Quantitative Characterization of Coastal Cliff Retreat and Landslide Processes at Portonovo–Trave Cliffs (Conero, Ancona, Italy) Using Multi-Source Remote Sensing Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper aims to quantitative the dynamic process of coastal cliff retreat and landslide through the combined use of aerial photography, UAV photogrammetry and LiDAR data. The subject of the paper is suitable for a remote sensing journal. However, there are several shortcomings in the manuscript in the present form. This paper needs major revisions.

l  Major issues

   The highlights are not outstanding enough, either in remote sensing methods or in geomorphological findings. If the application of multi-source remote sensing methods is to be highlighted, the technical details of various remote sensing methods should be further supplemented, and the advantages of the comprehensive method should be highlighted through sufficient comparison in the discussion. If the geomorphological findings is to be highlighted, the analysis of the erosion process and related factors should be more sufficient, and it should be fully compared with the research in other similar areas in the discussion,

l  Minor issues

1. In the abstract, the previous overview and research methods are long, while the results contain less content, and the relationship between cliff retreat and influencing factors is not mentioned. It is suggested to simplify and supplement relevant content.

2. The introduction part needs to supplement the advantages and disadvantages of various remote sensing technologies, so as to explain the reasons for using multi-source remote sensing technology in this study.

3. The discussion part needs to be further supplemented and improved (see Major)

4. The conclusions should be re-ordered to emphasise the remote sensing rather than the geomorphology or vice versa.

5. The sequence numbers of some charts and chapters in the paper are wrong (as Table 2 and Discussed).Please check the whole paper carefully.

6. Complement the accuracy of UAV and LIDAR ( not resolution ).

 

7. Complement the error accuracy of DOD.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for all the useful suggestions.

Please see the attachment with all the answers.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for all the useful suggestions.

Please see the attachment with all the answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors integrated muti-source remote-sensing data to characterize the coastal cliff retreat and landside processes ata Coneor, Italy. Particularly, they constrained as much of 40 m erosion that occurred during the last 40 years. This quantitative analysis is interesting and may provide important insights into the mechanisms of coastal landscape evolution. I recommend suggestions with minor revisions.

A) about the reteat rate; in this study the obtained average retreat rate is ~0.25 m/yr, and even higher rate of 0.72 m/yr. Importantly, could you provide some background of the range of coastal riff reteat rate? Are these values normal or abnormal? What is the difference? Comparison with other rates seems interesting.

B) some minor comments and suggestions on the figures: 1) the red area seems to be drawn arbitrarily, which is inconsistent with the enlarged figure 2; 2) inset of figure 2 seems unnecessary. 3) Lat/Lon grids are missing; 4) using different color to mark the slope edge (faults are annotated in red afterwards); 5) figure 6a, a simplified sketch including the orientation of profile, attitudes of geological structures (faults and strata) would be better. The same suggestion to the figure 13.

C) Minor comments on the text: 1) Line 34, no citation regarding the "geological, geomorphological and structural settings"; 2) Line 81, the Fm. a Colombacci? different from the description on other formations; 3) what's the meaning of "complex, active/reactivatived as activity state"? 4) Line 128, "includes"; 5) Line 137, "GIS"; 6) Line 279, you may consider to simply as "geological surveys"; 

English Language is fine. Minor editing is required.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for all the  useful suggestions.

Please see the attachment with all the answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article I reviewed looked interesting. However, in my opinion, he is not good.
The authors, having at their disposal modern data and the possibilities of processing these data, only give the distance of the cliff crown retreat. The title suggests that there will be data on the volume of material that has slipped / torn off the cliff face. Lack of information about the width of the beach - the information narrow beach, wide beach is insufficient. the engravings are done well,
There is no information on protecting the shore against sea erosion. Figures 4b and 4c clearly show the strengthening - which can significantly affect the erosion of the bank and inhibit the transport of sediment dragged along the bank.
There is no information on the number of storms. Information: "A high frequency in landslide events is even well known by local people and authorities" is not enough. When do these storms occur? For what wind directions?
Rainfall data is not used properly. Information on the annual rainfall does not add anything to the analysis of cliff erosion. rainfall of high value, e.g. 70mm per day, is important, as it saturates the ground with water and may cause landslides on slip surfaces.
I also have doubts whether these are interdisciplinary studies, as the authors write in the text. Because the fact that meteorological data (to a limited extent) and marine data were used is not interdisciplinary.
Table 1 appears twice in the article, the Results section and the Discussion section have the same number 4.
In the discussion section, there are no references to other regions of Italy or other parts of the world. In principle, this is not a discussion, but a discussion of the research results.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for all the  useful suggestions.

Please see the attachment with all the answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx