Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work undertaken reviews a number of databases on NBS and focuses on the specificities of hilly and mountainous areas. The analysis provided and the presentation of results are very interesting, given the scarcity of similar data.

The manuscript could benefit from a clearer presentation of the methodology adapted, especially since references [5] and [6] are unavailable.

Author Response

First, we would like to thank Reviewer 1 for this review.

Regarding reference [6] is still under review, but reference [5] is available online. As MDPI reference style doesn’t allow URL, we have added a footer note to provide the download URL at the first citation page: https://phusicos.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/D4.1_Task4.1_UNINA_14052019_Final_withAppendicies.pdf

The main changes from original version appear in blue in the revised text.

Reviewer 2 Report

thanks to the authors, interesting activity, especially as a starting point for future developments, I guess.
Very few are the observations I would like to make for this paper:
- there are some Figures I think to be redundant, without adding new information to the work. I am referring to the figures 9-12.
- at line 377 and in the caption of Figure 13, a reference is made to the incomplete name of the cited ambit "technical feasibility", according to table 3, this should be "Technical & economic feasibility".

 

Author Response

First, we would like to thank Reviewer 2 for this review.

Figures 9-12 were actually redundant with Tables 6 - 9. We decided to delete Tables 6 – 9 and slightly modify Figures 9-12 so they present the same information as original tables, plus the visual aspect.

Line 377: the error as been corrected.

The main changes from original version appear in blue in the revised text.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

A very interesting paper describing a useful platform. However, some parts should be improved to create a more organized and clarified paper.

Introduction

• Introduction needs to be improved, including more relevant references regarding NBS to reduce natural risks and environmental issues in hilly and mountainous areas. It is necessary to explain the relevance of these platforms and databases and identify studies about this.
• The objectives of the study must be clearer. In this section you only mentioned the innovative aspects of the database and you should start to clarify the objectives of the paper.

Material and methods

• You started to clearly explain the approach following the scheme logic, but I cannot understand how the ambits and criteria (detailed on the chapter 2.4) were defined through the services identified on existing platforms (following the logic of scheme).
• Please correct on Fig.1 “Analysis of metadata”.
• Appendix A does not correspond to the extracted services, and extracted metadata are repeated on Appendix A and B.
• The point 2.4.2. Qualification of criteria should be more concise. Maybe the Table 4 is unnecessary.

Results

• Pag. 11 Line 229 “platform”
• Pag. 11 Line 235: I think that the use of these marks and numbers is confusing. You should simplify: ”[text]…The three data interface are: database interface, map view and heat map.” Then put sub-title “Database interface”, “Map view” and “Heat Map” underlined or do not put any sub-title, explaining each one along the text.
• The presentation of results is quite extensive. In some cases, where the results are presented in two different forms, you should choose only one.

Discussion and conclusions

• The discussion needs to be improved. Authors should discuss more their findings with the findings of other studies.

 

Author Response

First, we would like to thank Reviewer 3 for this review.

 

Introduction

We have included references regarding NBS, platforms and databases in the §1.1 to precise the context and explain the relevance of these platforms and databases

The objectives of the paper have been clarified in §1.2

 

Material and methods

Regarding the scheme (Figure 1), misunderstanding was probably due to the use of the term “services”. The scheme has been modified to made it clearer and the  “Analysis of metadata” corrected

Appendix were indeed the same tables and this as been corrected

Regarding 2.4.2. we decided to keep Table 4 as we think it clarifies the text. We tried to shorten slightly the text part by deleting some non-useful elements.

 

Results

Pag. 11 Line 229 “platform” was corrected

Pag. 11 Line 235 We followed the reviewer advise and modified marks and numbers accordingly

Figures 9-12 were actually redundant with Tables 6 - 9. We decided to delete Tables 6 – 9 and slightly modify Figures 9-12 so they present the same information as original tables, plus the visual aspect.

Discussion has been modified and the findings are now discussed in the light of other studies.

 

The main changes from original version appear in blue in the revised text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript has taken onboard the original comments.