Assessment of Debris Flow Risk Factors Based on Meta-Analysis—Cases Study of Northwest and Southwest China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very interesting paper. The abstract is well set up and concise. The literature is focused on Chinese authors, but this is understandable given the case study. For the methods some foreign authors are also mentioned. The gaps and the necessity to apply the method are well identified, and it is good that the structure of the paper is introduced. Extrapolating a method from medicine for natural disasters is welcome, as other approaches have been previously also "boroughed" (ex. diagnosis and treatment). The paper is rich in results and the discussion is adequate. The conclusions could mention how the method could be extrapolated for other study areas, a kind of generalisation.
Author Response
Point 1: This is a very interesting paper. The abstract is well set up and concise. The literature is focused on Chinese authors, but this is understandable given the case study. For the methods some foreign authors are also mentioned. The gaps and the necessity to apply the method are well identified, and it is good that the structure of the paper is introduced. Extrapolating a method from medicine for natural disasters is welcome, as other approaches have been previously also "boroughed" (ex. diagnosis and treatment). The paper is rich in results and the discussion is adequate.
Response 1: Thank you for your affirmation of the content and conclusion of my paper, which greatly encourages my confidence and will provide a strong impetus for my future scientific research.
Point 2: The conclusions could mention how the method could be extrapolated for other study areas, a kind of generalisation.
Response 2: The discussion of how the method could be extrapolated for other study areas is added to the revised manuscript in lines 439-453.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article Assessment of Relative importance of Debris Flow Disaster Risk Affecting Factors based on Meta-analysis – Cases study of Northwest and Southwest China (article ID 899334) presents the results of a meta-analysis in order to determine which are the most influencing factors when it comes to debris flow in NW and SW China. At this stage, I would recommend a major revision. The article needs extensive English language editing.
There are some comments, that authors need to address, and they are as follows:
The Introduction section is too short and does not offer the reader the bigger picture (referring to the debris flow globally and then locally, to China). Please, do that. It is highly indicated. Also, you do not refer at all to the effort of the scientists dealing with the susceptibility of debris flow.
Also, I have found some titles that you should definitely refer to:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113199
doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.121
In the Discussion section, please discuss your results also referring to some other areas from the globe. This will add value to your discoveries.
References: This is obviously a re-submission from a previous journal; as the authors fail to respect the Sustainability journal instructions for authors. Also, the use of DOI is highly indicated!
Good luck with the revision!
Author Response
The article Assessment of Relative importance of Debris Flow Disaster Risk Affecting Factors based on Meta-analysis – Cases study of Northwest and Southwest China (article ID 899334) presents the results of a meta-analysis in order to determine which are the most influencing factors when it comes to debris flow in NW and SW China. At this stage, I would recommend a major revision. The article needs extensive English language editing.
Response: Thank you for your advice. The revised manuscript has now been checked by a native English speaker.
Point 1: The Introduction section is too short and does not offer the reader the bigger picture (referring to the debris flow globally and then locally, to China). Please, do that. It is highly indicated. Also, you do not refer at all to the effort of the scientists dealing with the susceptibility of debris flow.
Response 1: The global background of debris flow is added to the revised manuscript in lines 27-38, the effort of the scientists dealing with the susceptibility of debris flow is added to the revised manuscript in lines 58-61, 418-421.
Point 2: Also, I have found some titles that you should definitely refer to:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113199
doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.121
Response 2: The titles of these two articles were “Debris Flow Risk Assessment Based on a Water–Soil Process Model at the Watershed Scale Under Climate Change: A Case Study in a Debris-Flow-Prone Area of Southwest China” and “A Strategic Approach to Debris Flow Risk Reduction on the Road Network”. After referring to both title structure and content composition, the title for the revised manuscript has now been modified to: “Assessment of Debris Flow Risk Factors based on Meta-analysis — Cases Study of Northwest and Southwest China”
Point 3: In the Discussion section, please discuss your results also referring to some other areas from the globe. This will add value to your discoveries.
Response 3: A discussion of other areas of the globe is added to the revised manuscript in lines 439-453.
Point 4: References: This is obviously a re-submission from a previous journal; as the authors fail to respect the Sustainability journal instructions for authors. Also, the use of DOI is highly indicated!
Response 4: I admit that I did not read the "Author's Guide" carefully enough before the final submission, so that I mistook the "ASC" format for this publication format. Thank you for your criticism of me. We have reformatted the in-text citation and the reference list using the referencing style of the “Sustainability” journal.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deals with risk generated by debris flow. First, I have to mention that I found the title to be quite long: please try to reduce it - you can eliminate Northwest and Southwest. Second, the abstract contains too many details related to numbers - please present this information without numbers or with fewer numbers in the abstract and provide the numerical evidence in the paper with references. Please try to structure your abstract in order to contain the needed information required by an abstract. Please add a literature review section - in the current version of the paper this section is completely missing, while some information are provided in the meta analysis section. Please restructure the content of the paper according to the requirements of the journal. Please increase the readability of the figures: e.g. Figures 6 -11. Please underline more the gap the research is filling in and compare the results with other studies from the field. Were the results similar or there have been some differences? How the policies should be done in order to support this situation?
Author Response
Point 1: First, I have to mention that I found the title to be quite long: please try to reduce it - you can eliminate Northwest and Southwest.
Response 1: I admit that the title is indeed a bit long, but northwest and southwest are necessary and cannot be deleted. China has a vast area and obvious regional characteristics. Northwest and southwest China are the debris flow prone areas with typical regional characteristics in China. This study is also based on a large number of debris flow risk assessment data from northwest and southwest China. Given the length, the title for the revised manuscript has now been modified to:“Assessment of Debris Flow Risk Factors based on Meta-analysis — Cases Study of Northwest and Southwest China”
Point 2: Second, the abstract contains too many details related to numbers - please present this information without numbers or with fewer numbers in the abstract and provide the numerical evidence in the paper with references.
Response 2: The digital content was removed from the abstract. Lines 15-20 of the revised manuscript have been adjusted as you suggested.
Point 3:Please try to structure your abstract in order to contain the needed information required by an abstract.
Response 3: According to your suggestion, the necessary information was added in lines 9-13, 15-16, 21-22 of the revised manuscript.
Point 4: Please add a literature review section - in the current version of the paper this section is completely missing, while some information are provided in the meta-analysis section.
Response 4: A literature Review section was added in lines 131-150 of the revised manuscript as you suggested.
Point 5: Please restructure the content of the paper according to the requirements of the journal.
Response 5: Changes were made as the requirements of the journal in lines 491-607, 367-371, etc of the revised manuscript.
Point 6: Please increase the readability of the figures: e.g. Figures 6 -11.
Response 6: In the revised manuscript, I reorganized the structure of Figures 6-11 to increase the readability of the figures as you suggested.
Point 7: Please underline more the gap the research is filling in and compare the results with other studies from the field. Were the results similar or there have been some differences? How the policies should be done in order to support this situation?
Response 7: Discussion is supplemented in lines 385，418-421,423-427 of the revised manuscript as you suggested.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Congrats for the review of the paper. Now it looks and sounds way better. However, when I suggested you the 2 references I was actually referring for you to include them in the manuscript and in the Introduction section. Not only consult them in changing your title.
Please, correct that.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Dear Authors,
Congrats for the review of the paper. Now it looks and sounds way better. However, when I suggested you the 2 references I was actually referring for you to include them in the manuscript and in the Introduction section. Not only consult them in changing your title.
Please, correct that.
Kind regards.
Response: Thank you very much for your careful check and your affirmation of my modification for the article. I'm sorry to have misunderstood your suggestion. When I read the 2 references, I consulted not only their titles but also their Introduction section and manuscript. We totally understand the reviewer’s concern.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the revised version and for addressing the comments. Please try to increase the readability of Figure 6 - Figure 11 (you might want to try using a landscape page). Please check the formatting for rows 439-445.
Author Response
Thank you for the revised version and for addressing the comments.
Point 1: Please try to increase the readability of Figure 6 - Figure 11 (you might want to try using a landscape page).
Response 1: We gratefully appreciate for your valuable suggestion. The landscape page was used in lines 316-347 of the revised manuscript.
Point 2: Please check the formatting for rows 439-445.
Response 2: The format of lines 439-445 has been adjusted.
