This manuscript represents a significant contribution, introducing a much-needed tool for the identification of KBA. The only big addition would the inclusion of a discussion section. Within this section, it would be beneficial to compare this tool's advantage to other approaches and explore its limitations, specially of how the tool processes varity of data types and the impact of spatial unit size on KBA identification—as outlined in the methods section through an example—would add substantial value.

Regarding specific sections:

Line 32: Please reference the original source of the information

Line 37-42: Clarify the differences between the spatial unit and data type, detailing their separate effects on identifying KBAs and how the KBAscope tool addresses these issues.

Line 64-66: Additional explanation is needed to justify the exclusion of criteria.

Line 69-70: Describe the KBAscope package's outputs more precisely, including the spatial data and summary results.

Line 73: Are the authors considering making the KBAscope package available on CRAN for broader access?

Line 79: Clarify the types of data formats KBAscope can handle, such as population data, point localities, and rasters.

Line 80: List all spatial units compatible with KBAscope, like hydrobasins and hexagonal grids.

Line 95-97: Explain how the package obtains and uses global population data, this is the fist time that is mentioned in the text

Line 104-113: Discuss the impact of using various types of data on the scoping analysis and why these different data types are used.

Line 125-127: Please rephrase these sentences for better clarity.

Line 131: Provide more reasons for choosing these particular artificial cathegories over others categorised from the artificial surfaces (category 1).

Line 147: Clarify which criteria were used to select the grid cell size. Is the 4km size applicable in other situations, or should users adjust the grid size based on their specific study areas?

Line 156: It would good to discuss why Gastropoda species constitute a majority in triggering KBA identification. The discussion should consider whether this is due to the species' characteristics, such as restricted ranges or threat levels, or if it results from the chosen methodology, including data usage and grid size.

Code for KBAscope workflow: It would be beneficial to be supplemented with additional comments and explanations of the code. This enhancement would support users in reproducing the provided example and improve the usability of the package for other study cases.

The manuscript presents a useful tool, and the authors have appropriately addressed most of the comments by previous reviewers.
I agreed with the authors in disputing the first reviewer's critique regarding the utilization of density data. While density data or the count of mature individuals is considered the ideal dataset for identifying KBA, the guidelines for KBA do acknowledge the use of alternative data types, such as species range, as valid.
However, I believe there is a need for a more detailed discussion of the limitations of the tool. A comprehensive examination of these limitations could provide insight into why certain KBA criteria are overlooked, the reasons behind birds not triggering any KBA, and why gastropods are predominantly responsible for KBA triggers.
Regarding the specific comments on the manuscript:
Lines 68-70: The authors' response to the request for further justification on the exclusion of certain criteria seems inadequate.
Lines 89-90: The statement that "Some of these data types might not be necessary if only certain KBA criteria are applied" requires clarification. It would benefit the authors to specify which data types are essential for each criterion.
Additionally, testing the package in varied environments, such as marine and riverine ecosystems, could significantly demonstrate its applicability across different ecological realms. This would not only enhance the tool's versatility but also validate its effectiveness in a broader range of biodiversity conservation scenarios.