Geoscience for Cities: Delivering Europe’s Sustainable Urban Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article considers the role of urban geosciences in helping to achieve goals and highlights the relevance of geology to urban subsurface planning and wider EU policies and strategies. The results of this article demonstrate the value of urban geoscience for different urban challenges is important for the onboarding of influential stakeholders, less so in terms of direct revenue from urban geoscience data and research; demonstrating the multiple benefits of nature-based solutions; or risk reduction in hazardous urban environments. Or even demonstrating that knowledge from consistent non-geological organizations creates or improves the diversity of geological communities. Impact analyses covering urban geoscience coverage and knowledge sharing through best practices are needed. This well-organized article with meaningful and in-depth research is recommended for publication in this journal. Here are a few suggestions for revision:

1. Figure 1 is not aesthetically pleasing enough and it is recommended that it be modified to use some saturated colors.

2. Figure 3 is a bit disorganized overall and you can't see the point, so I suggest revising it.

3. Line 323 is blank.

4. Figure 4 is not clear enough.

5. Both 604th and 607th are Figure 4, please check them clearly.

6. It is suggested to conclude with a general statement and write some policy recommendations given based on this study.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

This article considers the role of urban geosciences in helping to achieve goals and highlights the relevance of geology to urban subsurface planning and wider EU policies and strategies. The results of this article demonstrate the value of urban geoscience for different urban challenges is important for the onboarding of influential stakeholders, less so in terms of direct revenue from urban geoscience data and research; demonstrating the multiple benefits of nature-based solutions; or risk reduction in hazardous urban environments. Or even demonstrating that knowledge from consistent non-geological organizations creates or improves the diversity of geological communities. Impact analyses covering urban geoscience coverage and knowledge sharing through best practices are needed. This well-organized article with meaningful and in-depth research is recommended for publication in this journal. Here are a few suggestions for revision:

1. Figure 1 is not aesthetically pleasing enough and it is recommended that it be modified to use some saturated colors.

We prefer to retain the colour scheme for this figure to allow for black and white print options.

2. Figure 3 is a bit disorganized overall and you can't see the point, so I suggest revising it.

We agree it could be improved. We have improved the figure to enhance clustering and colour to enhance the linkages. Text in the paper has been updated.

3. Line 323 is blank.

Corrected.

4. Figure 4 is not clear enough.

We have submitted clearer revised versions of figure 4 and 5.

5. Both 604th and 607th are Figure 4, please check them clearly.

Now corrected to refer to figure 4 and figure 5.

6. It is suggested to conclude with a general statement and write some policy recommendations given based on this study.

The discussion section has been edited to include more reference to policy implications and draw out some recommendations. Please see lines 639-646, lines 662-664, lines 670-671, lines 676-679, lines 696-671 and 724-726. We prefer to make these additions to the discussion, throughout the commentary rather than have a new section for this.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting and current topic with an alignment on the issue of geosciences for cities, which can promote studies on urban sustainability. It is only suggested to give more consistency to the results, for example, figure 3 (?) - numbering is as figure 4 (line 604). By better explaining this result and analyzing this figure, it will be possible to understand the impacts

Furthermore, the result in Figure 3 (? - line 604) failed to align with Figure 4 (line 607). How did you arrive at this graph and what does it mean? Expand the analysis.

Table 2 is an important result, but it is not well substantiated

In the results, it should be further developed which elements can be treated based on this information and what impacts from this. The results are very simplistic and do not help understanding the importance of the research.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Interesting and current topic with an alignment on the issue of geosciences for cities, which can promote studies on urban sustainability. It is only suggested to give more consistency to the results, for example, figure 3 (?) - numbering is as figure 4 (line 604). By better explaining this result and analyzing this figure, it will be possible to understand the impacts

Furthermore, the result in Figure 3 (? - line 604) failed to align with Figure 4 (line 607). How did you arrive at this graph and what does it mean? Expand the analysis.

The figure numbering has been corrected. The text associated with the figures 3 and 4 has also been revisited to make the relevance clearer.

Table 2 is an important result, but it is not well substantiated

We agree this could be improved and have updated the text to provide more explanation of Table 2.

In the results, it should be further developed which elements can be treated based on this information and what impacts from this. The results are very simplistic and do not help understanding the importance of the research.

The text associated with the tables and figures has been updated to provide more context for the results.

IMPROVE: Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

We have amended the introduction section to include a sub-section 1.1 to concisely outline the aim/methods.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This work is a kind of state of the art at the confluence between geology and urban planning in Europe. It has three parts: one, let's say, structural in which the sustainable development objectives of the United Nations and the policies of the European Union in this field come into play, the second consists of the systematization of urban problems related to the geosciences related by a panel of experts in 2020 (EuroGeoSurveys). This relationship gives way to the third and fourth sections, the first, let's say more conventional, the second related to issues related to computerization processes. This manuscript is relevant and I value it positively, but it requires some modification and the correction of some material errors

Firstly, I do not consider that there is a clear and unequivocal statement of the objectives pursued. This may lead to some confusion for the reader, I recommend that your goals be made more clear and concise.

Second, regarding material errors:  The sections Data-Driven decision making (line 493) and discussion (615) have the same section number

The figures on lines 603 and 6060 have the same order number

 

In figure 4 (line 603), its title within the graph, has an asterisk at the end that I don't know what it refers to. On the other hand, the fact that the graphics contain a title inside that is repeated on the figure label, I don't know what it contributes.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question is the role of geological issues in urban surface planning and wider EU policy and strategy. In principle, it exist a gap between this topics because different scales (city, EU space), but the urban planning depends in some extent for European policies.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? This question is answered in previous response. Its exist a risk of gap, but in the EU case the European directives conditioning the solution a local problems, this is just the case
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? I think so, I appreciate the analysis of link sustainable goals – European directives – urban surface planning and his challenges
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? In my opinion this is a weakness in this work, it lacks of this part… I understand this approach as a review of urban trajectories and policies in European countries, but I miss a personal approach to some particular cases  
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed? No conclusion included, only a discussion part ended this work. This part is consistent with the issues, but they failed in address the main question, in this way, although it is discussed throughout the work, they do not express a sufficiently clear idea on this topic
6. Are the references appropriate? The bibliography is adequate
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. The figure 2 needs additional comments, otherwise this figure should be deleted

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This work is a kind of state of the art at the confluence between geology and urban planning in Europe. It has three parts: one, let's say, structural in which the sustainable development objectives of the United Nations and the policies of the European Union in this field come into play, the second consists of the systematization of urban problems related to the geosciences related by a panel of experts in 2020 (EuroGeoSurveys). This relationship gives way to the third and fourth sections, the first, let's say more conventional, the second related to issues related to computerization processes. This manuscript is relevant and I value it positively, but it requires some modification and the correction of some material errors

Firstly, I do not consider that there is a clear and unequivocal statement of the objectives pursued. This may lead to some confusion for the reader, I recommend that your goals be made more clear and concise.

We have updated the introduction to include a sub-section 1.1 to concisely describe the aims and method, to help focus the reader. We would like to acknowledge that this paper is more of a review paper and does necessarily follow the traditional method of aim-method-results. We have done our best to the objectives clear in this edit.

Second, regarding material errors:  The sections Data-Driven decision making (line 493) and discussion (615) have the same section number

The numbering of the sections has been corrected.

The figures on lines 603 and 6060 have the same order number

 The numbering of the figures has been corrected.

In figure 4 (line 603), its title within the graph, has an asterisk at the end that I don't know what it refers to. On the other hand, the fact that the graphics contain a title inside that is repeated on the figure label, I don't know what it contributes.

The figure caption for figures 4 and 5 has been updated to make clearer that the * refers to the sample size i.e. that twenty of the GSOs responded to the survey.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The main question is the role of geological issues in urban surface planning and wider EU policy and strategy. In principle, it exist a gap between this topics because different scales (city, EU space), but the urban planning depends in some extent for European policies.
   Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
   address a specific gap in the field? This question is answered in previous response. Its exist a risk of gap, but in the EU case the European directives conditioning the solution a local problems, this is just the case
   3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
   material? I think so, I appreciate the analysis of link sustainable goals – European directives – urban surface planning and his challenges
   4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
   methodology? What further controls should be considered? In my opinion this is a weakness in this work, it lacks of this part… I understand this approach as a review of urban trajectories and policies in European countries, but I miss a personal approach to some particular cases  

We have adjusted the introduction to include a sub-section 1.1 on aims and method to concisely describe the aims and method, to help focus the reader. We would like to acknowledge that this paper is more of a review paper and does necessarily follow the traditional method of aim-method-results. We have done our best to the objectives clear in this edit.

5. 
   Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
   and do they address the main question posed? No conclusion included, only a discussion part ended this work. This part is consistent with the issues, but they failed in address the main question, in this way, although it is discussed throughout the work, they do not express a sufficiently clear idea on this topic

The discussion section has been edited to include more reference to policy and draw out some recommendations. Please see lines 639-646, lines 662-664, lines 670-671, lines 676-679, lines 696-671 and 724-726.

6. 
   Are the references appropriate? The bibliography is adequate
   7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.The figure 2 needs additional comments, otherwise this figure should be deleted

We have added additional text to describe the relevance of Figure 2.