Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

What is the spatial resolution, the vertical and horizontal accuracies of the GDEM in the study area? The resolution and accuracies of the GDEM are enough to provide the Linear hazard factors for landslide susceptibility prediction? Please mention why and how?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Please list all 12 factors in line 177 instead of using "such as."
2. Please modify the title of Table 1 and add a horizontal line to separate data for different factors.
3. In Figure 4, please explain why the buffer zone is presented in this manner. I did not find a buffer zone even in the referenced paper 36. Please verify that the correct paper is cited.
4. In Section 5, please provide a more detailed discussion of the prediction process, such as how the optimal distance buffer is used to predict landslides.

Overall, the language in the example is technically sound and specific to the subject matter but could benefit from some minor improvements to improve clarity and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the present article, Ruijin City was used as the study area, and Pearson's correlation was used to analyze the correlation between the density of landslides and the linear distance of the risk factors under

different single-loop buffer distances and an RF model was developed to verify the rationality of combining the most relevant and linear single-loop buffer distance

Hazard-causing factors for measuring susceptibility to landslides.

(1) There are landslide hazards and historic landslide sites in Ruijin. landslide

hazard development is mostly small to medium, shallow to medium, earthy or mountainous landslides, while large, giant, deep, and rocky landslides are less developed.

(2) The correlation between the landslide density and the distance of the linear disaster causative factors is higher in the Ruijin area when the single loop buffer distances of the

Lithological geological boundary, road, and river factors are 50m, 30m, and 30m, respectively, reflecting the different ranges of influence of different factors on landslides in another area. Differences in the range of influence of different linear factors must be fully considered when building predictive models for landslide susceptibility.

(3) The landslide susceptibility prediction model built with the most correlated single-ring buffer distance combination of linear hazard-causing factors has a low out-of-bag trend of the error curve, and the accuracy index of the validation set is, in general, greater than that of the same single-ring buffer distance combination of linear hazard causative factors. The article is well written and well formulated and presents new contributions. Therefore, the article is accepted for publication.

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Firstly, we would like to express our gratitude to you for the timely and competent comments. Those valuable comments are very helpful in revising and improving the submitted manuscript, which are also of great significance to deepen our future researches.

Thank you very much for the reviewer's recognition and encouragement of my paper. I am deeply moved and inspired to continue moving forward, writing higher quality papers, and also continuing to improve my English writing skills. Wishing the reviewer and editor all the best.

Reviewer 4 Report

This study presents a method for selecting the buffer distance for linear hazard factors in the application of landslide susceptibility prediction.

1.       The motivations for the works can be improved. It is unclear what are the filled gaps by the study. Is there any other works done similar things as your study, and why their works are imperfect or needs improvements?  How your study improves based on their works. These statements better be included in the abstract and introduction sections.

2.       Some numeric descriptions better be given in the abstract and introduction, to give a straightforward idea about the performance of your method.

3.       The verification of the results seems weak. It would be better that the authors can justify how much performance can be improved by your proposed method, which seems lacking in your study. The authors should consider complement the experiments, or at least discuss this as the limitations in the works.

4.       That being said, the paper misses a section for discussing the works limitations and pointing out the future directions. The authors can consider adding a corresponding section.

5.       Besides the mentioning references, there are some other relevant works specializing in landslide detection using remote sensing, which I recommend the authors consider citing: “Landslide Trail Extraction Using Fire Extinguishing Model”, “Unsupervised change detection using fuzzy topology-based majority voting”

Minor polishing may be needed 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx