Pixel-Based Spatio-Statistical Analysis of Landslide Probability in Humid and Seismically Active Areas of Himalaya and Hindukush

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found out an excellent work with many useful indications for the management of the territory that I hope will be used. During my evaluation I asked myself how much field work was done and how much time for processing which I hope the authors provide in the introduction.

More care should be taken with the legends and references to the figures

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript used the relative effect model to generate landslide susceptibility mapping of Alpuri Valley and Neelum Valley and compared the results of valleys through the Area under the curve. These results indicate the reliability of the model to produce the landslide susceptibility map and apply it to other landslide areas. In general, the content and structure of the manuscript are complete. However, in the process of text expression, the language and the logic need to be adjusted refining. There are some problems in this paper at the present stage. Some comments are suggested as follows:

(1)  The abstract lacks a description of the scientific problem (e.g., the limitation of current method or new scientific discoveries).

(2)  Some predisposing factors should not be used directly by using abbreviations (e.g., SPI, TWI, NDWI, and NDVI).

(3)  Introduction is generalized. I would recommend for example the following recent research articles to reconstruct this section with extensive literatures.

l  Bivariate Landslide Susceptibility Analysis: Clarification, Optimization, Open Software, and Preliminary Comparison. Remote Sensing, 15(5), 1418.

l  A spatial case-based reasoning method for regional landslide risk assessment. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 102, 102381.

(4)  The description of two study areas is so brief. The quality of Fig. 1 should be improved.

(5)  Provide the time series of landslide events for a temporal distribution understanding. Provide more details on the landslide dataset overall.

(6)  The manuscript lacks an in-depth analysis of the results. Results seem reported without sufficient analysis or explanation.

(7)  Discussion section should be written by comparing with already published articles in this concept.

(8)  In conclusion section, you have to mention the implications of your research and how it makes a footprint in scientific research. Try to incorporate your work to global interest how this research has worldwide importance. It will be interesting for the readers. In addition, we believe that the results should not be reconsidered as conclusions.

Author Response

I am thankful for the comments on the manuscript for the major revision. I read manuscript in detail and updated the relevant information.  There is a reference mistake found in the discussion where I change the reference (48,50) to (48-50). Reference 49 is also a part of this reference. The updated reference is highlighted using track changes. This change can be easily reviewed by editors and reviewers. 

All other references were double checked and found correct. no major changes made in the manuscript. All the references cross-checked the content of manuscripts and are relevant to the contents of the manuscript. There is not any unnecessary reference in the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In this work, landslide inventory has been used with 17 numbers of landslide causative parameters. Please give a solid reason to choose these parameters. Moreover, how to ensure the accuracy of the used parameters.

My main comments are as follows.

1. Please give an enough description about the Relative effect method.

2. Section4.2: what indicates the landslides in Fig.5?

3. Lines 522-523: ” The overall results showed that the tendency of landslide events was high near the 522 road and gradually decreased when moving away from the road.” Maybe another reason is the use of the distance from road parameter. Please be cautious to interpret the results.

4. Please re-arrange the conclusion into several concise expressions.

5. The maps used in the Figures are not uniform.

6. The annotations in the Figures are not clear.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

I am thankful for the comments on the manuscript for the major revision. I read the manuscript in detail and updated the relevant information.  There is a reference mistake found in the discussion where I changed the reference (48, 50) to (48-50). Reference 49 is also part of this reference. The updated reference is highlighted using track changes. This change can be easily reviewed by editors and reviewers.
All other references were double checked and found to be correct. No major changes were made to the manuscript. All the references cross-check the content of manuscripts and are relevant to the contents of the manuscript. There is no unnecessary reference in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf