MAGUS (Model for the Analysis of Geomorphological Urban Systems): From Conception to Validation on the Historic City Center of Turin (Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Submitting my review for your paper I would suggest some major revisions.

The referencing in introduction is not wide and complete, in my opinion the scientific literature about urban areas delineation and the methods for the urban expansion analysis should be explored.

The objectives of your study are not very clearly stated in the introduction. The aim declared, to present and test MAGUS, is not supported by a clear research question, some aspects in the model are not well described or just intentions and the results about Turin urban expansion sounds not novel compared to the premises. 

The method description is very short, much is entrusted to the workflow figure. It is not robust how you describe the surface analysis and how you integrate it to urban expansion analysis for geomorphological interpretation and mapping. The use of data for surface analysis is not well described (the source of DTM used is not mentioned, reading conclusions I wondered if it is an historical DTM one obtained from historical topographic maps).

Results presentation is not well organized in section 3.1 and 3.2, but due to the lacking in methodology description it is not clear what you obtained in section 3.3. In general, geomorphological aspects are poor in your study (geomorphological setting need more referencing, methodological approach about anthropogenic landforms survey and mapping is not mentioned, fieldwork is in the workflow, but it is just an intention, etc.). Section 3.4 mainly the describe figure 10, the final product of MAGUS test, but the results are very similar to premises in figure 1. MAGUS procedure seemed not determinant for this result... Improvements are needed to highlight the model effectiveness.

Conclusions are focused on the model and results summary.

Please find in attached review pdf file my 'point by point' observations.

Some comments are about figures, I found some legends lacking

I think your research paper is currently of low quality, but it has high potential. For this reason, I suggest major revision following my comments to the manuscript.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read the manuscript, which I find extremely interesting, original and certainly worthy of publication in Land (MPDI).

The research is correctly set up according to international scientific standards and the figures are of excellent quality

I only have some non-strictly mandatory remarks, I would leave the final decision to the authors and of course the associate editor.

Under the title and the authors I notice that the affiliations are all from the University of Turin: I don't think the number 1 to 4 is needed to make the mail address explicit

In section 1. introduction I think it is necessary to explain why this research, and in particular the case of Turin, may be of interest to the scientific community

It would be useful to include a brief overview of the state of the art on this topic, since in very recent times publications such as Journal of Maps (Taylor & Francis) and Progress in Physycal Geography (Sage) have dedicated special issues on the issue of urban geomorphology

In order to improve the readability of Figure 1, it would be useful to have greater colour contrast of the various geological and geomorphological landscape units

Subsection 1.1 Study Area and Geomorphological Setting (the only one in section 1) could be moved to section 2. Materials and Methods

In table 1, if possible, an English translation of the maps used would be helpful

A section 4 should be included (section 5 is conclusions, section 3 are results) with some brief discussion of what has been achieved in relation to the aim of the paper

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

Dear authors,

 

Congratulations for your excellent work. I think the work have conditions to be published in Land journal after some revisions, which I would like to see considered in a final version of the manuscript.

 

 

#1 

The term "forms" is employed on several occasions when the more appropriate term would be "landforms" (for example, on line 38, "landscape forms," on line 48, "new forms," and in other instances). The term is polysemous and may be open to misinterpretation by the reader; therefore, we propose the use of the term 'landform' in its stead. Moreover, the title of Chapter 33, "Anthropogenic Form of Land," should be revised to "Anthropogenic Landforms."

 

#2

It is recommended that the text between lines 50 and 54 be presented in continuous prose, eschewing the use of items.

 

#3 

The content of Chapter 1.1, which should be presented as a single subchapter, would be more appropriately located in Chapter 2 (“Materials and Methods”). The following reorganization is proposed:

- The title of chapter 2 remains unchanged ("Materials and methods”);

- It begins with subchapter 2.1 ("Study area"), including the text of 1.1;

- Subchapter 2.2 (“Methodological framework”) would include the text at the beginning of the current chapter 2 (in this section, the numbering between lines 124 and 135 should be removed and the text should be made into running text);

- subchapter 2.3. (‘Data’) corresponds to the current subchapter 2.1;

- subchapter 2.4 (‘Methodological workflow’) corresponds to the current subchapter 2.2.

 

#4 

The dimensions of Figure 2 could be reduced while maintaining the font size.

 

#5 

It is recommended the revision of the legends (captions) of figures and tables in order to include always the study context or study area. These should be as comprehensive and legible as possible, without the need to consult the main text.

 

#6 

In several figures, reference is made to an 'Annex 1' though the term used (page 17) is “Appendix 1”. It is imperative that the rights to use images of historical maps in this work are guaranteed, and the sources of these images would be more appropriate if included in the figure captions instead.

 

#7 

It is noted that a discussion chapter is absent from the submitted work. We therefore suggest that a discussion chapter be included. There, the authors should present an interpretation of the results obtained, including a description of the main patterns observed, the relationships, trends and generalisations of the results, exceptions to these trends, agreement or novelty in relation to previous work, and any other relevant information.  It is also necessary to identify the main limitations of the methods employed and to discuss the advances in knowledge that have been made as a result of the work. The discussion may be further enhanced by incorporating data from other related works. 

 

#8 

The study would benefit from the inclusion of photographs illustrating the current urban landscape and its relationship with the historical elements being analysed, namely the evolution of urban landforms.

 

Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx