An Inventory of Large-Scale Landslides in Baoji City, Shaanxi Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
OVERVIEW
In this paper, multi-time and high-resolution remote sensing images of Google Earth were used to interpret the slope surface deformation and failure signs of Baoji city, China. The a comparative analysis and verification were conducted with geological disaster records. And provide a shared dataset of each landslide in .shp format containing geographic location, boundary information, etc.The technical methods were simple and effective, and the research results were innovative and practical to a certain extent.
The RS could be of interest to the DATA journal readership. However,in present form it shows some drawbacks. Among these: (i)After preliminary screening of anomaly points from remote sensing interpretation, comparative analysis can be made according to previous geohazard investigation data, or verification can be carried out by field investigation method.(ii)More details should be proved on the data study; in particular, the authors should discuss the quality of the their data emphasizing the negligibility of the Geomorphologic landscape of scale effects; (iii)Overall, the description of the data source is somewhat useless and not accompanied by a critical analysis and discussion.(iv)(less important) Citations and references should be completely revised according to the journal author’s guidelines.
In conclusion,I believe that the weakness of this MS in present form is medium, and it should be revised. Here below several specific comment are provided(major revisions[R#], minor revisions/typos[r#]) in the hope the Authors will definitely improve their submission.
The modification suggestions are as follows:
[R] In line 124, special cases can be made for some traction landslides, which have stepped sliding walls on the slope and steep central terrain.
[R] The division of geological hazard scope in FIG. 4 is arbitrary to some extent. As shown in FIG. 4A, the movement direction may be westward. The landslide boundary in Figure 4b is suggested to be drawn along the ridge line rather than at the foot of the slope.
[R]English grammar and description can be polished by a geologist who speaks the local language.
[r]Keywords. The keywords “Large-scale Landslides” are rather broad; I would substitute them for more specific ones.
[r] Summary. The Authors should completely summary the level of application and disadvantages of this method in the world.
[r]Data Description. It would be suitable to provide the research progress of remote sensing interpretation of geological hazards in the world further illustrates the simplicity and effectiveness of this method.
[r]Methods.Technology roadmap can be added to improve readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The type of database proposed by authors is very interesting because landslide inventories are essential for several reasons mentioned in the paper. And it is time consuming exercise, especially by photo-interpretation, but very important to understand the hazard processes and management.
Nevertheless, when we check the data provided in .shp, sometimes we can wonder about the method used for their delimitation.
The authors mentionned photo-interpretation on google earth with a verification of the topology in ArcGIS (p.4) however, many times landslides overlap and / or overtake on the plateau in flat areas where the imagery does not allow to identify a landslide scare. The authors mentionned several criteria for defining landslide boundaries (p.4 - Fig.4 landslide scars rather than boundaries). To assess the reliability of landslide delineation, perhaps they should specify (in the database) how many criteria were used to delineate the objects? Sometimes it seems that the whole slope is delimited as a landslide area without visible criteria (e.g. plateau edge in the center of the study area).
Also, it would be interesting to identify in the final database (attribute table of the .shp) which landslides were already present in the historical database mentionned p.2 & p.6, and which ones come from the photo-interpretation because the authors talk about the compilation of the data (p.2); and what is the gain of this study (p.6). By the way, the final database only mentions the size of the landslides. It could be interesting to add informations such as the date of identification, because the data used are between 2009 and 2022. The authors justify the historical approach to identify the landslides evolution (p.3, perhaps locate the example of landslide presented); however this notion of temporality does not appear in the database.
figures :
1 - Could you add the limits of the study areas such as in the figure 6?
Earthquake since when?
2 - Could you add small map with the location of the landslides mentionned on this figure?
3 - A density map would be maybe more explicit?
4 - Maybe change the terme of 'boundaries' for main scar. By the way, the final database is different from this with the limits of the landslide toe. Which correspond to the landslide boundaries. Could you add small map with the location of the landslides mentionned on this figure?
6 - Is this main historical earthquake (difference from fig.1)?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Reasons for rejecting the article to publish:
- In 2021, a team of authors published an article in the International Journal of Geo-Information entitled "Inventory and Distribution Characteristics of Large-Scale Landslides in Baoji City, Shaanxi Province, China"
- In this article from 2021 the authors evaluates exactly the same area as in the article I am reviewing. Chapter 3 The "Landslide inventory" contains approximately the same methodology - the use of remote sensing images in the period 2000-2021.
- In the article from 2021 there was 3,440 landslides identified, in the reviewed article there is 3,422 landslides. The area of registered landslides from both articles is almost identical.
- It is not clear from the reviewed article whether the authors provided some significantly different information compared to the article from 2021, as they do not mention or compare their original work.
- The article from 2021 is also much more complex, as it also brings the evaluation of registered landslides via GIS Spatial Analysis and Correlation between Landslides and Factors Influencing the landslide activity and occurrence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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.
