Geological and Structural Framework, Inventory, and Quantitative Assessment of Geodiversity: The Case Study of the Lake Faro and Lake Ganzirri Global Geosites (Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the manuscript represents a good research, but there are a few minor issues that require improvement. My main concerns ar listed here below. Other issues are included as comments and some text corrections in the annotated copy of the pdf document.

Formal aspects:

- Title: delete comma after "Inventory" and replace "Mondial" with "Global" or "World"

- Check punctuation marks throughout the text (some corrections have been made on the annotated pdf).

- Carefully check the numbers quoted for references, e.g., Lankford is number 6 in the reference list, not 7 as quoted in the text.

Regarding the scientific and technical contents of the paper:

- There are several unclear or ambiguous statements that need clarification and/or rephrasing (see annotated pdf document).

- In the discussion (and also more synthetically in the conclusions) I miss a constructive criticism including some suggestions for improving the currently published quantitative assessment methods of geodiversity, in particular the one by Brilha (2016) used in this study. I think that the number of indicators used (7 in the case of SV) is too high and could be reduced to 3 or 4. Representativeness and rarity (or singularity) are the most relevant and should represent the 70 or 80% of the total weight given to SV. In this work, the authors have chosen to modify the relative weights of the indicators, reducing the weight of "integrity" and "use limitations" (on which I agree with the authors), but maintaining 5% for the "diversity" indicator which in my opinion should not be taken into account (0%), because the scientific value of a locality does not necessarily depend on the geological diversity that it presents.

I hope this comments are helpful.

Best wishes,

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language can be improved, especially in what concerns grammar and the correct use of punctuation, which would both help to make authors statements more understandable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your useful indications.

We agree with all your recommendation.

In the file attached there is a point by point description.

All the best

Roberta Somma

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewing the manuscript ‘Geological and Structural Framework, Inventory, and Quantitative Assessment of Geodiversity: The case study of the Lake Faro and Lake Ganzirri Mondial Geosites (Italy)’ confirmed to me the validity of the Brilha method assessment, which you have successfully applied. However, it is sometimes necessary to critically analyse those results that could result from using adaptive approaches, which you have only partly exploited. The title clearly responds to what has been analysed, as does the abstract, which is however long with redundant information. The manuscript is fairly well-developed, but the text is sometimes lacking in incisiveness and sometimes too hasty. These parts of the text should be improved or supplemented.

The introduction seems to me to emphasise the role of public administrations in the census and management of geodiversity, to take care of it regardless of its scientific value (see passage between line 59 and 73). Possibly one could describe in section 2, first the method (2.2) and then the generalities of the site (2.1), later contextualised in 2.3 and 2.4. I think the two sites are correctly described, although I would have emphasised some aspects useful for evaluation. For example, how is it possible to see and narrate the geological feature that makes it ‘representative and rare’. I think the two sites are correctly described, although I would have emphasised some aspects that are useful for evaluation. For example, how is it possible to see and narrate the geological feature that makes it ‘representative and rare’. A lagoon also has a number of interferences, as indicated in lines 286-295 in the previous section, that make it a ‘special’ place not only for geodiversity.

The methodology has been correctly applied, however it would be better to explain the scores given to the main indicators in the various tables. Also, to an attentive reader, the values between the two sites LF and LG might appear different, whereas instead they appear quite similar. Could you explain this? The validation of the results reported in the discussion should at least be justified by citing similar situations in the Mediterranean. While I agree with the conclusions, I think some aspects that are not specific but relevant to the area should be emphasised. I intend to give importance to those international and national recognitions that the two geosites have acquired. The pictures support the text (minor corrections to fig. 1 and fig. 2) and are in themselves understandable, as are the tables. I would have included a couple more photos of the natural heritage of the two sites to emphasise its value (details rather than panoramic views). The references sufficiently consolidate the research in its various sections; I could not verify the correspondence between the citations in the text and the list. Furthermore, I believe it could be supplemented with some recent publications on coastal lagoons in similar geological contexts (e.g. Greece). All in all, I consider this manuscript to be of significant scientific interest, however I believe it needs to be improved and supplemented in order to achieve its effectiveness in limiting strong attacks. My recommendation is to accept it after major revision. For other details see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your constructive review.

We followed all the suggestions. The answer point by point is reported in the file attached.

We decided to review all the scores attributed to the criteria of Brihla, with a more critical approach.

Thanks

Best regards

Roberta Somma

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The rapidity of the response as well as the attention shown towards my observations and suggestions highlights the validity of the research entitled ‘Geological and Structural Framework, Inventory, and Quantitative Assessment of Geodiversity: The case study of the Lake Faro and Lake Ganzirri Global Geosites (Italy)’. The revision carried out has clearly improved the contents and also the additions of some figures have highlighted more the characteristics of the geological heritage. Some aspects probably remain to be deepened in order to emphasise the comparison with other lagoons, however, this could deviate from the purpose of this research. Some additions, however, mitigate this shortcoming quite a bit. This can also be verified in the bibliography. In the review, certain aspects of Brilha's approach are emphasised more and justify the quantitative evaluation performed. As I had already mentioned, in order to counteract the aggression towards geological sites, which is generally high and persistent in coastal areas, other aspects of natural and cultural heritage must be emphasised. In the revision carried out there was a typo in figure 1 where the change to the plural of the texts in the circles, as they are in the caption, was requested and then accepted. Except for this minor situation to be corrected at the editorial stage, the manuscript can be published without further changes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for helping us in improving the paper.

Now I modified also the plurals in the figure 1. Thak you again.

For enhancing the cutural and natural heritage, I introduced another sentence and also a beautiful image of the lake Faro at the sunset.

Thanks a lot for your kind support.

Roberta Somma