From Fertile Grounds to Sealed Fields: Assessing and Mapping Soil Ecosystem Services in Forlì’s Urban Landscape (NE Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

From Fertile Grounds to Sealed Fields: Assessing and Mapping Soil Ecosystem Services in Forlì’s Urban Landscape (NE Italy)

Fabrizio Ungaro, Paola Tarocco, Alessandra Aprea, Stefano Bazzocchi, and Costanza Calzolari

29 row - Keywords: Urban soils; Ecosystem services; Indicators; Soil sealing; Urban planning; Pe – Indicators it is a too general key word, maybe you can try with ecosystem indicators, soil indicators, or ecosystem service indicators.

61 row – Hyun et al. proposed an urban soil qual- Number of the reference, is missing. The number of the paper is at the end of the sentences in 63 row. Maybe it would be good to uniform and put in front, as is in row 50 or 76.

69 row – approach called DESTISOL was proposed by Séré et al. and tested in 37 urban soils under - Number of the reference, is missing. Same as 61 row.

99 row – average elevation of 36 m a.s.l. in the plain area of south-eastern Emilia-Romagna south - Instead of a.s.l. it is better to write: the height above mean sea level.

118 row – mark (b) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put it in front of the figure in 110 row or.

124 row – scale model (ration) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you bold scale 0   2.5    5   7 km

125 row – mark (a) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put it in the 110 row, and bold it.

125 row – mark (c) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put it in front of the figure in 119 row.

126 row – Figure 1. Study area: (a) Municipality of Forlì in southeastern Emilia-Romagna (NE Italy) and de – Letter M is bold, check is it o.k.

146 row – marks (a), and (b) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 138 row.

378 row – Table 3 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the soil properties   requested for the – It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

under 381 row in table – Urbanized/Disturbed soisl - In table, correct a word soils in column Urbanized/Disturbed.

392 row– mark (a) and (b) – Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 392 row or in upper left corner of each figure.

404 row – Legend of Figure 6. – Maybe it would be clearer, if you move both legends in the upper right corner of each figure.

421 row – mark (c) and (d) – Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 407 row or in upper left corner of each figure.

419 row – Legend of Figure 6. – Maybe it would be clearer, if you move both legends in the upper right corner of each figure.

452 - 455 row – Maybe it would be better to move and explain in 2. Materials and Methods.

481 row – marks (a), (b), and (c) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 468 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

494 row – marks (d), (e), and (f)- Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 481 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

520 row – marks (a), (b), and (c) – Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in row in front of the figure or in upper right corner of each figure.

527 row – marks (d), (e), and (f) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 520 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

566 row – marks (a), (b), and (c) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 553 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

579 row – marks (d), (e), and (f) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 566 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

592 row – marks (g) and (h) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 579 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

605 row – From the values in the table and the trend of the values in the graph, we can appre- There is missing a number of table, probably it should be table 6.

605 to 610 or to 613 row – Better put in front of table 6, because in that’s rows you explain the table 6.

610 to 613 row – Table 7 reports the correlation coefficients be- -May stay in the same place if you decides to separates from upper rows or move with them.

693 row – missed its goals.  This on the one hand depended on the possibility for the Municipalities – It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

701 row – spared from land take 15.274 hectares of agricultural soil out of 21.922 which were – Maybe it would be good to uniform with text bellow, and change to ha.

705 row – sented by soils and impacting the potential supply of ecosystem services.  It was esti- - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

706 row – mated that between 1997and 2016 Forlì lost due to land take approximately 570 ha of ag- - It looks like there is missing a blank spaces.

747 row – building ground, as soil mapping was considered only necessary for calibration.  Tresch - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

832 row – and  LCC map 1:10,0000 of the urban soils; Table S3: Score of the indicator for agricultural produc- - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

881 row – 1. O'Riordan, R.; Davies, J.; Stevens, C.; Quinton, J.N.; Boyko, C.  The ecosystem services of urban soils: A review. Geoderma - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

886 row – del, C.; Leinfelder, R.; McNeill, J.; Rose, N.L.; Summerhayes, C.; Wagreich, M.; Zinke, J.  The Great Acceleration is real and - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

887 row – provides a quantitative basis for the proposed Anthropocene Series/Epoch.  Episodes 2022; 45, 359-376. - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

895 row – da Silva, T.; Fleskens, L.; van Delden, H.; van der Ploeg, M.  Incorporating soil ecosystem services into urban planning: Status, - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

927 row – e13557. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13557  - It looks like there is letter e, check.

930 row – 105037,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105037 - It looks like there is missing a blank space.

925 row – 21. Séré, G.; Lothode, M.; Blanchart, A.; Chirol, C.; Tribotte, A.; Schwartz, C.   Destisol: A decision-support tool to assess the eco- It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

931 row – 23. Calzolari, C.; Ungaro, F.; Filippi, N.; Guermandi, M.;  Malucelli, F.; Marchi, N.; Staffilani, F.; Tarocco, P.  A methodological- It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

934 row – 24. Science for Environment Policy . No net land take by 2050? Future Brief 14, 2016. Produced for the European Commission DG - It looks like there is a blank space in front of period.

948 row – 29. Tarocco, P. Carta dei suoli della pianura e di parte della collina Emiliano-romagnola in scala 1:50.000. Edizione 2018. Regione – Please check if it is written correctly.

949 row – Emilia-Romagna, Servizio Geologico Sismico e dei Suoli.  Available online: at http://mappegis.regione.emilia-roma- - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

952 row – 31. Decreto Ministeriale del 13/09/1999. Approvazione dei "Metodi ufficiali di analisi chimica del suolo". emanato da : Ministro per - It looks like there is a blank space in front of colon.

953 row – le Politiche Agricole e pubblicato su : Gazz. Uff. Suppl. Ordin. n° 248 del 21/10/1999. Available online: https://www.gazzettauf-953 - It looks like there is a blank space in front of colon.

957 row – 33. Haines-Young, R; Potschin,.M.B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), V5.1 and Guidance on - It looks like there is missing a blank space, and too much period.

963 row – (Second Ed.) 2023 . Regione Emilia-Romagna, Direzione Generale cura del territorio e dell'ambiente, Area Geologia, Suoli e - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

992 row – 2014, 2017 e 2020, integrate con la cartografia di base della Regione Emilia-Romagna. Available online: https://geoportale.re- - It looks like there a letter e, probably instead dash.

996 row – F. 2018.  Valutazione dei servizi ecosistemici e stima degli impatti economici e ambientali conseguenti al consumo e - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

997 row – all’impermeabilizzazione dei suoli nei comuni di Forlì, Carpi e S. Lazzaro di Savena. Deliverable SOS4Life 19 B1.2. Available - It looks like there a letter e.

998 row – online:  https://www.sos4life.it/wp-content/uploads/SOS4Life_Stima-degli-impatti-conseguenti-al-consumo-di-suolo-nei-co- - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

1007 row – site-specific land uses in Xuzhou, China. Comptes Rendus. Biologies 2014, 337, 5, 332-337. doi : 10.1016/j.crvi.2014.02.008 - It looks like there is a blank space in front of colon.

1009 row – high stock evidence in urban parks.  Urban Ecosystem 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11252-019-00901-6. - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

1012 row – 56. Montgomery, J.A.; Klimas, C.A.; Arcus, J.; DeKnock, C.; Rico, K.; Rodriguez, Y.; Vollrath, K.; Webb, E.;  Williams, A. Soil - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

1013 and 1014 row – Check the margins.

1016 row – Check the margin.

1016 row – quality for landscape and urban management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008.  88, 2-4, 73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.006 - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

1031 row – 64. Suleymanov, A.; Abakumov, E.; Polyakov, V.;  Kozlov, A.; Saby, N.P.A.; Kuzmenko, P.; Telyagissov, S.; Coblinski, J.A. Estima- It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

please find here below the full list of your helful remarks and the point by point list of actions to respond to them.

 

29 row - Keywords: Urban soils; Ecosystem services; Indicators; Soil sealing; Urban planning; Pe – Indicators it is a too general key word, maybe you can try with ecosystem indicators, soil indicators, or ecosystem service indicators.

• Modified as suggested in “ soil indicators”

61 row – Hyun et al. proposed an urban soil qual- Number of the reference, is missing. The number of the paper is at the end of the sentences in 63 row. Maybe it would be good to uniform and put in front, as is in row 50 or 76.

• Modified accordingly

69 row – approach called DESTISOL was proposed by Séré et al. and tested in 37 urban soils under - Number of the reference, is missing. Same as 61 row.

• Modified accordingly

99 row – average elevation of 36 m a.s.l. in the plain area of south-eastern Emilia-Romagna south - Instead of a.s.l. it is better to write: the height above mean sea level.

• Modified accordingly

118 row – mark (b) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put it in front of the figure in 110 row or.

• The position of the mark was modified as suggested

124 row – scale model (ration) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you bold scale 0   2.5    5   7 km

• Scale marks put in bold as suggested as suggested

125 row – mark (a) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put it in the 110 row, and bold it.

• The position of the mark was modified as suggested

125 row – mark (c) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put it in front of the figure in 119 row.

• The position of the mark was modified as suggested

126 row – Figure 1. Study area: (a) Municipality of Forlì in southeastern Emilia-Romagna (NE Italy) and de – Letter M is bold, check is it o.k.

• Bold format removed

146 row – marks (a), and (b) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 138 row.

• The position of the marks were modified as suggested

378 row – Table 3 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the soil properties   requested for the – It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Additional space removed

 

under 381 row in table – Urbanized/Disturbed soisl - In table, correct a word soils in column Urbanized/Disturbed.

• Corrected as suggested

392 row– mark (a) and (b) – Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 392 row or in upper left corner of each figure.

404 row – Legend of Figure 6. – Maybe it would be clearer, if you move both legends in the upper right corner of each figure.

• Marks moved as suggested

421 row – mark (c) and (d) – Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 407 row or in upper left corner of each figure.

• Marks moved as suggested

419 row – Legend of Figure 6. – Maybe it would be clearer, if you move both legends in the upper right corner of each figure.

- I am not sure here to which pairs of legends the reviewer is referring to; but having moved the marks to the upper right corner of each figure as suggested, I fear the upper right corner would be too crowded anyway.

452 - 455 row – Maybe it would be better to move and explain in 2. Materials and Methods.

• This is an outcome of modelling the experimental semivariogram described in section 2.4, as reported lines 456-465. The experimental semivariograms of spoil properties are shown in Figure 1S along with their models; the spherical model, which one among a group of possible “authorized” models, was selected based on the structure of the experimental semivariogram based on best fit statistics.

481 row – marks (a), (b), and (c) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 468 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

• The position of the marks was modified as suggested

494 row – marks (d), (e), and (f)- Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 481 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

• The position of the mark was modified as suggested

520 row – marks (a), (b), and (c) – Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in row in front of the figure or in upper right corner of each figure.

• The position of the mark was modified as suggested

527 row – marks (d), (e), and (f) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 520 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

• The position of the mark was modified as suggested

566 row – marks (a), (b), and (c) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 553 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

• The position of the mark was modified as suggested

579 row – marks (d), (e), and (f) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 566 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

• The position of the mark was modified as suggested

592 row – marks (g) and (h) - Maybe it would be clearer, if you put them in front of the figure in 579 row or in upper right corner of each figure.

• The position of the mark was modified as suggested

605 row – From the values in the table and the trend of the values in the graph, we can appre- There is missing a number of table, probably it should be table 6.

• Number added as suggested

605 to 610 or to 613 row – Better put in front of table 6, because in that’s rows you explain the table 6.

• Lines moved before Table 6 as suggested

610 to 613 row – Table 7 reports the correlation coefficients be- -May stay in the same place if you decides to separates from upper rows or move with them.

• Lines moved before Table 7 as suggested

693 row – missed its goals.  This on the one hand depended on the possibility for the Municipalities – It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

701 row – spared from land take 15.274 hectares of agricultural soil out of 21.922 which were – Maybe it would be good to uniform with text bellow, and change to ha.

• Changed to ha as suggested

705 row – sented by soils and impacting the potential supply of ecosystem services.  It was esti- - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

706 row – mated that between 1997and 2016 Forlì lost due to land take approximately 570 ha of ag- - It looks like there is missing a blank spaces.

• Blank space added

747 row – building ground, as soil mapping was considered only necessary for calibration.  Tresch - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

832 row – and  LCC map 1:10,0000 of the urban soils; Table S3: Score of the indicator for agricultural produc- - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

881 row – 1. O'Riordan, R.; Davies, J.; Stevens, C.; Quinton, J.N.; Boyko, C.  The ecosystem services of urban soils: A review. Geoderma - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

886 row – del, C.; Leinfelder, R.; McNeill, J.; Rose, N.L.; Summerhayes, C.; Wagreich, M.; Zinke, J.  The Great Acceleration is real and - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

887 row – provides a quantitative basis for the proposed Anthropocene Series/Epoch.  Episodes 2022; 45, 359-376. - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

895 row – da Silva, T.; Fleskens, L.; van Delden, H.; van der Ploeg, M.  Incorporating soil ecosystem services into urban planning: Status, - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

927 row – e13557. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13557  - It looks like there is letter e, check.

• -checked and removed

930 row – 105037,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105037 - It looks like there is missing a blank space.

• Blank space added

925 row – 21. Séré, G.; Lothode, M.; Blanchart, A.; Chirol, C.; Tribotte, A.; Schwartz, C.   Destisol: A decision-support tool to assess the eco- It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

931 row – 23. Calzolari, C.; Ungaro, F.; Filippi, N.; Guermandi, M.;  Malucelli, F.; Marchi, N.; Staffilani, F.; Tarocco, P.  A methodological- It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

934 row – 24. Science for Environment Policy . No net land take by 2050? Future Brief 14, 2016. Produced for the European Commission DG - It looks like there is a blank space in front of period.

• Blank space removed

948 row – 29. Tarocco, P. Carta dei suoli della pianura e di parte della collina Emiliano-romagnola in scala 1:50.000. Edizione 2018. Regione – Please check if it is written correctly.

• Reference corrected

949 row – Emilia-Romagna, Servizio Geologico Sismico e dei Suoli.  Available online: at http://mappegis.regione.emilia-roma- - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank space removed

952 row – 31. Decreto Ministeriale del 13/09/1999. Approvazione dei "Metodi ufficiali di analisi chimica del suolo". emanato da : Ministro per - It looks like there is a blank space in front of colon.

• Blank space removed

953 row – le Politiche Agricole e pubblicato su : Gazz. Uff. Suppl. Ordin. n° 248 del 21/10/1999. Available online: https://www.gazzettauf-953 - It looks like there is a blank space in front of colon.

• Blank space removed

957 row – 33. Haines-Young, R; Potschin,.M.B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), V5.1 and Guidance on - It looks like there is missing a blank space, and too much period.

• Blank space added, period removed as suggested

963 row – (Second Ed.) 2023 . Regione Emilia-Romagna, Direzione Generale cura del territorio e dell'ambiente, Area Geologia, Suoli e - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank spaces removed

992 row – 2014, 2017 e 2020, integrate con la cartografia di base della Regione Emilia-Romagna. Available online: https://geoportale.re- - It looks like there a letter e, probably instead dash.

• The reference and the link are correct as reported in the original text

996 row – F. 2018.  Valutazione dei servizi ecosistemici e stima degli impatti economici e ambientali conseguenti al consumo e - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank spaces removed

997 row – all’impermeabilizzazione dei suoli nei comuni di Forlì, Carpi e S. Lazzaro di Savena. Deliverable SOS4Life 19 B1.2. Available - It looks like there a letter e.

• The reference is correct as reported in the original text

998 row – online:  https://www.sos4life.it/wp-content/uploads/SOS4Life_Stima-degli-impatti-conseguenti-al-consumo-di-suolo-nei-co- - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Could not find the additional blank space here; the link is correct as written in the original text

1007 row – site-specific land uses in Xuzhou, China. Comptes Rendus. Biologies 2014, 337, 5, 332-337. doi : 10.1016/j.crvi.2014.02.008 - It looks like there is a blank space in front of colon.

• Blank spaces removed

1009 row – high stock evidence in urban parks.  Urban Ecosystem 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11252-019-00901-6. - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank spaces removed

1012 row – 56. Montgomery, J.A.; Klimas, C.A.; Arcus, J.; DeKnock, C.; Rico, K.; Rodriguez, Y.; Vollrath, K.; Webb, E.;  Williams, A. Soil - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank spaces removed

1013 and 1014 row – Check the margins.

• Margins checked and adjusted

1016 row – Check the margin.

• Margins checked and adjusted

1016 row – quality for landscape and urban management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008.  88, 2-4, 73–80. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.006 - It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank spaces removed

1031 row – 64. Suleymanov, A.; Abakumov, E.; Polyakov, V.;  Kozlov, A.; Saby, N.P.A.; Kuzmenko, P.; Telyagissov, S.; Coblinski, J.A. Estima- It looks like there are too many blank spaces.

• Blank spaces removed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is of high research value in the assessment of urban soil ecosystem services, with innovative and data-rich methods, but still needs to be improved in the following areas: however, there are some unclear points that the authors would like to be clarified.

1. In the introduction, the existing literature review section is comprehensive but too lengthy (e.g. the review of studies from Blanchart et al., Hyun et al. occupies a lot of space). It could be appropriately streamlined to draw out the research gaps.

The statement of the research objectives needs to highlight the innovations more prominently, especially the differences from existing methods.

2. Research methodology. The process of integrating different datasets needs to be described more clearly, e.g., how to extract urban soil change trends from multi-temporal aerial photographs? Strengths and weaknesses of geostatistical modelling (SGS) compared to other methods?
3. Results and Discussion. The discussion section can further clarify the policy implications of the study. For example, how can these SES data guide urban planners in their specific decisions? What are the practical implications of the study's findings for land management compared to Forlì's current urban sprawl trends?

The selection of the IQ4 indicators is not sufficiently argued to be representative, and it is suggested that a comparative analysis be added; why were BUF, CST, PRO, and WAR chosen over other SES indicators?

4. Data analysis. The study mainly relied on PTFs for soil physicochemical property estimation and lacked error comparison with measured data.
5. References. The format of references needs to be standardised, and the year is missing in some of them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

This paper is of high research value in the assessment of urban soil ecosystem services, with innovative and data-rich methods, but still needs to be improved in the following areas: however, there are some unclear points that the authors would like to be clarified.

Thanks for appreciating  the value of our research, and for your valuable comments and suggestions. Please find our reply and action undertaken to address them

1. Introduction,

The existing literature review section is comprehensive but too lengthy (e.g. the review of studies from Blanchart et al., Hyun et al. occupies a lot of space). It could be appropriately streamlined to draw out the research gaps.

The literature review has been shortened as suggested and the research gaps addressed by the work were highlighted by integrating the text of the original version (lines 75-80 track change version):

“Among the major research gaps in the assessment of urban soil ecosystem services there is a lack of universally accepted metrics and indicators for assessing urban soil ecosystem services, making it difficult to compare studies and integrate findings across different regions and contexts. Furthermore, the gap in understanding how to effectively integrate urban soil ecosystem services into urban planning and policy frameworks, has limited the adoption of  sustainable management practices of urban soils Within the framework of. In addressing such issues, the EU funded demonstrative LIFE project SOS4Life…”

The statement of the research objectives needs to highlight the innovations more prominently, especially the differences from existing methods.

The innovative aspects of the proposed methodology have been highlighted with reference to the research objectives by integrating the text of the original version (line 98-104 track change version):

“Differently from most SES assessments and mapping approaches, the methodological steps followed in this work can be implemented in any urban context if basic soil properties of urban soils are assessed via ad hoc survey of urban soils. Furthermore, resorting to standardized indicators for SES would easily allow comparison between different urban contexts and the interpretation of results would be straightforward also for non-soil practitioners.”

2. Research methodology.

The process of integrating different datasets needs to be described more clearly, e.g., how to extract urban soil change trends from multi-temporal aerial photographs?

This part of the analysis was carried out by the technical staff of the Forlì Municipality within the framework of the SOS4Life project to describe the temporal trend of soil sealing. This was accomplished via aerial photograph interpretation of stereoscopic images until 2014 and then via assessment of the differences in the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) derived from Sentinel-2 images via Google Earth Engine as described in the national report on soil sealing listed on the references (SNPA, Consumo di suolo, dinamiche territoriali e servizi ecosistemici. Edizione 2024, Report ambientali SNPA, 43/2024. Available on line: https://www.snpambiente.it/temi/suolo/consumo-di-suolo-dinamiche-territoriali-e-servizi-ecosistemici-edizione-2024/)  (line 188-191 track change version):

“This was accomplished via aerial photograph interpretation of stereoscopic images until 2014 and then via assessment of the differences in the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) derived from Sentinel-2 images via Google Earth Engine as described in [27].”

Strengths and weaknesses of geostatistical modelling (SGS) compared to other methods?

Strength and weakness of SGS have been briefly described in section 2.4 (line 270-280 track change version):

“Being based on multiple realizations, SGS allow for the assessment of uncertainty in predictions, which is crucial for risk-based decision-making. Furthermore, SGS realizations maintain the spatial autocorrelation and statistical properties of the data, ensuring realistic representations of soil variability, avoiding the shortcomings of deterministic interpolation methods and the inability of Machine Learning algorithms to deal with spatial autocorrelation. Although computationally demanding, SGS can easily integrate auxiliary data in the process of simulation: in the case presented in this work the outcomes were conditioned on the mean values of the urban soil map delineation.”

 

3. Results and Discussion.

The discussion section can further clarify the policy implications of the study. For example, how can these SES data guide urban planners in their specific decisions? What are the practical implications of the study's findings for land management compared to Forlì's current urban sprawl trends?

The  policy implication of this work for the Forlì Municipality have been further clarified (lines 777-782  track change version):

To this goal, the Municipality of Forlì in 2024 adopted the SES maps presented in this work as integral part of its PUG, in the attempt to reach two results: preserving the best quality soils as identified by the IQ4 index from additional sealing, and using the index to guide compensation measurements in all circumstances sealing is not avoidable through the identification of candidate areas for de-sealing whose quality and extent could compensate the further soil loss.   

 

The selection of the IQ4 indicators is not sufficiently argued to be representative, and it is suggested that a comparative analysis be added; why were BUF, CST, PRO, and WAR chosen over other SES indicators?

Additional explanation have been provided to support the selection of the SES to be included in the IQ4 index of soil quality   (lines 844-850 track change version ):

“The selected SES indicators cover specific dimensions of soil multifunctionality which are deemed strategic by the Forlì Municipality for urban and peri-urban environmental quality: hazard mitigation (WAR), food production (PRO), climate regulation (CST) and pollution attenuation (BUF). In agreement with the Regional Soil Survey staff , the selection of the indicators to be included in the quality index was also guided by the criteria of lower correlation between the four indicators in order to reduce the effect of existing synergies and trade-offs between services, as highlighted in Table 7, so as not to overemphasize the effect of existing service bundles [64].”

 

 

4. Data analysis.

The study mainly relied on PTFs for soil physicochemical property estimation and lacked error comparison with measured data.

The PTFs used in this work have been calibrated (and at times  updated as the dataset grew bigger) on regional  soil data sets; error statistics for calibration and validation on independent data sets have been presented in published papers some of  which are included in the references’ list [41, 42]

The PTFs estimates of soil physical and chemical properties have been currently used by the regional soil staff and by CNR researcher for their institutional purposes in several applied and research projects in the last two decades.

 

The format of references needs to be standardised, and the year is missing in some of them.

The reference list has been checked for format and missing information according to the MDPI guidelines

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf