[½»Á÷] µÚһƪÆÚ¿¯ÂÛÎÄͶ¸å£¬Çë´óÉñ¿´¿´ÎÒÕâÉó¸åÒâ¼û¿´ÕâƪÂÛÎÄÓÐûÓÐÏ·

ͶÁËһƪAAP£¬µÚÒ»ÂÖÖ÷±àÈÃmajor revision£¬Ð޺úóµÚ¶þÂÖÉó¸åÖ÷±àÈÔȻҪÐ޸ģ¬ÕâʱºòÉó¸åÈ˵ÄÒâ¼ûֻʣһ¸öÈ˵ÄÁË£¬Ò»¸öÔºóÐ޻ء£Ä¿Ç°ÔÚµÚÈýÂÖÉó¸å½×¶Î£¬»¹Çë´óÉñ°ïæ¿´¿´µÚ¶þÂÖµÄÒâ¼û£¬¿´ÕâƪÂÛÎÄÓÐûÓÐÏ·°É£¬ÁíÍâÒ²ÏëÎÊÎÊÒ»°ãµÚÈýÂÖÉó¸å¶à¾Ã¿ÉÒÔÖªµÀ½á¹û¡£¸½µÚ¶þÂÖÉó¸åÈËÒâ¼û£º Reviewer #2: The paper deals with a really important matter, such as the safety and risk management related to the vessel traffic. The paper is generally well written and also well structured. Despite this some minor revisions are still needed before considering the paper suitable for publication. First of all some typos are still present and in some parts of the work a linguistic revision might improve the overall quality of the paper. Moreover, even if the paper has been modified, some points remain unclear: the methodology (e.g. the indexes and their application) is not well explained and then it is hard to fully understand it (or how the indexes are calculated or "applied". Moreover, I would suggest the authors to improve the conclusive remarks since it is still not clear the contribution of the paper in terms of originality, policy implications and the possibility to generalize the proposed method to other contexts.

»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥