We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we have revised the discussion to provide a more balanced interpretation of the results. More specifically, we no longer present mobile monitoring as categorically superior, but rather as a practical and cost-effective solution under the specific technical, spatial, and financial conditions of Mohammedia, especially when supported by appropriate error-correction methods. We also strengthened the comparative discussion by organizing the analysis around multiple criteria, including uncertainty, coverage, flexibility, and cost. While a formal multi-criteria decision analysis was not developed as a separate methodological module in this version, the revised manuscript now provides a more structured comparative framework. This change can be found in Section 5 (Discussion).

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable feedback on this point. Based on their input, we have updated our discussion to offer a more balanced perspective on the findings. Instead of positioning mobile monitoring as definitively better than other approaches, we now describe it as a practical and economical option that works well given Mohammedia's particular technical, spatial, and budget constraints, particularly when combined with suitable error-correction techniques. We have also enhanced our comparative analysis by structuring it around several key factors: uncertainty levels, spatial coverage, operational flexibility, and costs. Although we did not create a formal multi-criteria decision analysis as a standalone methodological component in this revision, the updated manuscript now presents a more organized framework for comparison. These modifications appear in Section 5 (Discussion).