Monitoring Potential Geological Hazards with Different InSAR Algorithms: The Case of Western Sichuan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• General comments: 

The English of the paper should be significantly improved. I advise the authors to find a proofreader with good written scientific English skills. 1) Abstract: In my opinion the abstract is well written and allows the reader to quickly identify the relevance and the significance of this paper. 2) Introduction: In this section the authors successfully introduce their reasearch paper. By reading this introduction, the readers know what to expect in the rest of the paper. And includes the relevant references in the field. 3) In the second section, the authors successfully provide a detailled description of used datasets and methods. However a desciption of studied area is needed. I suggest authors to add a brief description of studied area. 4) In the results section, the authors highlight the monitoring results and accuracy evaluation of different InSAR algorithms. This section should be improved.  5) The discussion is well written, and illustrate the key connections between the major results of the paper. Nevertheless, this section needs to be enhanced; try to compare and to discuss your results with those by other researchers either in the same area or other regional sites. 5) The conclusion is well written. I like this section!! 6) The list of references is updated and includes more relevant research in the field.

• Specific comments:

I have some questions to the authors:

Why they didn’t calculate the statistical indices (RMSE, Bias, etc) to get the  accuracy verificationof 300 InSAR ?

What is the socio-economic contribution of this work?

Finally the novelty of the work must be established in sections of introduction and discussion. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled “Monitoring Geological Hazards with Different InSAR Algorithms” is of a very interesting topic. The topic of the manuscript is within the scopes of the journal “Remote Sensing”. The authors use a variety of InSAR algorithms for surface deformation monitoring and comprehensive interpretation of optical remote sensing. In addition they compare the applicability of different InSAR algorithms in disaster monitoring in three areas of the Sichuan Province. The paper focuses on the methodology but seems to be a case study. Hence, the paper should be re-organized and presented as the application of the methodology to the specific area.

I am not a native speaker but I think that the paper reads quite well.

Here are my suggestions which in my opinon could improve the final version of the manuscript:

I propose the change of the title of the manuscript from “Monitoring Geological Hazards with Different InSAR Algorithms” to “Monitoring Geological Hazards with Different InSAR Algorithms: The case of Sichuan Province”, since in this paper the methodology is applied in the Sichuan Province. The new title of the paper should include the name of the study area of the case study.

In my opinion the “Introduction” section should be enriched regarding the applications of InSAR in detecting various processes both natural and anthropogenic (e.g. subsidence phenomena of the delta plains due to natural compaction of sediments and or pumping of groundwater) or land movements (uplift or subsidence) due to earthquakes and/or long-term aseismic tectonic activity.

A section titled “Study Area” should be added after the “Introduction” section and before “The Datasets and Methods” section. Since the methodology has been applied in a particular area this section should describe the case study area. Information regarding the geology, the geomorphology, the climate and the population density of the study area should be included in this section. In addition, a paragraph regarding the “geological hazards” that threats the area should be included in this section. A map showing the location of the study area should be also added.

Regarding the “The Datasets and Methods” section, the readers should appreciate a flow diagram showing the methodological steps followed.

Please change the section title from “Discussions” to “Discussion”.

In the “Discussion” section the authors should also discuss the causes of the areas affected by “geological hazards”. The type of rocks (the lithology of the geological formation) affects the spatial distribution of the “affected points”? When the authors mention “landslides” do they mean fast mass movement phenomena? Or do they mean all mass movement types? Is there a correlation among the tectonic structures (faults, thrusts) of the area with the results? What are the land uses and/or human activities of the areas that were identified as being affected by the geological hazards?

I would suggest to the authors to add the following references:

Mazzoti, S.; Lambert, A.; van der Kooij, M., and Mainville, A., 2009. Impact of anthropogenic subsidence on relative sea-level rise in the Fraser River delta. Geology, 37(9), 771–774.

Parcharidis, I., Kourkouli, P., Karymbalis, E., Foumelis, M., Karathanassi, V. (2013) “Time Series Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry for Ground Deformation Monitoring over a Small Scale Tectonically Active Deltaic Environment (Mornos, Central Greece)” Journal of Coastal Research. 29(2), 325–338.

Burgmann, R.; Hilley, G.; Ferretti, A., and Novali, F., 2006. Resolving vertical tectonics in the San Francisco Bay Area from permanent scatterer InSAR and GPS analysis. Geology, 34(3), 221–224.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my suggestions are treated by authors. I congratulate the authors because the article is now much improved.