We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we have revised the abstract to include the main quantitative outcomes of the study. More specifically, we now report the estimated uncertainty range of fixed stations (approximately 1.2–2.5%), the estimated spatial coverage of fixed and mobile systems (about 0.534 km² or 1.6% for fixed stations versus about 9.8 km² or 30% for mobile monitoring under the study assumptions), the deployment time (2–4 weeks for fixed stations versus 2–4 hours for mobile units), and the 10-year life-cycle cost comparison (EUR 3.6 million for 20 fixed stations versus EUR 252,000 for 6 mobile units). We also revised the text to ensure consistency with the analytical assumptions used in the manuscript and therefore replaced earlier overly optimistic estimates with more conservative scenario-based values. This change can be found in the Abstract, Section 4.1.1, Section 4.1.2, and Section 4.1.4.

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback on this matter. Following their suggestion, we have updated the abstract to incorporate the study's primary quantitative findings. The revised version now includes the uncertainty range for fixed stations, which we estimate at roughly 1.2-2.5%. We also present spatial coverage comparisons showing that fixed and mobile systems cover approximately 0.534 km² (1.6%) and 9.8 km² (30%) respectively, based on our study parameters. Additionally, we report deployment timeframes of 2-4 weeks for fixed stations compared to 2-4 hours for mobile units. The 10-year life-cycle cost analysis reveals EUR 3.6 million for 20 fixed stations against EUR 252,000 for 6 mobile units. We have also updated the manuscript text to align with our analytical framework, substituting the previous overly optimistic projections with more realistic scenario-based estimates. These revisions appear throughout the Abstract, Section 4.1.1, Section 4.1.2, and Section 4.1.4.