Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript could not be accepted for publication in the present form.

(1) There should be more in-depth discussion of the topic, on such as the difficulties of different measures.

(2) The writing should be improved, at least to avoid the repetition of a whole paragraph. For example, the first and the third paragraphs of section 2.3.2 had appeared in the introduction.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. You may find my detailed responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. You may find my detailed responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript tried to review coastal protection by using artificial and natural facilities with a focus on wave attenuation by mangroves. The topic is good. However, the manuscript is not well written. Some key papers are not included in the manuscript such that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication. The following comments may help to improve the manuscript.

Major comments:

1.       Content: This manuscript reviewed both hard engineering techniques and nature-based facilities. The review for hard engineering techniques is based on out-of-date papers. The review of nature-based facilities is not sound. For example, all the equations (1),(2), and (3) are similar. The experiments on wave attenuation by mangroves are not reliable. Why not review more reliable experiments conducted in the lab or the field? For example, the field observation by Horstman et al. (2014, Coastal Engineering), the lab experiments by Maza et al. (2019, Advances in Water Resources), and the numerical modeling by Maza et al. (2015, Coastal Engineering).

2.       Some key papers should be included in the manuscript. For example:

a.       Temmerman, S., Horstman, E. M., Krauss, K. W., Mullarney, J. C., Pelckmans, I., & Schoutens, K. (2022). Marshes and Mangroves as Nature-Based Coastal Storm Buffers. Annual Review of Marine Science, 15.

b.       Menéndez, P., Losada, I. J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S., & Beck, M. W. (2020). The global flood protection benefits of mangroves. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1-11.

c.       Horstman, E. M., Dohmen-Janssen, C. M., Narra, P. M. F., Van den Berg, N. J. F., Siemerink, M., & Hulscher, S. J. (2014). Wave attenuation in mangroves: A quantitative approach to field observations. Coastal Engineering, 94, 47-62.

d.       Maza, M., Lara, J. L., & Losada, I. J. (2019). Experimental analysis of wave attenuation and drag forces in a realistic fringe Rhizophora mangrove forest. Advances in Water Resources, 131, 103376.

e.       Narayan, S., Beck, M. W., Reguero, B. G., Losada, I. J., Van Wesenbeeck, B., Pontee, N., ... & Burks-Copes, K. A. (2016). The effectiveness, costs, and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based defences. PloS one, 11(5), e0154735.

f.        Morris, R. L., Konlechner, T. M., Ghisalberti, M., & Swearer, S. E. (2018). From grey to green: Efficacy of eco‐engineering solutions for nature‐based coastal defence. Global change biology, 24(5), 1827-1842.

g.       Slinger, J., Stive, M., & Luijendijk, A. (2021). Nature-based solutions for coastal engineering and management. Water, 13(7), 976.

I would suggest the authors read Temmerman et al. (2022)'s review on mangroves as nature-based coastal protection carefully. I am sure it would help to improve the manuscript. 

 Minor comments:

The paragraph above equation (1): what are CH3 and CH2? Hi is conventionally described as the incident wave height.

 

List of Symbols: Em0,i is suggested as incident rather than transmitted. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. You may find my detailed responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please go through the whole manuscript carefully and reduce any duplicate descriptions.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our work and we appreciate your effort and good comments.

We have checked the work and made necessary corrections.

All repetitive descriptions are reduced.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no further comments for the authors.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing our work and we appreciate your effort and good comments.

We have checked the work and made necessary corrections.