Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Irhamand co-authors investigated the topic of the coastal morphology of the west coast of Aceh Besar (ID). They specifically evaluate the coastal vulnerability through the Coastal Vulnerability Index (CVI), and considering the following parameters:

• geomorphology;
• beach elevation;
• beach slope;
• shoreline changes.

The authors found that the west coast of Aceh Besar, with a total coastline length of 93.2 km, is characterized by:

• very high vulnerability for 19.2 km;
• high vulnerability for 21.6 km;
• moderate vulnerability for 8.2 km;
• low vulnerability for 6 km;
• very low vulnerability for 38.2 km.

General comment:

• The title and abstract are appropriate for the content of the text.

• The introduction could be improved and better structured. It is important to better define the topic and your objectives to valorize the work. What is the problem that you are studying? What are the main limitations? What do you want to achieve with your research?

• The quality of all Figures is very poor, and it makes it difficult to read.

• It seems that Authors don’t followed the “MDPI Reference Formatting Guides”.

• I don’t know if it is a compatibility error, but I can’t see the contents of Table 1.

• It is necessary a deep review of the English and refuse, for example:
  • line 102. The Data Colection -> Data Collection;
  • line 103. The data used -> The used data;
  • line 103. The data used include primary data and secondary data;
  • line 113. The calculation of the coastal vulnerability index value was carried out by the concept of calculating the coastal vulnerability index;
  • line 184. elevasion -> elevation;
  • Table 2. Parameter 3, insert the website between brackets;
  • Table 3. Sourves -> Sources;
  • Table 3. Close the brackets;
  • Table 4. Hight -> High.

• Table 2. I suggest removing the column “Period” since it's the same for all the data.

• Lines 186-193. Why did you underline the text?

• Please, use Erosion instead of Abrasion.  Abrasion means “the gradual rubbing away of the surface of rock, for example, by other rock, water, or a glacier” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2021)

• Line 225 - The accuracy of the analysis relative to the shoreline change is impressive. How did you evaluate the shoreline advance/retreat with these accuracy (0.01 m) by use of Satellite images? What the procedure followed to plot the graph in Figure 8?

In conclusion:

• the introduction needs major rewriting for sense and flow;
• hypothesis and objective are not clearly defined;
• some procedures are unclear;
• tables and figures need major work;
• the study has the potential to advance knowledge if key component of the paper will be better presented;
• some data used to calculate coastal vulnerability are not presented;
• writing style needs major rewriting to improve clarity.

In my opinion, the present paper needs a major revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript carefully and thoroughly.

Here are our responses to all suggestions, feedback and comments on the articles we wrote (Please find the attachment). We hope this response will be your consideration.

Thank you very much

Best Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Irham is an overview on the coastal vulnerability of an Indonesian region, i.e. Aceh Besar. The CVI is evaluated based on four different parameters, this providing a characterization that goes from very low to very high vulnerability.

I think that some improvements are required, especially because some passages should be better explained, while other aspects either should be included or their exclusion should be motivated.

All along the text, the English use must be improved, as many points are not clear, many typos and grammar mistakes exist. Because of this, I suggest a thorough check of the whole document.

In detail, when introducing the location in both abstract and sections 1 and 2, a wider/regional context should be added. As an example, a reader can be not aware of the geographical area (Indonesia) by reading the abstract.

Further, the Indonesia map should be included in fig.1, to better figure out the investigated location.

In the introduction, many aspects of the coastal vulnerability are missing. The authors should refer to some recent works that collect the most important aspects to be accounted for during such an evaluation, also in view of the human impact and the recent evolution of our common habits, e.g. see Kantamaneni et al. (2019), Bukvic et al. (2020), Anfuso et al. (2021), Armenio et al. (2021).

As far as I can see in section 2.2.3 (and also based on what stated in the last paragraph of section 1), only some aspects of the coastal morphology are taken into account, while many others have been disregarded, e.g. sea-level rise, tsunami. I know that considering all of them is hard, but a brief explanation on the reason to only choose four parameters should be provided. A brief discussion on the potential role of the inclusion of the sea forcing could be added (e.g., see Anfuso et al., 2021 and references therein).

Still in section 2.2.3, the used parameters should be carefully explained, e.g. where is the beach elevation evaluated? is the coastal slope an averaged value along the cross-shore direction? how is the shoreline change evaluated?

In tab.3 and throughout the text, please use “accretion” (check everywhere), and replace “abrasion” with “erosion” (which looks more suitable).

I did not understand whether DEMNAS or field data are used. Please clearly state the used procedure in section 3.2.

The statement at L218-219 is not consistent with percentages in tab.7 (Peukanbada in place of Lhoknga, if I am correct).

In fig.6, is the legend correct? Why is meter (“m”) used as the unit?

I have some concerns about the choice of vulnerability ranges for coastline change (section 3.4 and tab.3): if the shoreline does not move at all (e.g. because we have cliffs), this should mean a very low vulnerability and not to a moderate vulnerability. Please well clarify this point in the text.

In the conclusion, I would replace “ ± ” signs (not suitable in this case) with something indicating an approximation, e.g. “ ~ ”.

Please expand a little this section, also recalling the important parameters that have not been used in the present analysis, trying to give some hints about their potential role.

Specific issues

• Please amend “hight” with “high” everywhere in the text.
• L20: something missing in this line.
• L46-48: please revise this sentence, which is a bit awkward.
• L67: where is Purworejo district located?
• 1: is this useful?
• L145-147: please reword this sentence.
• L183-185: please reword this sentence.

References

Anfuso, G., Postacchini, M., Di Luccio, D., & Benassai, G. (2021). Coastal Sensitivity/Vulnerability Characterization and Adaptation Strategies: A Review. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(1), 72.

Armenio, E., Mossa, M., & Petrillo, A. F. (2021). Coastal vulnerability analysis to support strategies for tackling COVID-19 infection. Ocean & Coastal Management, 105731.

Bukvic, A., Rohat, G., Apotsos, A., & de Sherbinin, A. (2020). A systematic review of coastal vulnerability mapping. Sustainability, 12(7), 2822.

Kantamaneni, K., Sudha Rani, N. N. V., Rice, L., Sur, K., Thayaparan, M., Kulatunga, U., ... & Campos, L. C. (2019). A systematic review of coastal vulnerability assessment studies along Andhra Pradesh, India: A critical evaluation of data gathering, risk levels and mitigation strategies. Water, 11(2), 393.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript carefully and thoroughly.

Here are our responses to all suggestions, feedback and comments on the articles we wrote. We hope this response will be your consideration.

Thank you very much

Best Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

Although the paper subject is relevant and actual, there are some flaws within the manuscript that prevents its publication in the current form. The manuscript is mainly supported by open access data that is not properly described by the authors. Even the few field data referred within the text is not properly presented. It not not possible therefore to evaluate if the data fits the work's need (e.g. spatial resolution, acquisition method, validation, etc.). Also, the quality of presentation is poor and do not meet peer reviewed journals standards. I strongly recommend you to focus on the quality (and adequacy) of the data used in order to allow you to draw reliable conclusions regarding your work. Currently, the amount of open access data is huge and it is part of our role (as a scientific community) to filter and evaluate the quality of data to be used under the scope of a research work. T

I sincerely hope this can contribute to the development of the scientific team involved in this work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript carefully and thoroughly.

Here are our responses to all suggestions, feedback and comments on the articles we wrote. We hope this response will be your consideration.

Thank you very much

Best Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Despite the brief time for reviewing the paper, the authors have significantly improved their manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted in the present form. Before the last submission, I suggest to improve the quality of the figures 2 3 4 5 7 9: these are very important in this work and actually are unreadable. Attached a figure on how I see it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript carefully and thoroughly.

Here are our responses to all suggestions, feedback and comments on the articles we wrote. We hope this response will be your consideration.

Thank you very much

Best Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am glad that the authors improved the manuscript, which is now almost ready for publication.

Just a minor issue to be addressed. I understand the use of literature approaches for the classification of the coastal slope vulnerability, but I would spend more words in section 2.2.3 on such classification, e.g. better explaining and commenting parameter 3 of table 2.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript carefully and thoroughly.

Here are our responses to all suggestions, feedback and comments on the articles we wrote. We hope this response will be your consideration.

Thank you very much

Best Regards

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Looking to both manuscripts versions (original and revised) I verify that minor changes were carried out, even figures quality was not improved. Also, methods are still poorly described, preventing further evaluation of the results and discussion. For example, there is no reference to the field work carried out in the scope of this work. What kind of field data was collected? How it was surveyed? I apologize but in my opinion the manuscript does not not meet peer reviewed journals standards and it is not in good shape for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript carefully and thoroughly.

Here are our responses to all suggestions, feedback and comments on the articles we wrote. We hope this response will be your consideration.

Thank you very much

Best Regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf