The improvements made by the authors are very good and the paper has now progressed in content quality and depth, balanced decription and structure. The authors have taken great efforts and documented their improvements in an excellent manner. This paper is now really a good review and guidance document and should be published.
Very minor recommendations remain:
line 613: ‚floor’ = flood?
line 717: „can easily be scaled up.“ How and in how far is this „easy“? Upscaling usually is difficult and has pitfalls.
Overall, the paper adresses a wide number of indicators in a rather brief way and keeping an overview is sometimes difficult. In order to add more depth and structure, another table, or, flow chart might help, showing how findings in the review of indicators lead to the recommendations in the end. Also, since some of the aspects in the recommendations have not been fully mentioned in the article before. However, given the efforts shown by the authors so far, this is optional. |