The Utilization of Supervised Classification Sampling for Environmental Monitoring in Turin (Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I really appreciate your work and want to congratulate you for the research conducted. I have a few minor recommendations specified in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear authors,
I really appreciate your work and want to congratulate you for the research conducted. I have a few minor recommendations:
Thank you very much for this general comment, it’s nice to hear this consideration and I thank the revisor for its accurate analysis
Abstract:
- the abstract length must not exceed 200 words accordingly to the Guide for authors.
Thank you for this comment. Effectively, the original abstract has been modified while overcoming the limit. I re-edited the abstract accordingly. Now the abstract has been resized at 200 words
- the aim of the research must be specified in this section
Thank you for your observation, the third paragraph of the abstract now specify what is the aim of this research
Keywords:
- avoid the abbreviation of the words in this section (GIS, NDVI)
I revised the words accordingly
Introduction
- line 40 : (2004, Implosion/Explosions) is this a citation?
Yes, effectively I was missing the adequate referencing to the chapter of the correct book edited by Neil Brenner. Now I adjusted accordingly
- Line 120: what is GIS? You don`t have any explanation
Now at line 102 (revised file) I added the abbreviation of GIS after the complete definition (Geographic Information System)
- Line 195: the figure 2 is not clear, is there a legend?
Since it is an image it doesn’t have a proper “legend” (it is not a map). Anyway, I agree that is poorly described in the image title, so I adjusted as follow: “Figure 2. Selection of the Red (B4, a) Green (B3, b) and Blue (B2, c) single-band composition. These represent the greyscale visualization of the original Copernicus layers in the Turin catchment area.”. I also take the opportunity to homogenize the images to the standard of the review
- Line 197: RGB is from Red, Green, Blue? Specify it
Corrected accordingly
- Figure 3 also must be improved
Similarly to Figure 2, I modified the Figure 3 description as follow: “The output of the composite band tool on Red Green and Blue single bands. This image merges the single grayscale layers while giving a colour visualization of the original Copernicus layers in the Turin catchment area.”
Results:
- Figure 6 must be improved
To make clear the difference between the two datasets I made two adjustments: 1) I zoomed more on the land use while having a more detailed vision of the land use classes; 2) I homogenized the colours between the two datasets while making more contrast between the land use classes. I hope this change goes in the suggested direction.
- Please format table 5 because is very difficult to understand something from it… the same thing with table 6
Fully agree with the observation. For table 5 I simplified the contents delating the double-counting of LULC 2020 in the first and the modified version with infrastructures. Since the one that has been used was the integrated version it was unneedful to make the comparative assessment with that version. Therefore, the table gained more clarity and visibility.
Table 6 has been resized accordingly, while removing the intra-differentiation between land uses (unneedful) while leaving only the comparison between the dataset visible.
Conclusions
- the conclusions must present the purpose of the research, to present briefly the methodology used, the main results obtained and future research directions.
Thank you for your observation. I integrated the conclusions accordingly
Reviewer 2 Report
the paper can be accepted for publication as it is
Author Response
the paper can be accepted for publication as it is
Thank you very much for your appreciation, I take the opportunity to revise here and there some minor aspects.
