Improved Shallow Landslide Susceptibility Prediction Based on Statistics and Ensemble Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
This manuscript stressed the importance of sample /training data quality and concluded that distance to river/road and elevations are the dominant factors driving landslides. Overall, I do find this paper is well written, except for several sentences that should be clarified. I recommend some revisions with the current version.
I have two major criticisms, which hopefully can help improve the quality of paper.
Firstly, many factors could contribute to landslides, what factors were usually considered in previous studies, particularly the physical factors, e.g. slope, vegetation, rainfall etc.? Are you the first to address the factor of distance to river/road, and what is the physical reasons behind it?
pls show the algorithm of wetness index (L144), is this the soil wetness or vegetation cover index (e.g. NDVI)? I suggest also showing the vegetation index.
Secondly, what is the area range of landslides? (the paper L121 wrote 3.6 km2 to 300 m2).
I guess it is a error, should be 300 km2? If yes, you may use Interferometry SAR data to detect landslides, and use them as your sample data. Just for your consideration in the current paper.
See below for detailed comments,
L18, should be ‘by combing … and …’
L28, should be
‘Regions with distance to stream less than 2000 m, distance to road less than 3000 m and elevation less than 600 m were susceptible to the landslide hazard.’
Or ‘Distances to stream and road and elevations are dominant factors in landslide hazard’.
L58, Pls rewrite this sentence, and add citations to clarify what has been done and what needs to explore herein
L80, Pls rewrite this sentence
L96, L97 ignore using ‘belong to’
L635 Enlarge the legends and letters in Fig.5
Change the color scheme of red box with black texts, difficult to read. Should be ‘ level ’ in figure.
Pls check all the grammar mistakes.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, and the comments and suggestions you made are important and valuable. We would like to provide a point-by-point response as follows and the related revision has been marked in red in the word file:
1.This manuscript stressed the importance of sample /training data quality and concluded that distance to river/road and elevations are the dominant factors driving landslides. Overall, I do find this paper is well written, except for several sentences that should be clarified. I recommend some revisions with the current version.
Respond: Thank you for your approval and we would revise the manuscript based on your comments and suggestions.
2. Firstly, many factors could contribute to landslides, what factors were usually considered in previous studies, particularly the physical factors, e.g. slope, vegetation, rainfall etc.? Are you the first to address the factor of distance to river/road, and what is the physical reasons behind it?
Respond: It is true that many factors were responsible for landslides occurring. We selected 13 conditioning factors in the study, actually. Finally, the factor of distance to river/road and elevation were determined as the major factors based on the results of Gini index. We have added related information on page 10, line 359-365, to explain why the factor of distance to river/road is important.
2.pls show the algorithm of wetness index (L144), is this the soil wetness or vegetation cover index (e.g. NDVI)? I suggest also showing the vegetation index.
Respond: We have provided related formula on page 4, line 146-148.
3.Secondly, what is the area range of landslides? (the paper L121 wrote 3.6 km2 to 300 m2).I guess it is a error, should be 300 km2? If yes, you may use Interferometry SAR data to detect landslides, and use them as your sample data. Just for your consideration in the current paper.
Respond: The area of landslides in the study range from 3.6 km2 to 300 m2. The landslides in the study are shallow landslides.
4. L18, should be ‘by combing … and …’
L28, should be
‘Regions with distance to stream less than 2000 m, distance to road less than 3000 m and elevation less than 600 m were susceptible to the landslide hazard.’
Or ‘Distances to stream and road and elevations are dominant factors in landslide hazard’.
Respond: We have revised the sentences based on the suggestions.
5.L58, Pls rewrite this sentence, and add citations to clarify what has been done and what needs to explore herein
Respond: We have rewritten this sentence and added related citations on page 2, line57-58, page 3, line 87-88.
6.L80, Pls rewrite this sentence
Respond: We have rewritten this sentence.
7. L97 ignore using ‘belong to’
Respond: We have revised it on page 3, line 97-99.
8.L635 Enlarge the legends and letters in Fig.5
Respond: We have Enlarge the legends and letters in Fig.5 on page 21-22
Thank you again for your kindly work.
Yours,
Zhu
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is well structured, and approached issues clear presented.
Line 90. Please motivate why did you select the study area, besides the presented characteristics.
Line 418 - Maintain the integrity of geological hazard assessment.
No comparisons with the results of other research are made. If nobody studied this area of research, please mention.
Please mention the new contribution brought by the research to the study area.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, and the comments and suggestions you made are important and valuable. We would like to provide a point-by-point response as follows and the related revision has been marked in red in the word file:
1. The article is well structured and approached issues clear presented.
Respond: Thank you for your approval.
2. Line 90. Please motivate why did you select the study area, besides the presented characteristics.
Respond: We have explained why Miyun country was selected in the study on page 3, line 91-92.
3. Line 418 - Maintain the integrity of geological hazard assessment.
No comparisons with the results of other research are made. If nobody studied this area of research, please mention.
Respond: We have provided related cations for comparison on page 12, line 437-439.'
4.Please mention the new contribution brought by the research to the study area.
Respond: We have revised the conclusion on page 12, line 457-461.
Thank you again for your kindly work.
Yours,
Zhu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
