Are Soil and Geology Characteristics Considered in Urban Planning? An Empirical Study in Izmir (Türkiye)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The authors addressed to all of my comments. The manuscript is publishable in its current state.
Author Response
Rev_1
The authors addressed to all of my comments. The manuscript is publishable in its current state.
Thank you so much for this positive feedback
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
As stated by the authors, many studies have been done on this subject and this article is partially different.
Apart from this, flat areas in terms of slope declared by the authors were not found very meaningful considering the geographical distribution of the study area. Also, if the authors look at Figure 3, they will see that the land occupations are in colluvial areas located on sloping terrains other than alluvial soils.
Also known as the "Great Soil Group" in the literature, the authors write as "Large Soil Group" on line 280. There is no such thing as "A type" soil in soil classification. Also, the concept of "soil typology" in line 42 is not something found in world literature. Therefore, the authors of the article are strongly advised to seek help from experts in this field. These are seen as important shortcomings. Apart from these, it is not understood what the text "Totale complessivo" means in Table 7. Authors should carefully review both spelling errors and citations.
My opinion is that it is an academically weak article.
Author Response
Rev_2
As stated by the authors, many studies have been done on this subject and this article is partially different.
Apart from this, flat areas in terms of slope declared by the authors were not found very meaningful considering the geographical distribution of the study area. Also, if the authors look at Figure 3, they will see that the land occupations are in colluvial areas located on sloping terrains other than alluvial soils.
Also known as the "Great Soil Group" in the literature, the authors write as "Large Soil Group" on line 280. There is no such thing as "A type" soil in soil classification. Also, the concept of "soil typology" in line 42 is not something found in world literature. Therefore, the authors of the article are strongly advised to seek help from experts in this field. These are seen as important shortcomings. Apart from these, it is not understood what the text "Totale complessivo" means in Table 7. Authors should carefully review both spelling errors and citations.
My opinion is that it is an academically weak article.
Thank you for your comments. We tried to make an extensive revision of this work while adding more coherence and strengthening the meaningfulness of our analytical approach.
About slope and conductivity problem: (this part also revised in Manuscript)
As it is known, there is an essential relationship between hydraulic conductivity and groundwater. Whether the soil is saturated with water and the relationship of the slope with them are parameters that should be considered in terms of engineering applications. Within the scope of this study, topographically inclined and high regions are observed as the areas where rock units are dominant. In addition, stream beds in these regions have been rehabilitated or taken into reinforced concrete channels. This situation directly affects the infiltration and conductivity processes.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity is significantly affected by precipitation infiltration on the slope. When the saturated soil hydraulic conductivity is high, the safety factor is significantly reduced as precipitation infiltration appears to be rapid. Permeability is a measurement of the ability of water to pass through units. In situ saturated hydraulic conductivity means the saturated permeability coefficient, considering the entrapped air contained in the soil. This value is thought to be more appropriate than the fully saturated permeability coefficient in a valid unsaturated region (Yoon et al., 2015). For this reason, we see that the permeability values of the Quaternary alluvial units may differ (detailed soil classification maps according to sand, clay, and silt material size have not been prepared yet), but the presence of water-bearing capacity is seen from the existing wells and groundwater levels. In volcanic (andesite, dacite) and carbonate units, the permeability parameter comes to the fore rather than hydraulic conductivity. Also, fracture-crack systems and faults can cause high permeability and conductivity values in these units. In Table 3 classification, these rock units were included in the classification by considering the characteristics of the altered and relatively low-thickness soil formations associated with the rock. In addition, when the relationship between seismicity and groundwater is analyzed on the basis of rock units, there will be no liquefaction in rock units. In this context, it seems that the Quaternary-aged alluvial deposits are the part that needs to be examined and paid attention to primarily for the province of Ä°zmir.
Among the soil parameters, saturated hydraulic conductivity is one of the most important variables representing the water flow in the soil in the analysis of slope safety, especially considering the seepage effect. For this reason, it is very important to measure the in situ saturated soil hydraulic conductivity exactly in the field, and it would not be correct to make a comment on this issue in a remote sensing-based study.
We corrected the ex-table 7 and revised the others while eliminating errors. Besides, we added some charts to synthesize our analytical results.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript deals with a historical analysis of the trends in land use change in the city of Izmir (Turkey). For which the authors made an analysis of the urbanization processes from 2012 to 2018, using GIS to relate different layers of information such as land capacity, hydraulic conductivity, soil groups and fault lines. The results are interesting, since they demonstrate the limited use of land data in urban development planning. However, I have some comments and observations to improve the manuscript.
1. In lines 34 and 35. Clearly define soil characteristics, since these characteristics are the result of the relationship that occurs between soil-forming factors (climate, parent material, topography, biota, and time); as well as they are results of the forming processes of the soil, which is known as pedogenesis. Some soil characteristics are texture, pH, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable cations, soluble cations, phosphorus content, drainage, moisture retention capacity, infiltration rate, among other things.
2. In line 123. Consistency, line 121 shows the separation of thousands with a comma (11,878 km2), the quantity of 1200 m does not present the separation of thousands with a comma. Please, authors correct the notation (1,200 m)
3. In line 287, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 298, 344, the numbers of thousands are separated with points and the decimal figures with commas (line 287: 6,074.33 ha), contrary to the notation that the authors initially proposed (line 121: 11,878 km2 or line 338: 4,076 ha). Authors must be consistent with their annotations. Correct all the figures with the notation that was initially proposed.
4. Same situation as in the previous case (observation number three) occurred in Table 6; while in Table 7 the decimal numbers are separated with a point. Correct numbers in Table 6.
5. In line 425 of Figure 6, separate the units of the quantity: 30m appears, 30 m must be written.
6. In lines 480 and 481, correct similar to observation number three.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Rev_3
The manuscript deals with a historical analysis of the trends in land use change in the city of Izmir (Turkey). For which the authors made an analysis of the urbanization processes from 2012 to 2018, using GIS to relate different layers of information such as land capacity, hydraulic conductivity, soil groups and fault lines. The results are interesting, since they demonstrate the limited use of land data in urban development planning. However, I have some comments and observations to improve the manuscript.
- In lines 34 and 35. Clearly define soil characteristics, since these characteristics are the result of the relationship that occurs between soil-forming factors (climate, parent material, topography, biota, and time); as well as they are results of the forming processes of the soil, which is known as pedogenesis. Some soil characteristics are texture, pH, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable cations, soluble cations, phosphorus content, drainage, moisture retention capacity, infiltration rate, among other things.
Thank you for your precious comments. In fact, we added the characteristics a few lines below (39-42)
- In line 123. Consistency, line 121 shows the separation of thousands with a comma (11,878 km2), the quantity of 1200 m does not present the separation of thousands with a comma. Please, authors correct the notation (1,200 m)
Thank you so much for the comment. We corrected.
- In line 287, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 297, 298, 344, the numbers of thousands are separated with points and the decimal figures with commas (line 287: 6,074.33 ha), contrary to the notation that the authors initially proposed (line 121: 11,878 km2 or line 338: 4,076 ha). Authors must be consistent with their annotations. Correct all the figures with the notation that was initially proposed.
Thank you so much for this observation, we corrected the notations throughout the text.
- Same situation as in the previous case (observation number three) occurred in Table 6; while in Table 7 the decimal numbers are separated with a point. Correct numbers in Table 6.
We checked and corrected it accordingly.
- In line 425 of Figure 6, separate the units of the quantity: 30m appears, 30 m must be written.
Thank you so much, we corrected it as suggested.
- In lines 480 and 481, correct similar to observation number three.
Thank you for this observation, we corrected it.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The article is mixed with many unnecessary descriptions, which makes the overall structure of the article unclear.
There are so many unnecessary descriptions in the methodology part， that it makes the chapter on methods difficult.
Other comments are as follows:
Point 1: Line 11: What is "the most recent bibliography"?
Point 2: Lines 11-24: This section can be combined into one paragraph
Point 3: Lines 19-24: The results section in the abstract is not well described, please reorganize the language for specific results description.
Point 4: Line 29: What are "unsustainable rates"?
Point 5: Lines 40-41: "extremely vulnerable" and "much higher" are repetitive, please refine your language.
Point 6: Lines 42-66: Why is it divided into three paragraphs? Please re-refine the language and highlight the logic before and after.
Point 7: Lines 77-112: Should this section be in Part II, Materials and Methods? Please consider the structure of the article.
Point 8: Please check whether the geographical coordinates of all the pictures in the text are correctly represented.
Point 9: A large amount of the text uses parentheses to insert narrative. Please reorganize the language to make the sentence smooth.
Point 10: Line 135: What is the basis for "while strongly reducing the region's biodiversity"?
Point 11: The colors of the partitions in Figure 2 are too similar.
Point 12: Lines 152-160: This section can be combined into one paragraph.
Point 13: In Table 2, if you want to express the number interval, the middle should be a comma.
Point 14: Lines 202-208: Please add the corresponding references.
Point 15: Line 231: which "recent studies"? Please add the appropriate references.
Point 16: Line 245: Should the number be "2.4"?
Point 17: There is no need to break the middle of the inner line between Table 4 and Table 5.
Point 18: Line 262: Should the numbering be "2.5"? Please double check the structure and numbering of the article to make sure it makes sense.
Point 19: Lines 269-270: Could the chart have presented this section more clearly?
Point 20: The text in Figure 3 is too small to read.
Point 21: Line 328-335: Are there rural settlements and arable land being expanded into new urban areas without being noticed?
Point 22: The text of the legend in Figure 4 is not readable.
Point 23: Line 390: What does "[T1]" mean?
Point 24: Line 450: Is there also a corresponding causal relationship between the reduction in farmland area and the reduction in biodiversity image in the previous section?
Point 25: Do planning proposals need to consider the economic benefits and the ease of land transformation?
Point 26: Lines 478-490: Is there a need to consider corresponding changes in irrigation practices within the time sequence of the study?
Point 27: Please re-plan the structure and grading of the discussion section. The current grading and segmentation does not make sense and is confusing to read.
Point 28: Lines 532-538: Can you add actual cases and data of "cities built on fracture lines affected by earthquakes" to enrich the point of view in the paper?
Point 29: Lines 572-586: This section should appear in the actual discussion section of the proposal above.
Point 30: Lines 591-593: The expression "should be considered ......communities" is slightly repetitive, please concise the language.
Point 31: Please re-structure the conclusion section, the subparagraphs are more disorganized.
Author Response
Rev_4
The article is mixed with many unnecessary descriptions, which makes the overall structure of the article unclear.
There are so many unnecessary descriptions in the methodology part， that it makes the chapter on methods difficult.
Thank you for your general comments. Although we had to add other additional information due to the other critics, we wanted to clarify the method (and the body of the entire text as well) while rephrasing and reorganizing also the chapters and their content in this major revision. We also added a workflow diagram (figure 9) to easier the comprehension of our approach.
Other comments are as follows:
Point 1: Line 11: What is "the most recent bibliography"?
Thank you for this comment. Normally in the abstract, there are no references thus we changed the sentence smoothing the harshness.
Point 2: Lines 11-24: This section can be combined into one paragraph
Thank you for this observation.
Point 3: Lines 19-24: The results section in the abstract is not well described, please reorganize the language for specific results description.
Thank you for this comment. We modified it accordingly.
Point 4: Line 29: What are "unsustainable rates"?
Thank you for this observation. We deleted “unsustainable”. By definition, Land take (the specific transition of natural or agricultural land into urban) is always unsustainable since soil itself is a finite, scarce and non-reproducible resource. The stock is limited and its consumption is irreversible and thus unsustainable.
Point 5: Lines 40-41: "extremely vulnerable" and "much higher" are repetitive, please refine your language.
Thank you for this observation. We corrected.
Point 6: Lines 42-66: Why is it divided into three paragraphs? Please re-refine the language and highlight the logic before and after.
Thank you for this comment, we revised that part accordingly.
Point 7: Lines 77-112: Should this section be in Part II, Materials and Methods? Please consider the structure of the article.
Thank you for this observation. We deeply modified now the introduction while giving more coherence to this wide part.
Point 8: Please check whether the geographical coordinates of all the pictures in the text are correctly represented.
Thank you so much, we checked and provided the data in the figure’s description.
Point 9: A large amount of the text uses parentheses to insert narrative. Please reorganize the language to make the sentence smooth.
We tried to minimize the discursive/narrative parts.
Point 10: Line 135: What is the basis for "while strongly reducing the region's biodiversity"?
We deleted this part of the sentence. The basis was the LUC assessment in ref. 58.
Point 11: The colors of the partitions in Figure 2 are too similar.
Thank you. We changed it.
Point 12: Lines 152-160: This section can be combined into one paragraph.
Thank you so much for this observation, we shortened all the paragraphs while eliminating redundant unnecessary information.
Point 13: In Table 2, if you want to express the number interval, the middle should be a comma.
We corrected it accordingly.
Point 14: Lines 202-208: Please add the corresponding references.
Thank you for this observation. We significantly changed this part.
Point 15: Line 231: which "recent studies"? Please add the appropriate references.
Thank you. We smoothed the sentence.
Point 16: Line 245: Should the number be "2.4"?
Thank you for this correction.
Point 17: There is no need to break the middle of the inner line between Table 4 and Table 5.
Corrected.
Point 18: Line 262: Should the numbering be "2.5"? Please double check the structure and numbering of the article to make sure it makes sense.
Thank you for this observation.
Point 19: Lines 269-270: Could the chart have presented this section more clearly?
We changed this section and removed that unnecessary information.
Point 20: The text in Figure 3 is too small to read.
Thanks. We re-edited the figure.
Point 21: Line 328-335: Are there rural settlements and arable land being expanded into new urban areas without being noticed?
Thank you for this consideration. That sentence was more descriptive/narrative instead of technical. However, it is based on a detailed spatial evaluation of the cross-tabulation matrix (rural settlement and arable land are drastically diminishing).
Point 22: The text of the legend in Figure 4 is not readable.
Thank you. We re-exported Figure 4 at 300 dpi as required by the journal guidelines.
Point 23: Line 390: What does "[T1]" mean?
Point 24: Line 450: Is there also a corresponding causal relationship between the reduction in farmland area and the reduction in biodiversity image in the previous section?
Albeit not demonstrated by this paper we are sure there is this relationship. But we preferred not to open up this further issue since it was not the focus of our investigation.
Point 25: Do planning proposals need to consider the economic benefits and the ease of land transformation?
Yes, we added this part in the limits and potentialities. Even though the economic benefit was not investigated, the monetarization of the potential urbanization’s impact can play a vital role in easing the land transformations.
Point 26: Lines 478-490: Is there a need to consider corresponding changes in irrigation practices within the time sequence of the study?
Of course, irrigation practices can play a fundamental role in crop rotation. Nevertheless for the scope, scale and outputs of this analysis, we believe it was not necessary to investigate this matter.
Point 27: Please re-plan the structure and grading of the discussion section. The current grading and segmentation does not make sense and is confusing to read.
Thank you for this observation. We revised the discussion section.
Point 28: Lines 532-538: Can you add actual cases and data of "cities built on fracture lines affected by earthquakes" to enrich the point of view in the paper?
Thank you for this observation. We integrated that part with some cases.
Point 29: Lines 572-586: This section should appear in the actual discussion section of the proposal above.
Thank you for this observation, we significantly changed this part.
Point 30: Lines 591-593: The expression "should be considered ......communities" is slightly repetitive, please concise the language.
We changed accordingly.
Point 31: Please re-structure the conclusion section, the subparagraphs are more disorganized.
Thank you for this observation. We changed accordingly.
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript studies the urbanization processes between 2012 and 2018 in Türkiye using a Geographic Information System environment overlaying different information on soil and geology characteristics to consider in urban planning
The geology characteristics were studied like soil characteristics and must be considered in the title.
In the Introduction section, the importance and justification of the work and the hypothesis must be included. Some methodological aspects must be in the Material and Methods section. The earthquake events vulnerability could help justify the importance of the study.
In Material and Methods, the Study area should be better described. All maps should include a little localization map, and also the UTM zone.
Results must be presented in a Graphic figure. The codes used are not good for understanding the tables and relating the land use.
The Discussion must include more references and be more related to the results.
And the Conclusion has some results and needs improvements
Other comments are in the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Rev_5
The manuscript studies the urbanization processes between 2012 and 2018 in Türkiye using a Geographic Information System environment overlaying different information on soil and geology characteristics to consider in urban planning
The geology characteristics were studied like soil characteristics and must be considered in the title.
In the Introduction section, the importance and justification of the work and the hypothesis must be included. Some methodological aspects must be in the Material and Methods section. The earthquake events vulnerability could help justify the importance of the study.
In Material and Methods, the Study area should be better described. All maps should include a little localization map, and also the UTM zone.
Results must be presented in a Graphic figure. The codes used are not good for understanding the tables and relating the land use.
The Discussion must include more references and be more related to the results.
And the Conclusion has some results and needs improvements
Other comments are in the attached file
We struggled to take into account all your precious comments, nevertheless please consider that this manuscript has already received more than three reviews and we are trying to handle some contradictory requests… We highly appreciated your extended, precise, harsh comments. We used the detailed review file to revise entirely the body of text, our figures, comments, graphs, and all the other more problematic issues pointed out by the review.
In the introduction, we kept the structure of the manuscript as it has been one of the focus requests of other reviewers. Please consider this not as a disrespectful decision according to your suggestions: we had to balance different opinions. As for the rest of the comments, we tried to carefully take into account your suggestions.
As for your comment in the methodology which stated: “it is not a description of the material used in the study, but it is a justification or an explanation of the use of the layer (faults), or the importance of the layer... it is an introduction information.” We tried to keep this part in the method because these undefined and undifferentiated faults should still be considered risk factors. We kindly ask to consider this decision at light that the active-inactive fault distinction was not made in this study, and it was considered that all kinds of faults and fractures could be re-activated in engineering studies. Therefore, these sentences were directly related to methodology.
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors made significant improvements in the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions but need some minor revisions indicated in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you so much for your detailed and fruitful comments. We checked out the attachment and made the final minor modifications.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the title of the article, the characteristics of the soils are mentioned. However, when the entire article was examined, the research was carried out by considering only the hydraulic conductibility effects of the soils. The characteristics of soils are not only hydraulic conductibility. As the authors indicate in the abstract and lines 37 and 38, soil genesis, soil groups, soil texture, soil depth, as well as the slope of the land, drainage conditions, etc., are used worldwide to describe the properties of soils. Therefore, it was considered a major weakness that the authors carried out the study by considering only one parameter. The authors evaluated the hydraulic conductibility of the soils by interpreting the geological parent material. They did not conduct a hydraulic conductibility study in these areas.
Therefore, it would be more accurate if the authors wrote hydraulic conductivity instead of soil properties in the title of the article.
The slope of the land controls how much precipitation will infiltrate underground or run off the surface. Since the surface flow will be dominant in the high sloping lands, the surface flow in the soil is more dominant, and in the areas with flat topography, infiltration occurs at a higher rate compared to the sloping lands.
And also, for example, if soils with the same geological parent material have different slope degrees, not only their hydraulic conductibility but also other soil properties will vary. Not only the degree of the slope but also the shape of the slope (concave, convex, etc.), many variables such as slope length will affect other soil properties here.
Likewise, even if it is the same geological material, their hydraulic conductibility will change when the vegetation on them changes. Studies carried out without considering these parameters remain simple and cannot achieve the desired impact. Authors should pay attention to this issue.
As a result, a study focused on the hydraulic conductibility of the soils under this pressure by taking the data of the urban development between two different years from a source. I think that the fact that there are many similar studies both in the geographical area and method will prevent the impact of the article and dissemination. Therefore, the authors should develop the methodology of the study by taking into account the other characteristics of the soils in the article.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
In the title of the article, the characteristics of the soils are mentioned. However, when the entire article was examined, the research was carried out by considering only the hydraulic conductibility effects of the soils. The characteristics of soils are not only hydraulic conductibility. As the authors indicate in the abstract and lines 37 and 38, soil genesis, soil groups, soil texture, soil depth, as well as the slope of the land, drainage conditions, etc., are used worldwide to describe the properties of soils. Therefore, it was considered a major weakness that the authors carried out the study by considering only one parameter. The authors evaluated the hydraulic conductibility of the soils by interpreting the geological parent material. They did not conduct a hydraulic conductibility study in these areas.
Therefore, it would be more accurate if the authors wrote hydraulic conductivity instead of soil properties in the title of the article.
The slope of the land controls how much precipitation will infiltrate underground or run off the surface. Since the surface flow will be dominant in the high sloping lands, the surface flow in the soil is more dominant, and in the areas with flat topography, infiltration occurs at a higher rate compared to the sloping lands.
And also, for example, if soils with the same geological parent material have different slope degrees, not only their hydraulic conductibility but also other soil properties will vary. Not only the degree of the slope but also the shape of the slope (concave, convex, etc.), many variables such as slope length will affect other soil properties here.
Likewise, even if it is the same geological material, their hydraulic conductibility will change when the vegetation on them changes. Studies carried out without considering these parameters remain simple and cannot achieve the desired impact. Authors should pay attention to this issue.
As a result, a study focused on the hydraulic conductibility of the soils under this pressure by taking the data of the urban development between two different years from a source. I think that the fact that there are many similar studies both in the geographical area and method will prevent the impact of the article and dissemination. Therefore, the authors should develop the methodology of the study by taking into account the other characteristics of the soils in the article.
Even though we guess there is a basic misunderstanding we tried to critically receipt the contents of this review in the new version of the paper.
Specifically, as for the points that regard soil conductibility, is not true that we didn’t consider the other aspects. Our method consists in the evaluation of the spatial distribution (quantity and quality) of the land taken by new urbanization, and we overlap these features with three different datasets: 1) soil conductibility classification, 2) Land Capability Classification and 3) Geological Unites and Fault Lines.
The results of these different intersections are explained in four different chapters (that’s why we prefer to talk of “general” vulnerability instead of only hydraulic conductibility, which is only ¼ of our assessment):
3.1. Land Use Change analysis
3.2. Impacts on soil hydraulic conductibility
3.3. Impacts on Land Capability
3.4. Impacts on Geological Units and Fault Lines
Nevertheless, according to your precious and detailed suggestion, we wanted to specify that our approach has several limits. We synthesized the limits in a new chapter of the Discussion called “4.1. Limits and novelties” where these issues are tackled.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors investigated whether soil features were taken into account in the urbanization of Izmir between 2012 and 2018. In general, the paper is well structured, but there are several issues that should be addressed before publication.
It is difficult to understand the novelty of this study. I do not quite understand why this study is novel given the recent advancements in urban planning. The authors need to clarify how their work can help the scientific community.
The abstract should be a single paragraph. Please see the instructions for authors section of the journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/urbansci/instructions
Please check the English style: there are some grammatical mistakes, for example
Although soil is acknowledged to be a finite, non-reproducible resource [1,2] its utilization for new anthropization processes is still happening at fast and unsustainable rates [3–5].
Please only cite necessary and important references. For a research article, 102 references is a lot.
Please decrease the number of self-citations. You have cited 9 of your own publications.
Please provide a similarity check report. Your most recent paper and present research use very similar methodologies.
Salata, S., & Arslan, B. (2022). Designing with Ecosystem Modelling: The Sponge District Application in Ä°zmir, Turkey. Sustainability, 14(6), 3420.
Please add a legend to Figure 1.
Legend for Figure 4 is not clear.
Author Response
The authors investigated whether soil features were taken into account in the urbanization of Izmir between 2012 and 2018. In general, the paper is well structured, but there are several issues that should be addressed before publication.
It is difficult to understand the novelty of this study. I do not quite understand why this study is novel given the recent advancements in urban planning. The authors need to clarify how their work can help the scientific community.
Thank you for this observation, in line with other suggestions, we decided to add a new sub-chapter 4.1 called Limits and Novelties (discussion part), where both of them are explained in the body of the text.
The abstract should be a single paragraph. Please see the instructions for authors section of the journal https://www.mdpi.com/journal/urbansci/instructions
Thank you for your observation. The guidelines say: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations
We checked our abstract and is composed by 178 words. Lines 10 to 12 introduction, lines 13 to 17 methodology, lines 18-20 results and lines 21-23 conclusions.
Please check the English style: there are some grammatical mistakes, for example
Although soil is acknowledged to be a finite, non-reproducible resource [1,2] its utilization for new anthropization processes is still happening at fast and unsustainable rates [3–5].
Thank you for this observation, we made an extended careful revision of the grammar using the IZtech internal service AWC (attached the certificate).
Please only cite necessary and important references. For a research article, 102 references is a lot.
Please decrease the number of self-citations. You have cited 9 of your own publications.
Thank you for this observation, we deleted self-citations in the body of the text.
Please provide a similarity check report. Your most recent paper and present research use very similar methodologies.
Salata, S., & Arslan, B. (2022). Designing with Ecosystem Modelling: The Sponge District Application in Ä°zmir, Turkey. Sustainability, 14(6), 3420.
Thank you for this observation. We just want to clarify that the paper mentioned above relies on a different methodology (run-off analysis using InVEST), while here we developed a new ad-hoc database that includes the soil infiltration capacity (but is not analyzed through the run-off curve numbers) with other new soil data: land capability, geological units, and fault lines.
Please add a legend to Figure 1.
Legend for Figure 4 is not clear.
Thank you for your observation, we added a legend to the 1st figure, and tried to make a more understandable legend in the 4th figure
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, the authors compiled the urban development analysis(land use change) from the Urban Atlas database digitally, the LCC data from the soil map, and the hydraulic conductivity data from the data in the geological map.
In fact, these data were not produced, they were only collected and got together for an intersection/overlap analysis. Although this situation does not create a problem, since there is no data production, it weakens the impact of the study presented as a "research article" and causes it to move away from originality.
The study is to determine the class of the areas resulting from the intersection of the data taken from the Urban Atlas and the data on the soil map, from the LUC data available on the soil map, and to evaluate the hydrological conductivity class on the geological map. In addition, the evaluations of these areas on the Major Fault Segments map are also indicated.
Some of these maps are 1/250,000 scaled, some 1/100,000 scaled, and some are 1/25,000 scaled. There is no unity of scale among the maps used in the study. Although this may seem like a minor issue, it is an important detail.
Suggestions and recommendations on agricultural crop production patterns in the discussion section also contain important deficiencies and do not reflect the current situation.
Generally, It was evaluated that the study could not go beyond just an intersection or overlap analysis in GIS, and accordingly, the impact of the article would be weak. In addition, since there are similar studies in the region and this study does not include a new approach, its originality was evaluated as inadequate.
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the authors for their revisions and for including my comments. However, I still believe authors should explain the novelty of the present work in the introduction section. Paper is publishable after revising this issue.
