Rediscovering Valley Hillslopes: Their Forms, Uses, and Considerations in Urban Planning Documents

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

River slopes in settlements are important geomorphological units, the use of which can be limited by potential natural hazards. It is therefore important not only to discuss the future use, but also to evaluate the changes in the use of these territories for at least the last 50 years. Of course, the relief of the terrain must be taken into account in relation to the residence, which is in contact with the river and must use this area. The geochore is the basic unit, but it might be worthwhile for the authors to also look at the abiocomplex of individual geochores, as these could modify the overall evaluation results. Last but not least, we are talking about the risk of risk, we should definitely not overlook the control of land use changes and the smoothness of the surface on the slopes.

- Chapter 2.1 and 3.1 starts with a picture. there must be text first

- I recommend supplementing the publication with a background on the abiocomplexes of the territory

- Is there a difference in the impermeability of the slopes (north or south of the river?), if so why?

 

- In landscape planning, do these have official limits for use?

 

Author Response

Thank you for your reading and comments. It is always interesting to have insights from colleagues from other scientific subdisciplines.

To better present the results, we have added a research framework (line 249) as suggested by another reviewer. We have also considered your demand to stress the importance of land use by underlining this idea in a new paragraph in the discussion(line 633). Concerning the emphasis on the history of the place and the different uses of the valley hillslopes, we have added several paragraphs (line 225 and following)  explaining the evolution of the relations between humans and valley hillslopes. We have read about the concept of abiocomplex, even if we only find two mentions in Scopus relating to two Slovakian papers. Our approach as landscape architects and cultural geographers differs from those of geomorphologists because we emphasise the visual aspect. We have underlined this critical information in the new figure "research framework"(figure 2, line 250). Nonetheless, we have mentioned the possibility of referring to the geomorphological approach and this concept of abiocomplex (line 102). We found the paper published in Geomorphology very insightful. We have also mentioned the concept of abiocomplex in the discussion (line 641).
There is obviously a difference in permeability between the two slopes of the Meuse. It is presented in line 180 and the following. Concerning the question of the official limits for use, we thought that this idea was already present; nevertheless, however we added a few words in the conclusion, line 652

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

the article addresses cultural and environmental issues concerning the settlement of mountain valleys. However, in order to make the empirical research credible, it would be necessary to discuss in more detail the specifics of the settlement of the valleys of the analyzed area. The characteristics of settlement indicate, for example, that areas in specific geographical latitudes are settled, e.g. to a specific height, location in relation to the cardinal directions and the resulting sunlight; moreover, the form of settlement is influenced by strong winds or flowing rivers, as well as the form of ownership, or even the type of land (landslide areas - they were probably not settled). In most cases, these elements have been studied and described in individual regions. According to the reviewer, it would be necessary to refer directly to these premises in order to verify the conclusions about the premises that, according to the authors, are perhaps commonly known.

Best regards

Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you for your reading and comments. It is always interesting to have insights from colleagues.

We tried to follow your suggestion to be more precise on the specificity of the settlement, even if the paper's goals are to present a method which could be used elsewhere and to underline that the issue and the object of the slopes are dismissed in many urban planning documents. We 
have added several paragraphs (line 225 and following)  explaining the evolution of the relations between humans and valley hillslopes in the context of Liège. We have also upgraded the figures to better inform the readers. Last but not least, a new paragraph in the discussion (line 633) points out the limitations of the research, insisting on the importance of the local context and most of the points you listed. Thanks for your contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, entitled 'Rediscovering Valley Hillslopes in Urban Planning', aligns with the subject matter of the Land Journal and the section on Human–Nature Relations in Urban Landscape Planning. The topic is both relevant and timely, particularly in the context of urban renewal and sustainable development. 

The manuscript is structured in a coherent manner, with a clear progression from the introduction to the conclusions. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and analysis presented, provide a logical conclusion to the study, tie back to the initial research questions, and offer implications for future practice and research.

Following a review of the manuscript, some concerns have been raised.

Regarding figures, it is recommended that the quality of images, specifically their legends, be improved and links added to figures.

At Line 425, the image quality should be refined. To enhance clarity, it is advisable to divide the figure into several units and provide specific titles.

Furthermore, the reference list requires revision, as approximately half of the references are more than ten years old.

After these amendments, the manuscript is generally acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your reading and comments. It is always interesting to have insights from colleagues. We are pleased to note that you found the manuscript clear and interesting. 

We paid particular attention to upgrading the quality of the figures, including the legends. As you suggested, we have also divided some figures into two separate figures. As you can see in the new version of the manuscript, we added, following the suggestion of the other reviewers, more information  (line 225 and following)  explaining the evolution of the relations between humans and valley hillslopes in the context of Liège, a methodological framework (figure 2) and new elements in the discussion. We note your remark about the proportion of old references. This paper wanted to reuse an old landscape analysis approach, but it did so using new tools. It may explain why we cite the colleagues who developed the geochore approach. In the same vein, it is difficult to find recent and better papers dealing with the local history of Liege.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an innovative and noteworthy research manuscript, in which the author provides a rich analysis of the morphology, types, land use, and their relationship with urban landscapes of valley hillslopes, which is inspiring. Before the manuscript is accepted, there are still several points that the author needs to revise and improve.

First, let's consider the title of the manuscript. In my opinion, the title does not fully reflect the content of the manuscript. The role of urban planning is not adequately represented in the text, as much of the understanding of urban planning derives from the broad concept of land use.

This brings us to the second point for improvement: the research objectives and focus of the manuscript are not sufficiently prominent. Currently, the manuscript gives equal emphasis to valley hillslopes classification and land use analysis, making it difficult to discern the role of valley hillslopes in urban planning.

Thirdly, I highly recommend that the author develop a research framework for the manuscript. This is crucial for understanding the underlying logic of your research intentions. The discussion section contains a substantial amount of content, but it lacks a clear logical correlation between the main research elements and core findings of the manuscript.

The conclusions of the manuscript also require further synthesis and summary. Please strengthen the connection with the study results, rather than providing an additional discussion.

There are several formatting issues in the manuscript: mixed use of French and English, clarity of the figures, insufficient annotations on the diagrams, etc. Additionally, Table 2 on page 20 is actually an illustration.

Author Response

Thank you for your reading and comments. It is always interesting to have insights from colleagues. We are pleased to note that you found the manuscript innovative and noteworthy.

The paper's goals are to present a method which could be used elsewhere and to underline that the issue and the object of the slopes are dismissed in many urban planning documents. However, we agree that the role of valley hillslopes in urban planning was mainly approached by land use analysis. Therefore, we have added more information  (line 225 and following)  explaining the evolution of the relations between humans and valley hillslopes in the context of Liège and new elements in the discussion to better emphasise the link with the urban planning issue. As you suggested, a methodological framework (figure 2) was also added. We thank you, particularly, for this suggestion. It underlines the aim of all these analyses: the discussion of existing urban planning plans. 
We paid extra attention to upgrading the figures' quality and deleted the accent on geochore and geofacies to correspond to English writing.

Thank you for your contribution.

Serge Schmitz, Lauriano Pepe et Giacomo Dallatorre

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript presents the research framework and objectives more clearly, so it can be considered for publication. Before that, there are two aspects that the author needs to further improve and perfect:

1. As with the previous comment, I still feel that the title of the manuscript is not appropriate and does not adequately express the research focus and contents. The manuscript mainly focuses on the land use of valley hillslopes, rather than true urban planning. These research areas are not entirely located within metropolitan areas, and there is a distance in understanding and expressing urban functions;

2. It is recommended to summarize and condense the conclusions in the current manuscript. At present, the conclusion seems to be more focused on discussion, and the conclusions on the pattern and determining factors of land use on valley hillslopes should be more clear and specific.

Author Response

Dear Colleague,

Please find the new version of the research paper attached. We have adapted the title to better correspond to the content and replaced the previous conclusion with a new one highlighting the research's key learnings. We agree that these two changes better underline the main findings and hope they will satisfy you. We appreciate your time and contribution. 

Serge Schmitz

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf