Evaluation of the Karst Collapse Susceptibility of Subgrade Based on the AHP Method of ArcGIS and Prevention Measures: A Case Study of the Quannan Expressway, Section K1379+300-K1471+920

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no comments regarding the current version of the article. After the introduced corrections, it can be published.

Author Response

Reviewer 1：

I have no comments regarding the current version of the article. After the introduced corrections, it can be published.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment, your help and patience are highly appreciated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

I have read the manuscript water-1684789-peer-review-v1, entitled: Evaluation of the Karst Collapses susceptibility of subgrade based on AHP-ArcGIS method and prevention measures: A case study of Quannan Expressway k1379+300-k1471+920 section. The topic of the manuscript is certainly suitable for the journal and of potential international interest, but the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its present form. While the approach is not novel, the methodology, results and their interpretation could improve the knowledge on the evaluation of Karst Collapses susceptibility. Furthermore, the contribution appears confused and low fluid and in many part the methodology applied should be better described. The main problem of the paper is that it is not stringent. Also, the Authors should better highlight the novelty of the applied methodology and their points of force. A lot of data is presented, which is either not clear how was obtained and/or discussed in depth. The discussion failed to present a clear story but rather includes several issues which were discussed in a superficial way.

The major criticism from my point of view are:

-The abstract is poorly written and poorly informative on aims and results obtained.

-The Introduction section is not exhaustive and in many places is confused. The authors should focus better the aims of the work.

- The authors should add more information on the geology, geomorphology and climate features of the study area.

I suggest to add a figure with location map of the study area.

-I suggest to better detail the Karst landforms and add some pictures.

- Explain how the susceptibility classes were chosen

-The authors should validate the susceptibility model

- In many part of the Results section, the Authors wrote the methodology applied not results.

-A real discussion of the results is missing. The Authors should discuss deeper into detail, and compare your results with similar studies, particularly addressed to methods and the reliability of the results obtained.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers:

We wholeheartedly thank editors and reviewers for their time, patience, and efforts to review the paper. We consider the reviewer’s comments are very helpful to revise the paper. The paper has been significantly modified according to the reviewer’s comments to address the reviewer’s concern (The figures have been improved, the typos have been corrected, and additional sections have been added). We are now resubmitting the paper for the reviewer’s further review, and look forward to reviewer’s further suggestions and comments. Once again, the reviewer’s help and patience are highly appreciated.

Reviewer 2:

I have read the manuscript water-1684789-peer-review-v1, entitled: Evaluation of the Karst Collapses susceptibility of subgrade based on AHP-ArcGIS method and prevention measures: A case study of Quannan Expressway k1379+300-k1471+920 section. The topic of the manuscript is certainly suitable for the journal and of potential international interest, but the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its present form. While the approach is not novel, the methodology, results and their interpretation could improve the knowledge on the evaluation of Karst Collapses susceptibility. Furthermore, the contribution appears confused and low fluid and in many part the methodology applied should be better described. The main problem of the paper is that it is not stringent. Also, the Authors should better highlight the novelty of the applied methodology and their points of force. A lot of data is presented, which is either not clear how was obtained and/or discussed in depth. The discussion failed to present a clear story but rather includes several issues which were discussed in a superficial way.

Specific comments:

1.The abstract is poorly written and poorly informative on aims and results obtained.

Response: Thank you for your advice! The abstract has been rewritten.

2.The Introduction section is not exhaustive and in many places is confused. The authors should focus better the aims of the work.

Response: Thank you for your advice! The introduction section has been revised.

3.The authors should add more information on the geology, geomorphology and climate features of the study area.

Response: Thank you for your advice! Information on the climatic characteristics of the study area has been added in the "2.1.Naturalgeography" section, and more landform information has been added in the "2.3.Karstlandform" section, and the content of this section has been rewritten; some pictures have been added in the geological aspect.

4.I suggest to add a figure with location map of the study area.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion, it's very helpful for the paper. The figure with location map of the study area has been added.

5.I suggest to better detail the Karst landforms and add some pictures.

Response: Thank you for your advice! This section has been rewritten, and two pictures have been added.

6.Explain how the susceptibility classes were chosen.

Response: Thanks for your advice, it was very helpful for the paper. In the "5. Analysis of evaluation results" section, how the susceptibility classes were chosen have been Explained. It is divided according to the calculated value H of the karst collapse susceptibility evaluation model. When the H value is larger, the karst collapse susceptibility is higher, and when the H value is smaller, the karst collapse susceptibility is lower. According to the size of H value, the study area is divided into four karst collapse susceptible areas（extremely susceptible area (2.64-2.81), susceptible area (2.43-2.64), more susceptible area (1.88-2.43) and no susceptible area (1.04-1.88)）and one non-karst zone（0.51-1.88）.

7.The authors should validate the susceptibility model.

Response: Thank you for your advice! In the “4.2. Constructing the judgment matrix and assigning values ”section and the “4.3. Hierarchical single ranking and validation” section, the reliability of the susceptibility model has been verified by the consistency matrix. In order to test whether the qualitative judgment of the constructed judgment matrix logically meets the requirement of transmissibility, it is necessary to conduct consistency test, and the consistency index CR is used as the criterion to measure the consistency of the judgment matrix, and the judgment matrix can be considered to have satisfactory consistency when CR<0.10; otherwise, it is necessary to adjust the judgment matrix. The consistency test has been carried out, and the verification result is CR = 0.003856<0.1, the consistency meets the requirements, indicating that the established susceptibility model is reliable. Moreover, the research results of this paper show that the karst collapse susceptibility area predicted by the susceptibility model is consistent with the actual location of the karst collapse area, which proves that the karst collapse susceptibility prediction model is reliable.

8.In many part of the Results section, the Authors wrote the methodology applied not results.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, it is very helpful for the paper. The Results section has been supplemented and revised, and the research results have been supplemented.

9.A real discussion of the results is missing. The Authors should discuss deeper into detail, and compare your results with similar studies, particularly addressed to methods and the reliability of the results obtained.

Response: Thank you for your advice! In the “5. Analysis of evaluation results” section, the real discussion of the results has been added. The research results of this paper show that the prediction conclusion of karst collapse susceptibility is consistent with the actual situation, and the research method is feasible. But the research results have certain limitations due to the difficulty in collecting basic research data comprehensively.

In the revised manuscript, the changes above have been highlighted in red.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Your work is interesting, although AHP is a quite outdated method, and biased due to the involvement of various experts in the determination of the weighting factors. Information on this is missing from your manuscript. Moreover, all sections need to be significantly improved, and your figures need to be changed completely, as stated in the attached document. Finally, your manuscript requires extensive English editing/proofreading as it contains a lot of mistakes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewers:

We wholeheartedly thank editors and reviewers for their time, patience, and efforts to review the paper. We consider the reviewer’s comments are very helpful to revise the paper. The paper has been significantly modified according to the reviewer’s comments to address the reviewer’s concern (The figures have been improved, the typos have been corrected, and additional sections have been added). We are now resubmitting the paper for the reviewer’s further review, and look forward to reviewer’s further suggestions and comments. Once again, the reviewer’s help and patience are highly appreciated.

Reviewer 3:

Your work is interesting, although AHP is a quite outdated method, and biased due to the involvement of various experts in the determination of the weighting factors. Information on this is missing from your manuscript. Moreover, all sections need to be significantly improved, and your figures need to be changed completely, as stated in the attached document. Finally, your manuscript requires extensive English editing/proofreading as it contains a lot of mistakes.

Specific comments:

1.Your work is interesting, although AHP is a quite outdated method, and biased due to the involvement of various experts in the determination of the weighting factors. Information on this is missing from your manuscript.

Response: Thank you for your advice, it is very helpful for the paper. In the “4.2. Constructing the judgment matrix and assigning values” section, relevant content is modified and added. In order to eliminate the influence of prejudice caused by experts participating in the determination of weighting factors, the judgment results of each expert can be judged by the consistency test results of the judgment matrix, and the unreasonable judgment results of experts are eliminated, which reduces the blindness and randomness of relying solely on expert scores. It avoids the deviation caused by experts only assigning values based on experience, reduces the influence of human factors, and ensures the reliability of the AHP method.

2.Moreover, all sections need to be significantly improved, and your figures need to be changed completely, as stated in the attached document.

Response: Thank you for your comments! We have supplemented and revised the relevant content. Many sections have been heavily revised, and the figures have been changed completely.

3.Finally, your manuscript requires extensive English editing/proofreading as it contains a lot of mistakes.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out our mistakes, it is very helpful for the paper. This has been modified.

 

In the revised manuscript, the changes above have been highlighted in red.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

I have completed the second revision of the manuscript water-1684789-peer-review-v2, entitled: Evaluation of the Karst Collapses susceptibility of subgrade based on AHP-ArcGIS method and prevention measures: A case study of Quannan Expressway k1379+300-k1471+920 section, my opinion is that the quality of the manuscript, respect to first version, has been greatly improved considering all the suggestions of the reviewers. The Authors have discussed with great attention and wealth of details the items of the research. The paper appears well constructed, well documented and the results encourage the application of the method in other areas with different geo-environmental features to verify its reliability. Hence, it is recommended that the manuscript now can be accepted for publication in its present form.

Best regards

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

Main remarks:

The article concerns the method of risk estimation of the karst collapse using advanced statistical methods. The content presented in the article may be of great practical importance in the development of the concept of road or rail routes, as well as the possibility of building objects in the complicatedgeological conditions of the analyzed area. The very detailed description of geological conditions deserves recognition. In the opinion of the reviewer, the description of the AHP (analytic hierarchy process) method was too brief, which may make the content difficult for the reader to understand. 

The article can be printed in a journal subject to major revision. 

Critical Remarks

There is no connection between the methods of prevention the area threatened by karst collapse appearing in tab. 7 with a risk assessment assessed using AHP method. 

In tab. 6 no explanation of the relationship between the easy occurence level and the value of "H" defined in section 4.4. One should also justify the relationship of the adopted scales (Tab. 4) with the indicators listed in Tab. 3. 

It is also not explained where the coefficients (KW)i came from and on page 10 in line 256.

Authors should improve the text formatting of some parts of the text (e.g. lines 187-194, 213-220, 234 - 241, etc.)

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Gentlemen/Madam,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to revise the manuscript entitled “Risk assessment and prevention measures of highway subgrade karst collapse based on AHP ArcGIS method: A case study of Quannan Expressway k1379+300-k1471+920 section” by Yan-Hua Xie and colleagues that was submitted to “Water”. The manuscript used AHP and GIS to analyze the susceptibility of karstic geo-unit collapsibility which is an interesting topic in geo-hazard assessment. The manuscript can be considered as a scientific paper, but it is required several modifications. In this regard, the following comments are requested to be addressed by the authors:

 

Comment 1: The English of the paper is readable; however, I would suggest the authors have it checked preferably by a native English-speaking person to avoid any mistakes.

 

Comment 2: The necessity & novelty of the manuscript should be presented and stressed in the “Introduction” section.

 

Comment 3: Please add a subsection clearly articulating the main limitations, wider applicability of your methods, and findings in the “Results and Discussion” section.

 

Comment 3: Please describe the triggering factors properly. Please check and use these papers:

1. Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Pourghasemi, H. R., Lee, S., & Yamani, M. (2018). GIS-based gully erosion susceptibility mapping: a comparison among three data-driven models and AHP knowledge-based technique. Environmental earth sciences, 77(17), 1-22.
2. Azarafza, M., Ghazifard, A., Akgün, H., & Asghari-Kaljahi, E. (2018). Landslide susceptibility assessment of South Pars Special Zone, southwest Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(24), 1-29.
3. Souissi, D., Zouhri, L., Hammami, S., Msaddek, M. H., Zghibi, A., & Dlala, M. (2020). GIS-based MCDM–AHP modeling for flood susceptibility mapping of arid areas, southeastern Tunisia. Geocarto International, 35(9), 991-1017.

 

Comment 4: The methodology section is weakly written. So, my suggestion is to reconstruct it. Please check and use these papers:

1. Nanehkaran, Y. A., Mao, Y., Azarafza, M., Kockar, M. K., & Zhu, H. H. (2021). Fuzzy-based multiple decision method for landslide susceptibility and hazard assessment: A case study of Tabriz, Iran. Geomechanics and Engineering, 24(5), 407-418.
2. Das, S. (2020). Flood susceptibility mapping of the Western Ghat coastal belt using multi-source geospatial data and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 20, 100379.
3. Ghorbanzadeh, O., Feizizadeh, B., & Blaschke, T. (2018). An interval matrix method used to optimize the decision matrix in AHP technique for land subsidence susceptibility mapping. Environmental earth sciences, 77(16), 1-19.

 

Comment 5: The authors should deepen the discussion.

 

Comment 6: Provide literature of the methods developed/applied on susceptibility mapping in “Introduction”. The use of a table to demonstrate the advantage-disadvantage of these methods can be useful. Towards the end, mention the superiority & repeat the novelty of your work.

1. Abedini, M., & Tulabi, S. (2018). Assessing LNRF, FR, and AHP models in landslide susceptibility mapping index: a comparative study of Nojian watershed in Lorestan province, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(11), 1-13.
2. Hammami, S., Zouhri, L., Souissi, D., Souei, A., Zghibi, A., Marzougui, A., & Dlala, M. (2019). Application of the GIS based multi-criteria decision analysis and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in the flood susceptibility mapping (Tunisia). Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12(21), 1-16.
3. Azarafza, M., Akgün, H., Atkinson, P. M., & Derakhshani, R. (2021). Deep learning-based landslide susceptibility mapping. Scientific reports, 11(1), 1-16.
4. Subedi, P., Subedi, K., Thapa, B., & Subedi, P. (2019). Sinkhole susceptibility mapping in Marion County, Florida: Evaluation and comparison between analytical hierarchy process and logistic regression based approaches. Scientific reports, 9(1), 1-18.
5. Napoli, M. D., Martire, D. D., Bausilio, G., Calcaterra, D., Confuorto, P., Firpo, M., ... & Cevasco, A. (2021). Rainfall-induced shallow landslide detachment, transit and runout susceptibility mapping by integrating machine learning techniques and GIS-based approaches. Water, 13(4), 488.

 

Best regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the subject of this work is relevant and sufficiently interesting for the water journal readers. The research questions are very important, especially for the hazard prevention planning and for the management of the territories. The work sound and the overall approach envisioned are generally correct. All the key-elements (i.e., abstract, introduction, methodology, results, and discussion of the results) are present but not always clearly arranged.

Several times the text often assumes that the reader is more familiar with the evidence presented than is realistic to expect, and the references to terminology used are sometimes vague (or inexistent). The authors use a few terms to describe their product, such as: susceptibility, hazard, risk, disaster, etc (sometimes in place of one another). Each of these terms must be well defined in the introduction section, and subsequently used correctly, so the readers are not confused with the use in their field, because each of these terms means something different across nations, scientific fields, and research/management. To make clear to the reader all the steps necessary to reproduce this methodological approach I suggest simplifying the chapters in this way: 1. Introduction; 2. Study area; 3. Data collection and processing; 4. Model-building strategy; 5. Results; 6. Discussion; 7. Final remarks and management implications. In addition, maybe, in a Model-building strategy section, a flow diagram (in a graphical format), showing a synthesis of all the methodological steps, would be of great help to the reader. Moreover, in the Data collection and processing section, the authors need to include tables with information regarding typology, scale (or resolution), classes and source of the collected spatial dataset used.

It is also my opinion that the strategy and study design must be much better explained and structured. The authors need more specific detail on the implementation of the AHP, as well as more appropriate and international bibliographic references about this technique. I think that the entire methodological description is poor. The implementation of the AHP method is certainly clear and obvious in the minds of the authors but need to be explained more in the Model-building strategy section. The geological and geomorphological characteristics of the study area must be accompanied by cartography (geological and geomorphological maps) that allow understanding the spatiality of the used elements during the analysis.

In summary, I think that as in presented this manuscript could not be accepted as an article in the water journal.