A Simple GIS-Based Tool for the Detection of Landslide-Prone Zones on a Coastal Slope in Scotland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well written and it was improved respect to previous version.
Just two suggestions:
a) after you wrote geographical information systerm (GIS), in mdpi journals you have to write GIS and not more geographical .....etc
b) about the keywords:
Delete risk and add a location. It is better to avoid the word risk.
Author Response
Reviewer's comments: The article is well written and it was improved respect to previous version.
Just two suggestions:
- a) after you wrote geographical information systerm (GIS), in mdpi journals you have to write GIS and not more geographical .....etc
- b) about the keywords:
Delete risk and add a location. It is better to avoid the word risk.
Response: we thank the Reviewer for the positive comments. We have addressed the two suggestions in the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
please find attached my principal remarks according to this short comment and Recommendations for Authors section.
The research design is fuzzy.
Results seem modest.
References are often not very recent.
There are many self-citations: all necessary?
Regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer's comments:
Dear Authors,
please find attached my principal remarks according to this short comment and Recommendations for Authors section.
The research design is fuzzy.
Response: in our study, we are presenting a novel, simple approach that strives to exploit the use of one single, and readily available, data set -i.e. a digital elevation model, for preliminary landslide hazards mapping. To do so, we outline the rationale and assumptions behind the tool, we describe in detail the structure and components of the tool, enabling readership to reproduce our study, we describe the verification/validation approach that we followed, and we discuss the limitations. Although we acknowledge that the tool can be improved in the future, we believe that the research steps followed in our study to obtain the final product of the tool are sound and fit for purpose of addressing the aim and objectives of our research. Additionally, we are supporting our research design with a number of references in the text which, hopefully, help in de-fuzzing of the approach.
Results seem modest.
Response: we acknowledge that the results that we are providing in the study may seem modest but we would like to remind the Reviewer that the results stem from the size/extent of the case study for which we have the only adequate dataset. However, we think that we are providing enough supporting evidence justifying the capacity, usefulness, robustness, as well as limitations, of the proposed tool in spite of its simplicity. It was our wish to provide readership with additional polygons in Figure 7 to support further the tool’s capability. Yet, zones with actual landslides were not clear enough in the aerial image available at the time we undertook this study, so we decided to limit the validation results to those presented in the current manuscript version.
References are often not very recent.
Response: we strove to provide an array of references spanning from the 1970s to present that we deemed relevant to place our study in a wider context. We were also hoping to provide readership with an idea about the foundations and current research on landslides’ processes and detection, highlighting that the field of knowledge is still topical.
There are many self-citations: all necessary?
Response: we acknowledge that we are providing up to six citations referring to previous work carried out by the authors. However, these references are useful and necessary to contextualise the presented study, providing more detail about the pedoclimatic and environmental features of the study site, or referring to case studies that help us to discuss the applicability of the outcomes retrieved from the proposed tool. In addition, the list of self-citations provided indicate that the present study is part of a wider study in which landslide processes and mitigation is investigated in detail and over a longer time period.
L.26 is most likely to increase under the predicted scenarios of climate change; It may be useful to explain the reason for this statement
Response: we thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. This has been addressed in the text of the revised manuscript.
L.31. in remote areas away from densely populated urban areas; Do authors think about a specific geographic area? This is generally not true
Response: we appreciate this comment. We have indicated in the text that we were specifically referring to mountainous areas. In this respect, we beg to disagree with the Reviewer’s statement, as landslide maps suggest that most events occur in mountainous areas, which generally fall in remote and sparsely populated areas. (e.g. Global Landslide Hazard Map, The World Bank, Nature.Scot, etc.)
L.34. Furthermore, landslides can have devastating effects on human life, environment, and infrastructure; This statement seems to contradict the point highlighted above
Response: we thank the Reviewer for this observation. We have edited the text in the revised manuscript to avoid any ambiguity regarding this comment.
L.44. the environmental triggers; authors need to specify which ones
Response: we appreciate this suggestion. The specific environmental triggers we were referring were indicated in brackets in Lines 41 and 46. We are clarifying this further in the current manuscript by slightly editing the text.
L.49. Connected to this is the build-up of positive pore water pressures in the soil due to precipitation and/or groundwater ponding, which cause saturation and reduction of the strength of the soil; Doesn't this phenomenon also depend on the type of soil?
Response: we thank the Reviewer for this comment. We agree with the Reviewer on that the mechanics and hydrological processes occurring in variably saturated soil depend on the soil type. However, we are stressing in the manuscript that the geological triggers, such as the soil type, are outwith the focus of the study. Still, in the Discussion and Conclusion Sections, we explicitly suggest that the incorporation of more attributes, such as the soil type, can enhance the predictive capacity of the tool, implying that the triggers that the proposed tool strives to portray are directly related to indicated attributes. In L.49, we were referring to rainfall and its subsequent accumulation on the land surface, the latter one being of the landscape-based features that the proposed tool strives to capture, and which can be a driver/trigger of landslide events.
L.86. risks; risks or hazards?
Response: we thank the Reviewer for this remark. The correct word choice is hazard. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript and replace risk with hazard where appropriate.
L.114. high risk of instability; The use of "risk" is technically improper. Until now the analysis refers only to hazards
Response: we appreciate this comment. Please, see our response to the previous comment.
L.117. goals of this study
Response: we thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. We have edited the aims and objectives section in the current manuscript to clarify which were the goals of the study.
Fig. 6; Authors should improve the graphics resolution
Response: we appreciate this suggestion. A higher resolution image has been added in the revised manuscript. We will provide images/figures of a resolution specified by the Publisher when the manuscript goes into production.
L.375. In fact, the authors believe that the proposed tool would be of limited use with coarse resolution DEM rasters (i.e. point spacing of kilometers), as the terrain features of the landscape can be hardly portrayed with them; what is proposed is unclear;
Response: we thank the Reviewer for this comment. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly and updated the study goals to ensure that the message on what we are proposing is clear. In addition, we have edited the phrase featuring in L.375 to avoid ambiguity.
L.427. the advantage of the GIS tool presented here is that it can be used and updated by designers and asset managers alike, without much knowledge on GIS, geology or hydrology; It could also be a disadvantage!
Response: we appreciate this remark. We have edited the text featuring in L.427 of the previous manuscript version to clarify that we recommend our tool for preliminary landslide hazards mapping, which can be undertaken by non-experts. Yet, we also stress that the use of the proposed tool should be supplemented with ground inspection and investigation, and that the actions directed to manage landslide hazards identified by the tool should be designed appropriately by competent experts.
Reviewer 3 Report
In the previous edition, there were indeed shortcomings and imperfections in the article that I had pointed out, which did not give their article the required credibility in the methodology proposed by them.
The honorable authors with the additions they made to the introductory part of the article, to the management of the existing and new data they added, but also to the part of the discussion showed that the new format of their article now has remarkable completeness.
I am very glad that my remarks helped the authors give a really big boost to their effort with the result the new version of their article will be now ready for publication.
Best regards
Author Response
Reviewer's comments:
In the previous edition, there were indeed shortcomings and imperfections in the article that I had pointed out, which did not give their article the required credibility in the methodology proposed by them.
The honorable authors with the additions they made to the introductory part of the article, to the management of the existing and new data they added, but also to the part of the discussion showed that the new format of their article now has remarkable completeness.
I am very glad that my remarks helped the authors give a really big boost to their effort with the result the new version of their article will be now ready for publication.
Response: we are grateful to the Reviewer for such a positive comment.
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
The article under review deals with a very interesting natural phenomenon, which can cause very serious damage depending on its size.
The distinguished authors use tools of Geospatial Technology (GIS, Remote Sensing, etc.) in order to build a computational tool for spatial prediction on landslides. According to the article, one could say that this tool partially meets the goal they have set for their research. Although the title of the article may give the reader some guidance on the specific conditions that should govern landslides, then (discussion and conclusions) the authors magnify the important role of the computer tool they built without any reference to the one-dimensional approach they have taken in order to construct it. For example, nowhere in their article do they mention the terms that govern landslides as a whole, but they notice in their research hypotheses (lines 113-124) that they usually occur due to accumulated groundwater pressures.
However, according to the internationally accepted Varnes classification (1978*), landslides are mainly subject to two variables: a. in the type of material that failure (Rock, Earth, Soil, Mud, and Debris) and b) in the type and sequence of motion of this material (fall, topple, slide, spread, and flow). If these variables are combined, the classification of landslides can be e.g. Rockfall, Rock topple, Debris slide, Debris flow, Earth slide, Earth spread, etc., or even more complex, with a combination of two and/or more combinations.
Therefore, this phenomenon is complex, it can be triggered as a mechanism by various types of natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.) and I believe that a substantive reference to the above, should be clearly visible in the article.
The structure of the article is scientifically correct, but nevertheless, I consider the body of the article to have errors in the language of the text, but also in its content images (eg in figure 1 all that is seen are two empty squares A and B, while logically they have content as the authors refer to it a lot, the numbering of the caption of figure 4 is wrong and is again referred to as figure 1, words inside the figures are indistinguishable (figure 5)) and I generally think it has become a rough presentation of the topic.
If the honorable writers re-adapt their text by enriching and applying the software tool they built to consider other landslide factors, I would think they would be given the opportunity to publish it with claims. Recognizing the amount of work required to make such changes, I believe that at this point the article should be rejected for publication.
(*) Varnes, D. J. 1978. Slope movement types and processes. In: Special Report 176: Landslides: Analysis and Control (Eds: Schuster, R. L. & Krizek, R. J.). Transportation and Road Research Board, National Academy of Science, Washington D. C., 11-33.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
your paper must be resubmitted after major revision.
Every aspect should be expanded and reinforced.
Best Regards
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written and describe a interesting study on shallow landslides affecting a small coastal slope. Figures are well done as the list of references
I think that authors have to change some sentences in the two last chapters. I do not like the three following sentences.
Future extensions of the current work may include the investigation of other advanced machine learning and metaheuristic methods to enhance the performance of the landslide detection tool, inclusion of nature-based solution particulars for hazard assessment, as well as applying the current tool for hazard management in other study areas.
Machine learning? Please delete. The hazard management can be do after a detailed landslide inventory and analysis of landslide susceptibility. Change therefore complete the final part of Discussions.
tool is ready implementable on different spatial scales and its output is readily usable in landslide hazards and risks mapping exercises.
This tool can ASSIST in preliminary study on slope-failure processes. PLEASE DELETE risks mapping as landslide hazards. They are very FAR with this method
However, it is advisable to implement the proposed tool in combination with ground investigations collecting information on the geotechnical properties of the slope soil materials, as well as creating a landslide inventory, to ascertain the likelihood of slope failure and
I prefer that authors cite before landslide inventory and then geotechical properties of soils.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors. The subject of your paper is very interesting and the title is promising but unfortunately the manuscript does not cover the quality standards of Land and has has some serious flaws. My main remarks are:
- There is no clear connection of the proposed method with the international literature. It seems that the proposed method is applicable at large scale with very detailed DEMs in not so broad areas. If so, why somebody to choose your method from other well established ones (e.g. image interpretation of detailed images, field work, etc)?
- The presentation of the method / results is not complete. It is not clear how you define these vector (potential landslides) in the study area.
- There is no clear presentation of the assumptions and limitations of the proposed method. (the scale issue is a very critical point here)
- The validation of the method is not proper. From the final map i have the feelling that the proposed model overestimates the landslides. i suggest to conduct ROC analysis and provide information about the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy of the model.
- The organisation of the paper is not proper (the discussion is limited, there is no clear presentation of materials / data, etc).
