We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we have revised the manuscript to state the objectives and contribution of the study more explicitly. More specifically, we introduced a dedicated subsection defining four main objectives: comparing fixed and mobile stations in terms of precision, spatial coverage, flexibility, and cost; proposing a theoretical dynamic correction model; developing a cost–benefit evaluation framework; and assessing spatial representativeness in Mohammedia through scenario-based modeling. We also clarified the manuscript’s main contribution as the integration of uncertainty analysis, spatial coverage estimation, and long-term cost assessment into one analytical framework tailored to medium-sized industrial cities. This change can be found in Section 2.6 (Research Objectives and Contributions).

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback on this matter. Following their suggestion, we have updated the manuscript to present our study's objectives and contributions with greater clarity. We added a specific subsection that outlines four primary goals: evaluating fixed versus mobile monitoring stations across dimensions of accuracy, spatial reach, adaptability, and expense; creating a theoretical model for dynamic corrections; establishing a framework for cost-benefit analysis; and examining spatial representation in Mohammedia using scenario-driven modeling approaches. Additionally, we have better defined our main contribution, which centers on combining uncertainty analysis, spatial coverage assessment, and long-term cost evaluation within a single analytical framework designed specifically for medium-sized industrial cities. These revisions appear in Section 2.6 (Research Objectives and Contributions).