Impact of Factors That Predict Adoption of Geomonitoring Systems for Landslide Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is quite well arranged and the description of methods and results are clear even if some additional information can be added to improve the readability and understanding.

 

As some of the topics cited in the paper are quite well investigated by the scientific community (risk, vulnerability, risk management cycle) and there are several projects on landslides risk management can be interesting to include in the introduction section some additional references to the good list already reported.

 

In the section 3.1. Objectives and activities regarding the development of GeoSES Monitoring System could be useful to add some additional technical details as for example on line 176 which type of satellite image/SAR have been collected including number of images,  spatial and temporal resolution.

 

An overall review of English could be valuable to make the paper easier to understand for the readers in particular reviewing some duplicated concept (check the comments below).

 

Below a list of some additional and more specific comments addressed to support the review:

Line 168 add a space between figure 1 and Study.

Bullet point (lines 175-194): harmonize the list using only one punctuation type between  “,” “.” “;”.

Figure 1: add information in the text of in the caption of in both about what is rap represented  with yellow pointers.

Figure 2 there are some arrows overlapping and lines not well visible

Lines  217 Could be useful to specify which the sensors or the resolution of collected imagery to give the reader the idea about resolution and technical detail of the analysis.

Figure 3 is never cited in the text. Please check and add to make improve the readability.

Lines 217-2019 it will be interesting to explain the methodology to determine the deforestation regime or add a reference if it has been already published or it is explained in some available work.

Lines 226-234 it will be interesting to know some additional detail about type of image, resolution, timeframe analysed.

Lines 348-358 some of this information have been already provided in the previous sections. Please review the content in order to limit duplicated information.

Line 482 replace “As seen in Table 4” with for example “As shown…” as the table has not been already cited

Line 509 It seems to be a sub- section of section a bullet point (arrow in this case) is missing. Please check  

Line 515 Add a space after the point here:  “…relationships.Although….”

Line 520 Add a space after the point here:  “…[58,59].The path…”

Line 523 Add a space after the point here: “….R2 value.The path….”

Line 572 Check the caption of figure 6 and re-arrange the description. As example use something similar to what has been reported in the text on lines 517-518 “Figure 6: analysis of the causal relationship in the structural equation 517 model”

Lines 600-608 add some references for these considerations, if available.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing the article,please find in attach. our answers.

 

 

Thank you!

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

the manuscript titled, "Impact of Factors That Predict Adoption of Geomonitoring Systems for Landslide Management" presents an important topic in landslide science, through the adoption of a monitoring system for potential practical applications.

The introduction can be improved, many repetitions and mistakes in the format occur in the text. Often, sentences are too long and make the understanding of the text difficult for the reader.

I found the methodological part not correctly structured. The initial idea is interesting but it is lacking in the deep discussion and conclusion. Overall, the paper lacks in novelty and it is not presenting any sort of improvements in the topic. Maybe these concepts can be better clarified and explained in the discussion and organically presented throughout the manuscript.

Major revisions are required, aimed at clarifying the novel aspects of the work and to improve the methodological part.

Please, refer to the inline comments in the annotated pdf attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing the article,please find in attach.our answers

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This research investigates the determining factors of the adaptation of a geo-monitoring information system for the landslides. It has both scientific and practical significance. However, there are some aspects that should be improved:

(1) At some extent, it seems like a project report, not a paper. If the sections 2, 3 and 4 can be incorporated into the methodological section, it will be better.

(2) Please improve the structure, the titles and sub-titles of the manuscript. 

(3) Some figures are not clear enough, such as Figure 3, 4 and 6.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing the article,please find in attach our answers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, the author developed and validated a new U.T.A.U.T. model to identify and examine the drivers of the behavior intentions of beneficiaries and stakeholders involved in landslide risk monitoring. This study is very interesting and meaningful, but there are still some problems in the paper that need to be corrected.

1.      There is too much space in the article about "Procedures for Developing GeoSES Monitoring System Using Geographic Data", and it is suggested to delete and modify it.

2.      Different "The variables of the model" are introduced in this paper. It is suggested to add tables to summarize the different "model variables".

3.      The author's introduction to GeoSES is too long, and it is suggested to delete it.

4.      In the article, the author evaluates "the perception of the beneficiaries on the use of GeoSES-MS" in the form of a questionnaire, whether it is reasonable and rigorous.

5.      How are the indicators given in Table 2 obtained? It is suggested to add corresponding references and make explanations.

6.      In the "Correlations" section of the article, it is mentioned that the correlation between structures should be less than 0.85, and the author is suggested to add more corresponding explanations.

7.      Some of the statements in the article are too complicated. The author needs to proofread the whole article carefully again and adopt more concise expressions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing the article,please find in attach our answers

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has been revised and some suggestions have been taken in consideration.

However, the paper still lacks in novelty and the structure is not appropriate.
In particular, the use of multi-level lists and bullets point makes the manuscript difficult to read.

This can be observed in the discussion and conclusion, in which it is not possible to find a tangible result.

 

Unfortunately, all these concerns make this manuscript, in my opinion, not suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments.

1. We have restructured the case study in order for readers to better understand the analysis I did to verify the usefulness and acceptability of the landslide monitoring system. Thus: Section 1 contains an introduction; section 2 provides an overview of the main theoretical concepts and literature; section 3 is devoted to the empirical study demonstrating a case study with the description of the geomonitoring system, whereas section 4 encompasses relevant discussions exposing the novelty of the proposed approach. It all leads to compelling conclusions presented in Section 5.
2. In the methodological part, we provided a more concise description of the monitoring system. The parts of the project that describe the general objective, specific objectives or activities have been removed.However, to better understand the composition of the geomonitoring system, minimal technical explanations were given, which were actually requested by the reviewers.
3. We eliminated the description of sub-activities carried out by each partner and focused on how this system was developed.
4. Also, when presenting the proposed research model, we eliminated bullet points from the description of the factors. Instead, we included at the end of their description a table summarizing the bibliographic references regarding these factors.

5.As far as the novelty of the study is concerned, we have introduced justifications in this sense from the beginning as well as throughout the paper,please check the paragraphs marked with yellow.

6. In addition to the results that we pointed out in the previous versions, i.e.: the identification of new factors of multicriteria analysis, the design and testing of a new UTAUT model, we emphasized the importance of validating the model by testing it on a real case, i.e., a research project on landslide monitoring field.
7. Also, in the subsections Results, Discussions,Conclusion we introduced sentences to underline the results of the research, namely verifying the acceptability and understanding of the system's usefulness. We also added to the results and discussions comments related to the importance of the newly identified factors in the model. In addition, we provided recommendations regarding the improvement of the position of these factors in the system's adoption model.

8.Additional reference was introduced where this was required by changing the text

8. We did a thorough revision of grammar and punctuation

Overall we have implemented your suggestions, improved the structure, content, and language.

 

 

 

Thank you!

The authors

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been undergone substantial revisions. I suggest the authors can check and improve the whole paper before the paper is published, especially the revised section. For example, the equation in line 149 should be paid more attention.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments.

 

We have implemented your suggestions, corrected formula, and improved the structure, content, and language.

 

Thank you!

The authors