors should emphasize what does the research add to the subject area compared with other published material. According to Authors, there is still an imbalance between the application of two approaches: the mitigation and adaptation to the climate change.     Mitigation measures are aimed at reducing GHG emissions but adaptation measures aim to avoid or limit the risks and negative impacts associated with climate change.

4. Regarding the methodology, Authors could explain more detailed why 4 countries are excluded from the analysis.  Why Authors have taken into account only the countries which have updated NAS or NAP after 2014? Are there reasons why these Authors have excluded from the analysis the countries  which instruments were approved before 2014? In my opinion, some of these documents are still actual. For example, some of them describe national strategies for adaptation to climate change by 2020 with the perspective by 2030. Additionally, the 2024 German Climate Adaptation Strategy was adopted by the Federal Cabinet on 11 December 2024.

5. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence. One of the conclusions is that a significant increase in the development and adoption of adaptation plans and strategies has been observed since 2012. The aim of most of these plans is to promote cooperation between different institutions and levels and to ensure the effectiveness and coordination of NAS and NAP. Authors have emphasized that 72% of countries considered in the study have implemented some form of specific adaptation measure along the coastline. The physical-structural measures are predominant, especially ecosystem-based and engineering solutions.     It should be emphasized that Authors should specify the research question to which the conclusions will address.

6.  The references included in the literature review are appropriate.

7.  Below are presented any additional comments on the tables and figures.

• The aim of the research could be better and more precisely defined, eg. in Abstract.
• Authors should more clearly state in the manuscript (e.g. in the Abstract or in the Introduction) what is the main research question and what benefits will result from solving this question.
• Lines 5 – 7: Please, check the affiliations of Authors. All affiliations are the same. Please, check if it is correct?
• Line 83: Please, explain the full name of abbreviation IPCC.
• Line 147: Please, explain more detailed the information included in Figure 3. What do the values ​​on the Y-axis mean? Please explain if they represent the number of adaptation strategies and plans?
• Line 166: In Figure 4 are shown the coastal European Union countries as well as the United Kingdom which is not the EU member. Please, explain whether the analysis included only EU member states or it included EU member states and the UK?
• Line 179: In this line appears the abbreviation DANA. Please, check if the explanation for this abbreviation "Isolated high altitude depression" or “Isolated high level depression” could be better than " isolated depression in the atmosphere".
• Line 263: Figure 6 presents an information on the number of NAPs and NASs. Please clarify whether the values ​​shown on the Y-axis represent the number of NAPs, the number of NASs, or the number of measures and strategies that include both NAPs and NASs?
• Line 434: Please, explain the full name of abbreviation CMCC. Is it Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change?
• Line 451: : Please, explain the full name of abbreviation MaCoBioS.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers who have devoted their time to carefully reading our article. Their comments clarified several points. We have compiled a table summarising the responses to their valuable comments.

Comments 1. The aim of the study was to assess and analyse different adaptation instruments by considering implementation capacities in coastal EU member states. The objective was to provide a comprehensive analysis of strategic instruments and to offer a clear perspective on current adaptive capacities for improvement within the context of coastal management. Authors have stressed that the coastal countries are affected more by impacts such as sea level rise, erosion, and marine biodiversity loss. But, in my opinion, Authors should more precisely specify the main question addressed by the research and what benefits will result from solving this question. In Abstract such research question is not clearly established.

Response 1. Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Accepted (L.198-207)

Comments 2. The topic is original and relevant to the field. The original contribution of the article is that the analysis includes strategies to counteract climate change in coastal areas. However, in my opinion, the Authors should emphasize more clearly which specific gap in the field addresses the article. Examples of research questions established in the manuscript could be specified: • Is the significant and progressive increase in the adoption of adaption plans and strategies addressing problems faced by coastal areas? • Is the local scale the most suitable for implementing adaptation measures?

Response 2. Accepted (L.209-216)

Comments 3. Authors should emphasize what does the research add to the subject area compared with other published material. According to Authors, there is still an imbalance between the application of two approaches: the mitigation and adaptation to the climate change. Mitigation measures are aimed at reducing GHG emissions but adaptation measures aim to avoid or limit the risks and negative impacts associated with climate change.

Response 3. Accepted. We have amended this paragraph and the idea is clarified (L.66-72)

Comments 4. Regarding the methodology, Authors could explain more detailed why 4 countries are excluded from the analysis. Why Authors have taken into account only the countries which have updated NAS or NAP after 2014? Are there reasons why these Authors have excluded from the analysis the countries which instruments were approved before 2014? In my opinion, some of these documents are still actual. For example, some of them describe national strategies for adaptation to climate change by 2020 with the perspective by 2030. Additionally, the 2024 German Climate Adaptation Strategy was adopted by the Federal Cabinet on 11 December 2024.

Response 4. Accepted. The methodology has been completely modified (L.217-295). Germany's NAS 2024 has been added (L.383) and therefore the results of the study have been modified.

Comments 5. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence. One of the conclusions is that a significant increase in the development and adoption of adaptation plans and strategies has been observed since 2012. The aim of most of these plans is to promote cooperation between different institutions and levels and to ensure the effectiveness and coordination of NAS and NAP. Authors have emphasized that 72% of countries considered in the study have implemented some form of specific adaptation measure along the coastline. The physical-structural measures are predominant, especially ecosystem-based and engineering solutions. It should be emphasized that Authors should specify the research question to which the conclusions will address.

Response 5. Accepted. Percentage has changed to include Germany's NAS 2024 (L.593).

Comments 6. The aim of the research could be better and more precisely defined, eg. in Abstract.

Response 6. Accepted. The abstract has been modified (L.11-14 and L.208-216).

Comments 7. Authors should more clearly state in the manuscript (e.g. in the Abstract or in the Introduction) what is the main research question and what benefits will result from solving this question.

Response 7. Accepted (L.198-207)

Comments 8. Lines 5 – 7: Please, check the affiliations of Authors. All affiliations are the same. Please, check if it is correct?

Response 8. Affiliations are correct.

Comments 9. Line 83: Please, explain the full name of abbreviation IPCC.

Response 9. Accepted (L.85)

Comments 10. Line 147: Please, explain more detailed the information included in Figure 3. What do the values on the Y-axis mean? Please explain if they represent the number of adaptation strategies and plans?

Response 10. Accepted (L.159-162). As figure 1 has been deleted from the introduction, this figure becomes figure 2.

Comments 11. Line 166: In Figure 4 are shown the coastal European Union countries as well as the United Kingdom which is not the EU member. Please, explain whether the analysis included only EU member states or it included EU member states and the UK?

Response 11. Corrected. The error in the map has been corrected (L.178). As figure 1 has been removed from the introduction, this figure becomes figure 3.

Comments 12. Line 179: In this line appears the abbreviation DANA. Please, check if the explanation for this abbreviation "Isolated high altitude depression" or “Isolated high level depression” could be better than "isolated depression in the atmosphere".

Response 12. Corrected (L.193)

Comments 13. Line 263: Figure 6 presents an information on the number of NAPs and NASs. Please clarify whether the values ​​shown on the Y-axis represent the number of NAPs, the number of NASs, or the number of measures and strategies that include both NAPs and NASs?

Response 13. Accepted (L.336-337). As we have removed figure 1 from the introduction, this figure becomes figure 5.

Comments 14. Line 434: Please, explain the full name of abbreviation CMCC. Is it Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change?

Response 14. Accepted (L.533-534)

Comments 15. Line 451: Please, explain the full name of abbreviation MaCoBioS.

Response 15. Accepted. (L. 551-552).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

Your revised manuscript, "Adaptation to climate change in coastal countries of the European Union an evaluation of plans and strategies,” has valuable ideas AND also I can see many improvements. Still, I prefer to provide some recommendations that are not mandatory to be applied, but they can help improve the quality of your manuscript. These are as follows:

1. As I mentioned, all citations have to be relocated to the end of sentences. Plz rectify this issue in the entire manuscript.
2. All figures must be modified to accommodate the text inside; the text is too small and is not visible.
3. Section 3 is a mixture of results and discussion. I recommended to separated these two parts and you preferred not to do, it means this section has to have two subsections of results and discussion, the subsection discussion has to have some interpretation based on the authors overview and compare the results with reality and or provide some recommendations, but its full of info from other researches. I recommend that you give this subsection more interpretations and recommendations.
4. You need to provide more detailed information about the study's limitations and recommendations for future research in the field.

Thanks for your attention.

Author Response

The authors again thank reviewer 3 for taking the time to re-read our manuscript. The comments and suggestions provided have been very helpful in improving the submitted manuscript. The suggestions have been largely incorporated. Our responses to the reviewer are given below.

 

Comments 1. As I mentioned, all citations have to be relocated to the end of sentences. Plz rectify this issue in the entire manuscript.

Response 1. Corrected. All citations have been revised (L. 74, 89, 108, 175, 192, 360, 435, 448, 534).

Comments 2. All figures must be modified to accommodate the text inside; the text is too small and is not visible.

Response 2. Corrected. Both letter and figure sizes have been enlarged. (L. 124, 158, 177, 305, 321).

Comments 3. Section 3 is a mixture of results and discussion. I recommended to separated these two parts and you preferred not to do, it means this section has to have two subsections of results and discussion, the subsection discussion has to have some interpretation based on the authors overview and compare the results with reality and or provide some recommendations, but its full of info from other researches. I recommend that you give this subsection more interpretations and recommendations.

Response 3. Accepted. We have incorporated in section, 3. Results and discussion, a subsection for results (3.1.1, L.325-362; and 3.2.1, L.390-583). As advised by the reviewer, we believe that the section is clarified.

Comments 4. You need to provide more detailed information about the study's limitations and recommendations for future research in the field.

Response 4. Accepted. Two paragraphs referring to the limitation of the study and possible future research have been included in the conclusions section (L. 610-625).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf