Urban Geoscience: The Challenge of Street Geology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the paper titled:

“Urban Geoscience: the challenge of Street Geology”

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for the concept presented but I believe that significant modifications should be made for a better understanding.

1- The methodological table should be explained in the section and clarify which concepts should be prioritized in each of the sections.

2-  The text of results includes numerous geological, historical, archaeological and patrimonial data that are repeated along the different points and the intention to relate the geology of the urban environment with these historical events and patrimonial elements is lost. It is important to be concise and to establish these relationships in the example to avoid repetition.

3  - The first part of the discussion should be included in the introduction because it presents concepts not explained until the end, which are key to this methodology but have not emerged from this work. The corresponding references should be included.

4-  The results should be presented in a more schematic way, making a real comparison between the two elements (cities) used for the methodological application in order to establish the differences and similarities between the two.

T- The involvement of cities and institutions has been mentioned but is not detailed in the conclusions and is an important point.

6- Regarding the figures, the panels presented in the annexes are very dense and difficult to interpret for direct use with tourists or schoolchildren.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

we are thankful for your careful review and helpful feedback, which we believe have improved the document.  Responses to your notes are in the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of this paper is to provide a popular science method to promote local urban geology, archaeology, history and other urban scientific knowledge to the public and tourists, so as to enhance their territorial knowledge. In this regard, we have some questions that have not been well answered in the text:

1. What are the common methods to promote urban geological knowledge? What are the specific results they have achieved? This aspect needs to be explained in the introduction as the research background.

2. We believe that in the introduction, we should first introduce the research background, lead to the purpose of this study, and introduce the methods used in this paper and the specific content of the work done. However, the introduction of this article lacks some necessary links. The obvious question is, ' of cause... ' in line 81 has not been completely written yet?

3. The promotion method introduced in this paper seems to only stay on the concept? For the game and other panels shown in the attached diagram, how to implement it? There is a lack of introduction of related software development work in this paper.

4.The promotion method introduced in this paper lacks some practical case studies to support its effectiveness. For example, the popular science method in this paper is applied to a city, and the feedback of end users is provided. Based on this, statistical analysis and other research are carried out.

5. For two specific cities, this paper introduces the local urban geography and other knowledge, and explains how to promote the knowledge. However, the geographical location of these two cities is relatively special, and the geological background is also unique. So, for the general city should be how to promote, the method is universal?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your critical review and suggestions for improving the paper. Responses to your notes are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Extremely interesting, well-written and argued paper based on the wealth of data and observations. I have only minor suggestions to improve this excellent manuscript, which are summarized below.

Line 48 - are the authors referring here to some "older thinking", e.g. pre-modern scientific? I do not suppose that current science treats natural disasters affecting urban areas as caused by supernatural forces. Perhaps, some clarification here might be desired.

The scale in Figure 3 is barely readable. Can the font size be increased please?

Line 118 - historical monuments, previous monuments?

Lines 139-140 - I am geographically confused here. Torre Del Greco observe the islands of Ischia and Procida "to the southeast". In fact, the islands of Ischia and Procida are located to the west of the Torre Del Greco settlement.

Lines 176-177 - units Cretaceous to Miocene in age.

Line 181 - several depositional environments - such as?

Line 193-194 - what is the composition of pyroclastic deposits, e.g. andesite, dacite, rhyolite, trachyte, etc.?

Lines 241-242 - what is this evidence of the volcanic activity - presence of ash, damage to structures, etc.?

Vulnerability of Benevento - no volcanic risks?

Line 273 - destroying everything within the river flood plains?

Lines 401-402 - chemical composition of cinder cones and lava flows - basaltic? Please be specify.

Line 408 - what exactly is this "particular mineralogical interest"? If this is about presence of specific, possible rare, volcanic (fumarolic/exhalative) minerals, could the authors please identify them.

Vulnerability - line 444 - not just "lava and/or pyroclastic products", but also harmful volcanic gases. A very substantial proportion of victims at Pompeii were suffocated by emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

we are very thankful for your helpful feedback, which we believe have improved the document. Responses to your notes are in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been greatly improved by the revision process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As far as I am concerned, it could be published right now.