A Systematic Review of UAVs for Island Coastal Environment and Risk Monitoring: Towards a Resilience Assessment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
the study is very interesting and generally well-written. It can provide useful insights into using UAVs for coastal monitoring and eventually foster similar studies for inland territories.
As you can see below, I have just a few minor comments, that I hope you can find useful for improving the overall quality of the text. I also suggest double-checking the language, as some parts were not easy to read.
Abstract
- in this section, a few more details (e.g., what kind of literature was reviewed, articles or also grey literature? covering what period? etc.) might help readers to have a clearer picture of the study
Methodology
- what period was investigated? From Table 1 it can be seen that all articles are very recent, but it could help provide a more clear rationale of the review at the beginning of section 2.
Results
- maybe section 3.2 can be expanded by comparing what type of sensors were used as a function of the research scope (namely, combining table 2 and table 3). Even if this point is touched on in the text, it might help to have a figure
- as GCPs play a major role in georeferencing, I suggest expanding this section by providing a few info (if available in the cited references) on the uncertainties of each research (e.g., spatial resolution as a function of GCPs). This can help very much in planning future UAV campaigns
Formatting & Language
- please double-check the Journal guidelines for the references
- I suggest using "uncrewed" instead of "unmanned"
- please revise the numbering of the sections to follow the Journal guidelines
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is of interest and has potential. But there are two serious objections:
-The title is long, it can create confusion about the focus of the study.
-The number of papers considered (only 19) is too low to carry out a bibliometric analysis, not even a basic statistical analysis. Tables 1 to 5 don't have much significance. In this sense, and in my opinion, coasts on islands behave similarly to those on the continent, and their study and approach is also similar, so the review should be extended to other coasts.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This review manuscript presents the study of available literature on how UAVs can be used in coastal monitoring on island territories along with available platforms, sensors, software tools, and validation/data acquisition methods. The topic is promising as UAVs have tremendous potential to contribute in these areas. My comments are as follows:- Check format/ref style as per MDPI. References are maintained in different styles, sometimes in brackets or sometimes without brackets.
- There are some typo errors.
- Content of Lines 175 - 177 does not carry any scientific information. Such sentences at different places throughout the manuscript should be avoided. The content should be rich in information and scientific knowledge.
-The review of the platform needs to be rewritten.
- Same case for Lines 195-196
- Instead of putting: A variety of different mission planning software exist, however only 219 Devoto et al. (2020) mentioned which software was utilized for this purpose: it can be rewritten in a softer way. If in the literature, they are not mentioned, the authors can add the other software tools in Table 5.
- Full forms of all acronyms should be mentioned, e.g. IMU, ICP, etc
- Data acquisition/analysis part needs to be strengthened.
- In addition to the literature review, the contributions of the authors are not highlighted. Authors also need to emphasize and discuss their own views. That is most important. In short, scientific content need to be emphasized.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In this second version, it was not possible to see the suggestions previously given. I insist, coasts on islands behave similarly to
those on the continent, and their study and approach is also similar, so the review should be extended to other coasts, and, therefore, the review may make more sense.
Author Response
Please see the attachement.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
All my comments/suggestions are incorporated by the authors in the revised version.
Author Response
My apologies, I have accidentally attached a 2nd round cover letter that was meant for an other reviewer. Please ignore the uploaded report response.
Thank you for your time
Cordially,
Jeremy
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
