Nature-Based Solution Integration to Enhance Urban Geomorphological Mapping: A Methodological Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

I read the manuscript titled “From the state of the art to an enhanced methodological approach proposal on urban geomorphology” by E. Hamidova et al.

The manuscript is well written and clear and the methodological proposal is very interesting. In fact, the integration in order to enhance the traditional geomorphological and geoheritage maps with NbS can really contribute to improve the capability to reduce the geomorphological risk in urban areas.

The first part dealing with the review of the literature on the argument, is supported with a wide number of papers delineating the evolution of methodologies in urban geomorphology, urban geoheritage assessment, and the possibility of applying Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) in order to enhance geomorphological maps.

The manuscript is surely of interest for the journal and I recommend only the minor revisions listed below.

Best Regards

Lines 120-121  rephrase....allow to assess potential hazards and help to identify high-risk areas,......

Line 186 instead precision better ....accuracy....

Table 4  please, I recommend some brief indication in the text on how the suscptibility classes were attributed to different datasets.  i.e.: for Geology, why the Terraced deposits (ancient Alluvium) were classified very high and Fluvioglacial and wurm fluvial  medium? It is not clear

Line 611  Table 4   not Tabale 4

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted track changes in the re-submitted files.

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the authors of this work, which has tried to link concepts of urban geomorphology and urban geoheritage, applying a case study in the city of Milan. There is very good systematic information on the state of the art and very neat writing.

In general, I make some observations:

The authors have focused much more on the state-of-the-art process of urban geomorphology terms and their study over the years, but there is a deficit in the link with urban geoheritage.

I insist that in the results there is no visible link between what the authors mention as urban geomorphology and urban geoheritage. Apparently, the authors indistinctly call geoheritage to any heritage sample, they even refer to it with tourism, but without defining the relationship (which, of course, may exist, but in this work it seems ambiguous). It is also understood that the authors refer to geoheritage when they talk about landscape features, however, I insist that it is diffuse in the text. I think the concepts should be clarified very well, since the term geoheritage is very broad.

It is not indicated how the authors selected or defined the geoheritage sites. With this it would have been easier to understand why it links them directly to cultural and tourist sites. On line 667, the authors refer: “This approach includes a thorough inventory and assessment of urban geoheritages, evaluating their geological significance, cultural value, and their potential for fostering sustainable tourism”, However, this has not been presented in the work: there is no inventory or evaluation of the geoheritage, nor an evaluation of its potential for tourist use.

The section 3.4 is a bit confusing, since it is a methodological proposal, which would seem to be in the methodology, not in the results. It is confusing because it explains the methodological process of application, but it is among the results.

The discussion and conclusions must be reviewed (especially regarding formats).

Specifically, I have placed some specific observations for the authors' consideration:

Line 42: I don't know if it is correct (in this type of bibliographic citations) to put the year of publication, please check.

Line 49: I don't know if it is correct (in this type of bibliographic citations) to put the year of publication, please check.

Line 172: I don't know if it is correct (in this type of bibliographic citations) to put the year of publication, please check.

Table 1. Modify the location of the descriptive text since it must go above the table.

Table 2. Modify the location of the descriptive text since it must go above the table.

Table 3. Modify the location of the descriptive text since it must go above the table.

Figure 4. I consider that this input should be placed as a Table and not as a figure. In the file corresponding to the 50's, aerial maps have been placed, doesn’t it correspond to aerial photography?

Line 385: I don't know if it is correct (in this type of bibliographic citations) to put the year of publication, please check.

Line 606. The font size must be modified.

Table 4. In the descriptive text you can explain how the data classes were obtained. Modify the location of the descriptive text since it must go above the table.

Figure 9 (a). Throughout the text he has mentioned the relationship between geoheritage and urban geomorphology, has shared the methodology for creating the susceptibility map, and on that same map he places geoheritage and locates culture and tourism. So, 1) the text does not explain how it obtained that information to delimit geoheritage zones. 2) How do you establish that these cultural and tourist areas are actually geoheritage areas? due they may be other types of cultural manifestations and not necessarily geological and/or geomorphological heritage. It is not clear where the cultural sites are, it is suggested that you place a more contrasting color to be able to see it, due it is something that should be highlighted on the map. What do the blue lines mean, rivers? Please place them in the legend.

Line 694: The authors mention the application of surveys, but this does not establish the methodology applied.

Line 712 to 720: In conclusion? Is this a conclusion?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted track changes in the re-submitted files.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

after the careful examination of your manuscript, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, this work is based on the reasonable studies of great methodological potential and outstanding international urgency (the research questions about the approaches of urban geomorphology are good!). On the other hand, the work is written so that it is difficult to understand what it is about. It looks as a mosaic of exciting ideas. Anyway, it offers some novelty and offers interesting examples, and its theme is well suitable to “Land”. The structure of the manuscript is detailed, and the number of the cited sources is enough. So, I kindly ask you to think how to make the work and all its parts really consistent. I hope my recommendations will help to revise it.

1)      General concern: the main problem of this potentially exciting work is the mode of storytelling. It is unclear whether the Authors intend to publish review or a case study, whether they deal with urban geomorphology, urban geoheritage, or flooding risks, etc. The consistency of the writing is required. I do not exclude that the optimal solution would be separation of this manuscript into two different papers (review and case study), each with its own goals. To address this comment, you, at least, have to work with the storytelling to make it more consistent everywhere (!) and following one general theme.

2)      Title: not informative. Please, make it more clear and appealing. Mentioning the attention to NbS and Milan may be reasonable.

3)      Abstract: please, shorten it and focus on your findings and interpretations.

4)      Key words: please, avoid the words already available in the title.

5)      Introduction: please, be consistent: urban geoheritage includes all valuable geological features in cities, whereas urban geomorphological heritage is about only geomorphological features in cities. The term “geomorphosites” can be useful for your paper.

6)      If your study focuses on Milan, a section/subsection entitled “Study Area” should exist. There, you have to characterize the basic geomorphplogical, natural, and urban peculiarities of Milan. Something from the subsection 3.5 can be used there.

7)      Materials and Methods: why you focus on only susceptibility? This is only one of many aspects of urban geomorphology!

8)      Results: the information from the beginning of this section and before 3.1 should be attributed to a new subsection 3.1 with subsequent re-numbering of the other subsections (your present 3.1 -> 3.2, etc.). In other words, all text of the section should correspond to any subsection.

9)      Fig. 9a: where is geomorphology (landforms) and geoheritage, and why cultural and tourism sites are separated? It’s difficult to understand the relevance of this figure to this manuscript.

10)  Discussion: this section should put your study in the context of the international research. What are the advantages and disadvantages of your method in comparison to what has been reported by the others? What are the methodological recommendations?

11)  Conclusion: please, add a paragraph about the limitations of your study and the perspectives for future research.

12)  Some additional linguistic polishing is necessary.

Some additional linguistic polishing is necessary.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:  General concern: the main problem of this potentially exciting work is the mode of storytelling. It is unclear whether the Authors intend to publish review or a case study, whether they deal with urban geomorphology, urban geoheritage, or flooding risks, etc. The consistency of the writing is required. I do not exclude that the optimal solution would be separation of this manuscript into two different papers (review and case study), each with its own goals. To address this comment, you, at least, have to work with the storytelling to make it more consistent everywhere (!) and following one general theme

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. Based on this methodology, we have plans for future research to initiate another study as a case study. This manuscript primarily focuses on presenting a methodological approach rather than a case study. The proposed methodology is designed for application across all urban settings, which is why this work is not referred to as a case study. Based on your comments, we included the following sentences in both the Introduction and Abstract sections to provide more clarification regarding it.

Abstract (line 32-34, pg1.)- “The paper aimed to introduce a methodological framework and illustrated its practical application to provide researchers and practitioners with a clear understanding of its implementation in real-world scenarios. “

Introduction (line 170-171, pg.5)- “The paper further aims to introduce a methodological framework and demonstrate its practical application.”

Comments 2: Title: not informative. Please, make it more clear and appealing. Mentioning the attention to NbS and Milan may be reasonable.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We modified the title as following:

Title: “Nature-Based Solution integration to enhance urban geomorphological mapping: a methodological approach”

Comments 3:  Abstract: please, shorten it and focus on your findings and interpretations.  

Response 3: Agree. We have revised and modified the Abstract as follows:

Abstract (line 23, pg. 1):” This study conducts an extensive literature review spanning from 1950 to 2023, exploring methodologies in urban geomorphology, urban geoheritage assessment, and finally the possibility of applying Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) in order to enhance geomorphological maps. The methodology here proposed is based on a two-step approach: i) assessment of a bibliographic review and methodological investigation and, ii) methodological proposal in order to enhance the traditional geomorphological and geoheritage maps with NbS that can contribute to reduce the geomorphological risk in urban areas. The paper aimed to introduce a methodological framework and illustrated its practical application to provide researchers and practitioners with a clear understanding of its implementation in real-world scenarios. The proposed methodology was practically applied in the north and northeast parts of Milan city, Italy. The implementation of the proposed methodology demonstrated its effectiveness in urban contexts and its potential for further modification and extension to various urban environments in the future.”

Comments 4: Key words: please, avoid the words already available in the title.

Response 4: Thank you. We have modified it.

Key words: Urban geoheritage; Geomorphological maps; Nature based Solution; Anthropogenic Influences; Urban Landforms

Comments 5:  Introduction: please, be consistent: urban geoheritage includes all valuable geological features in cities, whereas urban geomorphological heritage is about only geomorphological features in cities. The term “geomorphosites” can be useful for your paper.

Response 5: Agree. We revised and added the following sentence:

Introduction (Line 60-67, pg.2): “The urban environment, characterized by its complex landforms shaped by human activities, incorporates urban geoheritage, representing specific landforms enriched with historical and cultural significance. Urban geoheritage holds cultural significance due to its ability to reflect the historical development of human settlements and their interaction with the natural environment (Reynard, E., & Giusti, C. (2018)., Pelfini et al, 2018).  Urban geoheritage sites can be integrated into cultural heritage preservation efforts, contributing to the overall cultural landscape of a city. Therefore, recognizing the cultural dimension of urban geoheritage is essential for understanding its full significance within urban environments. (Reynard, E., & Giusti, C. 2018; Pijet-Migoń, E., & Migoń, P. 2022; Pescatore E. et al, 2023).”

Comments 6: If your study focuses on Milan, a section/subsection entitled “Study Area” should exist. There, you have to characterize the basic geomorphological, natural, and urban peculiarities of Milan. Something from the subsection 3.5 can be used there.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We added a Study Area chapter.

Comments 7: Materials and Methods: why you focus on only susceptibility? This is only one of many aspects of urban geomorphology!

Response 7: Thank you for this comment. However the main purpose of this paper is to show urban geomorphology, geoheritage and nbs integrated research methodology. Susceptibility analysis is an important step in identifying potential risk areas before implementing NbS. therefore, susceptibility assessment was applied. Given that the selected area is prone to flood hazards, our focus on vulnerability analysis stems from the need to effectively address this particular risk. It is important to note that our methodology is adaptable and open to various extensions and additions, allowing it to adapt to different urban environments. As mentioned in the discussion section (line 871-875), our approach can be further developed and customized according to the specific needs and challenges of different urban landscapes with different urban challenges.

Comments 8: Results: the information from the beginning of this section and before 3.1 should be attributed to a new subsection 3.1 with subsequent re-numbering of the other subsections (your present 3.1 -> 3.2, etc.). In other words, all text of the section should correspond to any subsection.

Response 8: Agree. We have, accordingly, added subsection 4.1 .

3.1. “Result: 3.1. (Line 316, pg. 10) Analyzed bibliography statistics”  

Comments 9:  Fig. 9a: where is geomorphology (landforms) and geoheritage, and why cultural and    

    tourism sites are separated? It’s difficult to understand the relevance of this figure to this manuscript.

Response 9: The figure focuses on specific aspects relevant to the study, such as urban geomorphology, urban geoheritage and NbS. We separated urban geoheritage into historical and tourism sections on the map to distinguish between historical significance and touristic. I also added the paragraph in Implementation section in line 572 to clarify it better.

Implementation ( line 658-668, pg.19-20): “Moreover, for the analysis of urban geoheritage, data were extracted from the same source, which highlights a selection of significant properties dating back to the late 19th century. The dataset offers a comprehensive overview of these properties, emphasizing significant aspects such as historical significance, distinctive construction methods and materials, and common architectural styles characteristic of the period. Among the materials observed are terracotta, solid bricks, exposed brick decorations, wood, and marble, reflecting the diverse building techniques prevalent during their construction periods. After observing all the features, these structures are classified under the cultural category due to their historical and architectural significance, while others are categorized under tourism due to their appeal to visitors.”

Comments 10: Discussion: this section should put your study in the context of the international research. What are the advantages and disadvantages of your method in comparison to what has been reported by the others? What are the methodological recommendations?

Response 10: Agree. We have added the following paragraph in Discussion section to emphasize this point.

Discussion (line 863-870, pg. 28): “Proposing this methodology primarily focuses on mapping various urban features, including geoheritage, and identifying risky areas for implementing Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). Combining knowledge of valuable urban features with NBS application can provide a more comprehensive tool for further urban planning and management. However, our methodology may require additional resources and expertise for implementation compared to traditional mapping methods, and the integration of NbS introduces complexities that may limit its accessibility to researchers and practitioners with diverse backgrounds.“

Comments 11: Conclusion: please, add a paragraph about the limitations of your study and the perspectives for future research.

Response 11: Thank you. We have added the following paragraph in Conclusion section to emphasize this point.  

Conclusion (line 904-908, pg, 29): “It should be noted that this methodology encompasses general application stages, but its implementation in various city environments may result in limitations. However, the proposed methodology is designed to be applicable to comprehensive research and diverse urban conditions in future investigations, making it open to various expansions and additions.”

Comments 12. Some additional linguistic polishing is necessary.

Response 12: Done.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript includes an interesting discussion of the history of urban geomorphological studies. It also reflects a growing interest related to the intersection of urban geomorphodiversity and geoheritage. The traditional framework employed in such studies is supplemented here by the application of nature-based solutions, which has been so far scarcely used in the context of geomorphological studies. The manuscript represents a substantial contribution to this field of study and should therefore be published. However, to improve its scientific reliability, some substantial improvements should be made. The access to the bibliographic database used in the manuscript would also allow for easier comprehension of the study. See below for detailed comments and suggestions.

Main comments

Subchapter 2.1 - Literature review - It would be very beneficial to include the whole bibliographic database that was used in the present study, for example, as a digital supplementary material. Moreover, I suggest adding more details to the description of the methodological issues related to this systematic literature study. How many records were retrieved from individual databases? How many were removed? How many papers have been excluded due to each of the criteria listed in lines 211-214?

Lines 234-239 - Here you mention example datasets that are used in the present study. It is extremely important to name all the data sources that are employed, for example, in a separate table. In lines 238-239 you name the parameters that are used in the study, but they appear not until Table 4, which is unfavourable for the reader, who has to wait until the reclassification rules are revealed.

Lines 493-495 - Here you refer to the study of historical records of the changes in urban geomorphology, but do not discuss the issue with more detail. There are many ways in which topographic and other historical sources can be used in the data collection phase. You could refer here to inductive/deductive approaches to the reconstruction of the morphology of the terrain (see, e.g., Schmidt et al. 2018). Historical photographic records can also be applied, and there are documented examples of the use of borehole data in urban areas in Italy (e.g., Terrone et al. 2021). However, your description of the initial phase of your framework is very scarce and does not stimulate the reader to start his own studies.

Lines 500-517 - The issue outlined above is also apparent here. You aim to formulate a comprehensive framework for the study of urban geomorphology, and the assessment of landforms is obviously among the most important stages of your framework. However, you do not show any examples of how such an assessment could look like. This is a significant drawback of the study, which summarises previous efforts in the field by including a systematic review of the literature.

Lines 563 and 577-578 - Once again, you refer to examples of "essential data" sources that you used in the present study. However, all data sources must be named. In lines 577-578 you explain that you have digitised historical maps, but it is not clear what exactly has been digitised: topographic data? Buildings? Water courses? Please be more specific here.

Figure 9a - You refer here to two examples of nature-based solutions. Do you think this is enough for a study that introduces a framework integrating the NbS? For more examples of possible solutions, see, among others, Xing et al. (2017).

The Discussion - Reading through the Discussion chapter, I am wondering how the present study differs from earlier attempts in the same field? Of course, you describe a framework that includes elements of solutions that are relatively rarely used, but above all, your study is limited to the assessment of vulnerabilities resulting from the geomorphological contexts of the city. This is not a substantial novelty, given that there are many studies that explore the problem of geohazards in an urban environment by employing more advanced analytical techniques, such as AHP (see, e.g., Ouma and Tateishi 2014) and ANNs (Zhao et al. 2020). What is new in your approach to risk assessment in an urban environment?

Line 669 - You argue that existing urban geomorphological studies do not integrate the component of geoheritage assessment. I agree, but how are you approaching the geoheritage in your study? Your study area is located within the urban area known for its enormous geoheritage values (Pelfini et al. 2018), but the reader does not see any particular references to geoheritage in your manuscript. There are some rare but precious examples of detailed studies of urban geomorphology that use the concept of geoheritage. You refer to the work of Pica et al. (2017), which also refers to the concept of geomorphoheritage that integrates both geomorphodiversity and geoheritage domains. How do you integrate the geoheritage potential of the study area in your present contribution?

Editing issues

The manuscript is carefully edited and, in my opinion, does not require significant proofreading effort. Some details that could be improved are listed below. As a non-native, I cannot comment on the quality of the English language.

Line 126 - "These challenges" - What challenges? This is not clear here.

Table 1 - There are some obvious repetitions here. The sentence starting from "The process involved desk studies..." appears twice. In the column entitled "Name... and author(s)" there are no authors' names.

Line 402 and caption of Figure 5 - In line 402, you refer to the 19th century, but judging from the figure caption you think of pre-1990 bibliographic records; there is an apparent inconsistency here.

Figure 6 - "Geological" instead of "Geolological". In the description of the second stage of the study, you probably refer to "cultural heritage and tourism" rather than to "cultural and tourism".

Table 4 - "Table 4" instead of "Tabale 4".

Lines 693-699 - In this paragraph, you describe the methods. I am not sure whether this fits into the Discussion chapter. The methodology should be discussed here but not described once again.

Lines 712-720 - To the contrary, this paragraph fits into the Results section. This also shows that the discussion is not adequately developed in your manuscript and could be elaborated further; see the comments above for some advice on how to improve the discussion.

References

Ouma, Y. O., & Tateishi, R. (2014). Urban flood vulnerability and risk mapping using integrated multi-parametric AHP and GIS: methodological overview and case study assessment. Water, 6(6), 1515-1545.

Pelfini, M., Bollati, I., Giudici, M., Pedrazzini, T., Sturani, M., & Zucali, M. (2018). Urban geoheritage as a resource for Earth Sciences education: Examples from Milan metropolitan area. Rendiconti Online Società Geologica Italiana, 45, 83-88.

Pica, A., Luberti, G. M., Vergari, F., Fredi, P., & Del Monte, M. (2017). Contribution for an urban geomorphoheritage assessment method: proposal from three geomorphosites in Rome (Italy). Quaestiones Geographicae, 36(3), 21-36.

Schmidt, J., Werther, L., & Zielhofer, C. (2018). Shaping pre-modern digital terrain models: The former topography at Charlemagne’s canal construction site. PloS one, 13(7), e0200167.

Terrone, M., Piana, P., Paliaga, G., D’Orazi, M., & Faccini, F. (2021). Coupling historical maps and LiDAR data to identify man-made landforms in urban areas. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(5), 349.

Xing, Y., Jones, P., & Donnison, I. (2017). Characterisation of nature-based solutions for the built environment. Sustainability, 9(1), 149.

Zhao, G., Pang, B., Xu, Z., Peng, D., & Zuo, D. (2020). Urban flood susceptibility assessment based on convolutional neural networks. Journal of Hydrology, 590, 125235.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1:  Subchapter 2.1 - Literature review - It would be very beneficial to include the whole bibliographic database that was used in the present study, for example, as a digital supplementary material. Moreover, I suggest adding more details to the description of the methodological issues related to this systematic literature study. How many records were retrieved from individual databases? How many were removed? How many papers have been excluded due to each of the criteria listed in lines 211-214?

Response 1:  Thank you for your comment. We attached the essential data contain all materials that analysed. Regarding the statistic of excluded materials, in many cases, the same findings were reported across all three sources, making it impossible to attribute them to a single source. Therefore, we primarily recorded the findings from journals to ensure consistency and accuracy in documenting the information. As for the exclusion criteria, while the study employed specific criteria to filter the literature, including relevance to urban geomorphology, geoheritage, and NbS, the precise number of papers excluded due to each criterion was not documented. However, we focused on materials which can contribute to this research and avoid to record the statistic of extracted materials.   

Comments 2:  Lines 234-239 - Here you mention example datasets that are used in the present study. It is extremely important to name all the data sources that are employed, for example, in a separate table. In lines 238-239 you name the parameters that are used in the study, but they appear not until Table 4, which is unfavourable for the reader, who has to wait until the reclassification rules are revealed.

Response 2:  Thank you for this comment. The dataset excel table attached. The table 4. shows the result that is why we included it in Result section.  

Comments 3:  Lines 493-495 - Here you refer to the study of historical records of the changes in urban geomorphology, but do not discuss the issue with more detail. There are many ways in which topographic and other historical sources can be used in the data collection phase. You could refer here to inductive/deductive approaches to the reconstruction of the morphology of the terrain (see, e.g., Schmidt et al. 2018). Historical photographic records can also be applied, and there are documented examples of the use of borehole data in urban areas in Italy (e.g., Terrone et al. 2021). However, your description of the initial phase of your framework is very scarce and does not stimulate the reader to start his own studies.

Response 3:  Thank you for recommendation. We added the following sentence in literature review and data collection section to clarify it.

Result. 3.4.1. Literature review and data collection (line 567-569, pg.17).: “Utilizing remote sensing techniques, such as LiDAR and aerial photography, can provide detailed information on terrain morphology, vegetation distribution, and land use patterns over time.( Schmidt et al. 2018; Terrone et al. 2021) “

Comments 4:  Lines 500-517 - The issue outlined above is also apparent here. You aim to formulate a comprehensive framework for the study of urban geomorphology, and the assessment of landforms is obviously among the most important stages of your framework. However, you do not show any examples of how such an assessment could look like. This is a significant drawback of the study, which summarises previous efforts in the field by including a systematic review of the literature.

Response 4: Agree. We added the following paragraph to input more detailed information.

Result. 3.4.2. Landform assessment (line 582-593, pg.18) “Historical landform identification through remote sensing techniques is commonly practiced, with LiDAR and GIS-based modelling. LiDAR scans offer high spatial resolution and effective vegetation cover removal, making them valuable for detecting surface and subsurface features. Additionally, DTMs derived from LiDAR data provide insights into pre-modern relief and the alignment of ancient features (Schmidt et al. 2018). Comparing historical cartography with modern topography from remote sensing data offers an effective approach to landform identification. This method utilizes map overlay, digitalization of elevation data, and contour lines to track significant morphological changes over time. It is particularly valuable for understanding anthropic landforms in historical urban contexts, allowing for accurate analysis of volumetric changes and the identification of pre-existing elements in urban landscapes. (Terrone et al. 2021)”

Comments 5: Lines 563 and 577-578 - Once again, you refer to examples of "essential data" sources that you used in the present study. However, all data sources must be named. In lines 577-578 you explain that you have digitised historical maps, but it is not clear what exactly has been digitised: topographic data? Buildings? Water courses? Please be more specific here.

Response 5:  Thank you for the comment. We extracted historical maps with WMS and I included this info as follows.

Implementation: (line 673-677, pg. 20) “For the spatio-temporal evolution analysis of Milan's administrative area, historical map layers were retrieved using the WMS service provided by the geoportal of Lombardia. These maps, dating from 1956, 1984, and 2021, were subsequently georeferenced and digitized”.

Comments 6: Figure 9a - You refer here to two examples of nature-based solutions. Do you think this is enough for a study that introduces a framework integrating the NbS? For more examples of possible solutions, see, among others, Xing et al. (2017).

Response 6:  Thank you for your comment. The methodology applied area is mainly prone to flood Considering this and geographic conditions of Milan, initially we only offered these solutions

Comments 7: The Discussion - Reading through the Discussion chapter, I am wondering how the present study differs from earlier attempts in the same field? Of course, you describe a framework that includes elements of solutions that are relatively rarely used, but above all, your study is limited to the assessment of vulnerabilities resulting from the geomorphological contexts of the city. This is not a substantial novelty, given that there are many studies that explore the problem of geohazards in an urban environment by employing more advanced analytical techniques, such as AHP (see, e.g., Ouma and Tateishi 2014) and ANNs (Zhao et al. 2020). What is new in your approach to risk assessment in an urban environment?   

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. The main purpose in this research was to provide 3 subject study together and provide it on map. Indeed, various studies propose different techniques. However, I would like to emphasize that integrating and visualizing these three subjects on a map can offer significant benefits, particularly in urban planning and management (Discussion line 865-866, pg.28).

Comments 8:   Line 669 - You argue that existing urban geomorphological studies do not integrate the component of geoheritage assessment. I agree, but how are you approaching the geoheritage in your study? Your study area is located within the urban area known for its enormous geoheritage values (Pelfini et al. 2018), but the reader does not see any particular references to geoheritage in your manuscript. There are some rare but precious examples of detailed studies of urban geomorphology that use the concept of geoheritage. You refer to the work of Pica et al. (2017), which also refers to the concept of geomorphoheritage that integrates both geomorphodiversity and geoheritage domains. How do you integrate the geoheritage potential of the study area in your present contribution?

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. This study proposes the implementation of Nature-based Solutions within urban geoheritage areas as a means of preserving and conserving them. Regarding the study area, we added the following paragraph.

Introduction. 1.1. Study area (line 179-209, pg.5-6): “The interplay between the city's development and the geomorphological features highlights the complex relationship between human actions and the natural environment. Milan's integration of ancient Roman architectural marvels into modern urban infrastructure showcases its rich urban geoheritage. The urban geoheritage of Milan city is enriched by its historical buildings (e.g., Sforza Castle (15th century)) constructed with materials such as limestone and brick., showcasing the city's geological and historical significance”.

Comments 9:  Line 126 - "These challenges" - What challenges? This is not clear here.

Response 9: Done (line 141, pg.4) Urban challenges

Comments 10:  Table 1 - There are some obvious repetitions here. The sentence starting from "The process involved desk studies..." appears twice. In the column entitled "Name... and author(s)" there are no authors' names.

Response 10: Corrected. (line 245, pg.8)

Comments 11:  Line 402 and caption of Figure 5 - In line 402, you refer to the 19th century, but judging from the figure caption you think of pre-1990 bibliographic records; there is an apparent inconsistency here.

Response 11: Agree. Replaced figure 4 (line 463, pg. 14)

Comments 12:   Figure 6 - "Geological" instead of "Geolological". In the description of the second stage of the study, you probably refer to "cultural heritage and tourism" rather than to "cultural and tourism".

Response 12: Done.    

Comments 13:  Table 4 - "Table 4" instead of "Tabale 4".

Response 13: Done.

Comments 14: Lines 693-699 - In this paragraph, you describe the methods. I am not sure whether this fits into the Discussion chapter. The methodology should be discussed here but not described once again. 

Response 14: Agree. Corrected as below. 

 Discussion (line 818-825, pg, 27): “The proposed methodology in this study offers a systematic approach for integrating Nature-based Solutions into urban geomorphology and geoheritage conservation practices.It commences with a thorough literature review followed by landform assessments, leading to the creation of a susceptibility map to identify risky areas. The selection of susceptibility mapping for identifying risky areas was driven by its capability to provide a spatially explicit assessment of vulnerability, thereby enabling precise targeting of Nature-based Solutions. Subsequently, the methodology integrates NbS into urban geomorphology and geoheritage, resulting in an integrated map.”

Comments 15:   Lines 712-720 - To the contrary, this paragraph fits into the Results section. This also shows that the discussion is not adequately developed in your manuscript and could be elaborated further; see the comments above for some advice on how to improve the discussion.

Response 15: Agree. Corrected as below. 

Discussion: (Line 845-851. pg.27) “The practical implementation of this approach was effectively demonstrated through its application in the urban area. The study was conducted in Milan's northern and northeastern urban areas, focusing on landscape analysis and identifying vulnerable zones for NbS implementation, particularly against flooding. Figure 9 (a) visually represents the strategic integration of NbS into urban geomorphology and urban geoheritage mapping, facilitated by GIS tools.

Discussion (linex 863-870, pg.28) Proposing this methodology primarily focuses on mapping various urban features, including geoheritage, and identifying risky areas for implementing Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). Combining knowledge of valuable urban features with NBS application can provide a more comprehensive tool for further urban planning and management. However, our methodology may require additional resources and expertise for implementation compared to traditional mapping methods, and the integration of NbS introduces complexities that may limit its accessibility to researchers and practitioners with diverse backgrounds.”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for having responded to the observations made.

I hope that the authors feel that their work has been improved by following the observations and recommendations.

Regards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for recognizing our efforts in addressing the observations. We believe that our manuscript has indeed been strengthened through the incorporation of valuable feedback and recommendations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I'm satisfied by your responses and improvements. The manuscript seems to be more informative and better organized now. So, I recommend to accept it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your positive feedback and recommendation to accept our manuscript. We are pleased to hear that you find the revised version to be more informative and better organized.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved by adding a more comprehensive introduction to the principles of urban geoheritage, nature-based solutions, and the geology of Milan. Moreover, the Discussion chapter gained more sufficient insight into the possibilities of the use of the nature-based solutions at the intersection with urban geoheritage.

The authors used the comments to improve the manuscript, although they decided not to provide the reader with a full list of references to the papers used in their bibliographic study, arguing that it is difficult to merge literature lists from different databases. I can understand that.

The structure of the manuscript has been refined. The only controversial moment appears in lines 403-418. The authors summarise the state-of-the-art in urban geoheritage studies, which is an important point in the paper. However, I am not sure whether this paragraph fits well into the Results chapter. Such an introduction seems strange in the results, but the decision is up to the authors and editors.

The manuscript has undergone a significant proofreading effort (marked in green in the PDF), although there are some minor editing issues (listed below) that should be resolved before acceptance. Thus, I recommend the publication of the manuscript in its present form, after minor editing improvements.

Editing issues

Line 170 - Missing space before the opening bracket: "800 mm/year[6,58]".

Line 563 - Missing space before the opening bracket: "subsurface features[170].".

Line 571 - Missing space before the opening bracket: "landscapes[169].".

Line 650 - Remove the full stop at the and of the line and before the bracket: "geoportal of Lombardia. [171].".

Line 723 - Missing space after "Figure": "(Figure8. (a))".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback and comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx