Comment: Human impacts …

General: This is a fine overview about a very complex field, and the authors are to be applauded for a good overview. In principle it could be accepted as is, but I take the opportunity to list a few issues, which the authors may want to think about, plus as series of minor points.

1. It would be helpful, I all aspects disused would be introduced with a similar sketch-diagram showing the major and minor influences upon each other.
2. The societal dimension could be covered more seriously. For instance, for tourism, it may matter more the perception of climate change than climate change itself. Also societal preferences may change preferred tourist sites.
   
   Figure 8 places ecosystems in the center- but there should also be “societal system”, which is not really part of the ecosystem (or the rest of the manuscript had to be written differently. In the summary the relationship of society/ecosystem and the role of societal value systems is dealt with in a superfluous manner (characteristic of ecologists)
3. In general, the historical dimension is a bit weak. What about “pristine”/”undisturbed” conditions, earlier “strange” events; so far it is almost entirely on conditions since 1950 or 1990. (e.g., 6.4, 6.12)
4. In the section of shipping, the issue of using different fuels should be mentioned, also the effect of phasing out crude oil (also 6.14)
5. In general: reduce the list of linkages wot significant ones, and mention: “the issues X, y, and z likely are insignificant.”
6. In Sec 6.1, the issues: effect of aerosol emissions and of land use need to be listed aa major issues in the knowledge gaps.
7. In Sec 6.8 – the issue of cities should be addressed.
8. Why have big constructions not been addressed – this was a big issue some years ago, and partly still so (Fehmarn belt tunnel).

Minor

• Both tables are hard to read.
• line 295: authors’
• 328: I guess this is not so much an issue of the latitudinal position but of the fact that most of Earth is covered by the ocean, but that the sa is only a minor part of the Baltic Sea region.
• 355: warming of the … why so?
• 363 – the numerical estimate of sa level rise – still valid in view of the new IPCC report; also this number MUST be associated with a time horizon – when?
• 545 – emissions of chemicals …
• 604 – “unfortunate” for whom?
• 623 – “dangerous” – for whom?
• 630 ff – needs better structuring. Why “as a consequence”?
• 643 – What is the “running out of sand”-concept”?
• 695ff – unclear; what does the sentence “nt a total load …” tells the reader?
• 801 – a repetition
• 823 – are these significant effects or just something tny? How much “may speed up corrosion”?
• Figure 2 – needed?
• 892 – “importance of short-term variability” – consisting of what?
• 1067 – BSAP?
• 1095 – refer to climate change section
• 1105ff – us fold face key words.
• 1181 – “driving a regime shift through” sound a bit Germanic.
• 1255 – “projected decrease in the South” was earlier declared uncartein.
• 1285 – “migration” – of whom?
• 1323ff something missing
• 1335 – “loss of social welfare” - hm, this may be a value-based assertion by a friend of pristine ecosystems
• 1355 – I remember that kay Emeis had an early key paper on this.
• 1448 – what does blue and blue-green stand for?
• 1475 – More probable – why?
• 1480 – add number for usage of wind energy.
• 1601 – delete – trivial and vague; same with 1608
• 1658 – “An engineering” – much too general an assessment.
• 1664 – “periodicity of climate” – what shall that be: annual cycle?
• 1728 – deepening
• 1774 – “gentle” is not an adequate word.
• 1882 – There are --- which?
• 1836 – Anholt is in the Baltic Sea?
• 1856 – discussed before
• 1870 – what are black waters, what grey waters?
• 1876 – Kadet
• 2935 – one scenario or an ensemble of scenarios?
• 2308 – something I was wondering while reading: what about military ships and military exercises?
• Figure 6 carries no informational value
• 2378 – very general statement
• 2394- detrimental – for whom? This is related to values.
• Figure 7 – significant for the paper?
• 2447 – so what?
• 2813 – farms
• 2982 “eradication of hunger” – hu? This is a key point in the UN millenniums goals.
• 3145 – what is “blue growth”?

This manuscript is an ambitious endeavour, covering very much fild. The topic is very important and I congraturlate the authors for taking up the challenge.

However I think some major improvements need to be done with the manuscript.

First of all, it is a review paper, yet the methods of the review have not been outlined at all. While a full systematic review might be too much to carry out, the methods of article finding and selection should be clearly explained and - to the extent possible - repeatable. 

Secondly, the criteria for the #+# and "?" categories should be clearly defined and constant throughout the article. This is not currently the case. For example, on r. 1106 -> and 1118, it says there is a + effect, but there are no references to back up these claims. On row 1120 the text says "may be" but it is marked as +, not as ?, and the given reference doesn't relate to tourism at all. 

Secondly, the paper is uncecessarily long. It covers a lot of ground, which makes it long by necessity, but that being the case, the authors should be extra careful to include only relevant information. At the moment, the introductory  sections for each pressure are waty too detailed. It would serve the paper better to just give the necessary amount of backgroud that is needed to understand the bullet points below, not give a general review of tghe pressure.

I recommend thet the authors

• shorten the manuscript considerably
• check the consustency of the criteria of teh + and ? classes across all of the work (also considering the joint effects that are implicitly considered as missing!)
• outline the review process