Object-Based Geomorphological Mapping: Application on an Alpine Deep-Seated Gravitational Slope Deformation Contest (Germanasca Valley, Western Alps—Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

your work on combining geomorphological mapping and new GIS solutions with OBM are sounding promising, yet there are certain improvements that need to be addressed in order for the paper to be published.

1) More explanation would be expected upon methodology since the cited work on which the methodology is based is not accessible.

2) There is too much information about geomorphological features and description since the focus should be on the methodology and its applications (advantages and disadvantages).

3) As far as I understand the OBM method is an enhanced TGM method with more metadata stored in the GIS. As such, the map is still a traditional geomorphological map, which can only be better interpreted with cross-sections as presented in the paper. I believe that the TGM should be used in the paper as well, while trying to compare both maps (TGM left, OBM right) to see the similarities and differences of both GIS maps.

4) The list of references is quite short. I am sure that the state of the art could be described much better. A longer list could also possibly lead to more relevance in the areas of geomorphology & GIS & mapping, and increase the number of readers & potential citations. Most of the references are self-citation as well.

I am sure that the paper will proceed to publish phase after reconsidering these critical points.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General remarks: the paper is interesting and deals with an important problem of mapping geomorphological forms in a way that best reflects their size and spatial location. Authors present the experimental results of mapping gravitational slope deformation in Western Alps and the paper definitely is in the Applied Sciences scope -  Environmental & Earth Sciences. Nevertheless, due to the necessary correction and addendum I recommend the major revision.

1. The research objective of the paper as well as its contribution to environmental and earth sciences is not clearly defined.
2. The guidelines of the new geomorphological legend proposed by ISPRA-AIGEO-CNG Working Group on Geomorphological Mapping are not sufficiently presented. The given description is dominated by the geological and geomorphological specification of the study sites and it is not clear enough whether this description is based on the Authors’ study or a literature review.
3. On what basis the geomorphological forms in the attached images (Figs. 2-5, and 7) were identified?
4. Figures 6 and 8 present some kind of hierarchical mapping of topographic surface represented in terms of detailed parts of slopes, cloud you provided broader description of the results.
5. Please, remove the duplicated statements related to TGM.
6. The discussion section requires substantial improvement. It should contain references to other studies.
7. The Conclusion section is missing.
8. References include 16 items, seven of which were written by the authors'. More extensive reference to the state-of-the-art in geomorphological object-oriented mapping (OBM) is recommended.
9. Manuscript does not follow editing recommendation. Lines are not numbered, the Material and Method section was not separated, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

You have brought your work to a higher level. However, some minor improvements are still suggested to be published in Applied Sciences Journal. They are mainly related to the improvement of citations (in some parts the general state-of-the-art references are missing) and figures (as suggested in Review 1, but not included). There is not much left to do, and I see a bright future for this paper.

Best regards,
Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Detailed response to Reviewer

 

First of all, the authors would thank the Reviewer for the second revision work and the suggestions provided to improve the paper.

Each change made as raised in the Reviewer 1 comments are indicated below.

 

Reviewer #1

 

COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR:

Reviewer #1:

Still no citations as suggested in Review 1 “Missing citations. How about Smith & Paron & Griffiths, 2011; Seijmonsbergen, 2013…”

Answers:

Thank you to Reviewer, we added the citations in the text and in the Reference List.

 

Still no citations as suggested in Review 1.

Answers:

Thank you to Reviewer, we inserted the citations suggested by the Reviewer 1.

 

Still no change as suggested in Review 1 “Not needed, since different GIS programs can be used.”

Answers:

In chapter method we deleted the indication of the using of the sotware QGis, as required by the referee 1.

 

Still no citations as suggested in Review 1.

Answers:

Thank you to Reviewer. We added the required reference.

 

No improvement made as suggested in Review 1 “I would suggest using DEM for the base map, while removing the hipsometric contours. The map would be more “readable”, plastic and appealing, while remaining all of the essential information.

Use wider rectangular outline for Site 1 and Site 2 as it is not noticeable.”

Answers:

We added DEM for the base map, also keeping the contour lines for a greater understanding

 

No improvement made as suggested in Review 1 “I suggest using a graphics program and enhancing the illustration. Instead of letters, you can delimit the different morphological types and the flow with lines for each sector, so that the picture would be more understandable at first sight.”

Answers:

We delimited the different morphological types with a blue shading for each sector and the flow with an arrow. We also changed the caption.

 

No improvement made as suggested in Review 1 “Same comments as for Figure 2. I would as well suggest cropping the picture on its right side, to minimize the effect of sun and latter arrange the brightness and contrast of the picture, as some parts are too dark (green meadows) and some too bright (the sky).”

Answers:

Thank you for the reviewer suggestion. We made the required changes.

 

No improvements made as suggested in Review 1 “Same comments as for Figure 2. Imagine my suggestion as drawing polylines on the image.”

Answers:

We made the required changes. We also changed the caption.

 

No improvements made as suggested in Review 1 “Here as well, a DEM base map would be provide better and more understandable (left) map, that is well described with cross section on the right.”

Answers:

We added DEM for the base map, also keeping the contour lines for a greater understanding

 

No improvements made as suggested in Review 1 “Same comments as for Figure 2. Imagine my suggestion as drawing polylines on the image.”

Answers:

We made the required changes.

Thanks to the suggestions of the Reviewer the Authors preferred also changed Figure 8, for uniformity with the previous figures.

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

No, I am fine with the improved version of this manuscript. All comments have been taken into account, the manuscript can be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

Detailed response to Reviewer 2

The authors would thank the Reviewer 2 for the comments work.

Thank you and have a Merry Christmas times!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx