Geological Disaster Susceptibility Evaluation Using a Random Forest Empowerment Information Quantity Model
, Mingfei Zhang 4, Shaohan Zhang 1,2, Haishan Wang 1,2 and Lei Zhu 5
Sandra Villacorta
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsModification Suggestion:
1. It is suggested to supplement the data sources and data formats of each evaluation factor in Chapter I.
2. Add how the study area is divided into grid cells.
3. It is proposed to supplement the average annual rainfall in recent years in Chapter II.
4. This paper lacks the influence of rainfall factors on the evaluation results of landslide susceptibility.
5. Please explain the basis on which the evaluation factors in the evaluation index system are established in this paper.
6. Please check the weight calculation process of each evaluation factor in Figure 5.
7. Please explain why the curve in Figure 8 coincides with the ordinate.
8. Check all pictures to ensure clarity.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It needs to be checked by a native English speaker
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper provides a geological disaster susceptibility evaluation by using RFM for the area of Kang County, Gansu Province. The paper is well-structured and contextualized with respect to similar studies. Also, the results are clearly presented and discussed.
However, here are some points to address:
1) the theoretical background can be improved with some international references useful for clarifying the knowledge gaps to be filled and the actual contribution of the study.
2) Concerning the actual contribution of the study to the academic debate, it is worth clarifying the primary objective is not "to mitigate the risks associated with geological hazards, safeguard the lives and assets of the local population, promote sustainable societal development, and maintain ecological equilibrium" (l. 104-106), but rather providing knowledge and orienting DRR strategies and, also, "the research aims to offer valuable insights for urban spatial planning and early warning decision-making" (l. 106-107).
3) the “Overview of the Study Area” should also include information provided by competent authorities on current knowledge and mapping of hazards and risks and any gaps that the study fills or alternatives to existing knowledge to support.
4) the quality of figure 2 must be improved and its caption must be integrated with the descriptions of the 6 maps listed from a) to h). Also, these maps can be further discussed as they represent the key element of the following sections. The same comment applies to figure 5.
5) the authors correctly discuss the limitations of the work. This is relevant in a good paper. However, while the limitations about the difficulty of “completely eliminating the influence of human subjective factors in factor selection” (l. 436) and the topographic conditions (l.439) do not depend on the Authors, the first limitation can be better addressed or further discussed at least (l. 433-435). What do the Authors mean by "It does not sufficiently address the scientific applicability..."? Is a process of validation necessary? In my opinion, this is the most important aspect to focus on during the review.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorshazards over the long term.
Figures. Figure 1, 'Overview of the study area', doesn't reflect the information exposed in the text, and it requires a geomorphological or geological map, including the plot of points concerning each dimension identified in the text. That way, it is more well illustrated in the characteristics of the study area. Figures and tables should be referenced appropriately in the text, ensuring they are discussed in the order they appear.
. Figure 2: Captions and footnotes should clarify the data collection and analysis methods. The texts in Figure 2 are not readable.
Field Survey Details: The lack of field survey details is a notable gap. Incorporating fieldwork findings, historical hazard records, and corresponding photographs would substantiate the model's practical applicability. Model calibration with historical data specific to the study area is essential for credibility and accurate representation of the evaluated site. The fieldwork should detail the data collection date, the methods employed, and a direct comparison with an existing geohazard inventory. To augment the practical value of the paper, incorporate historical disaster records and photographs of the hazards observed during the study field survey, and pictures should be linked to the location map.
Methodological Transparency and Validation: Provide a more detailed and transparent explanation of the methodology, mainly how the random forest model is employed and how weights are assigned to each evaluation factor. The paper should detail the methods used for validating and testing the model, especially given the high stakes of geological disaster prediction. Emphasize the importance of external validation using independent datasets or applications in different geographic settings and include a comparative analysis of other established geological hazard evaluation models. This comparison will contextualize the effectiveness of the proposed method and demonstrate its advantages or improvements over traditional approaches. The innovative approach to selecting non-hazardous points merits further discussion, especially in comparing them with other standard forms and exploring any potential biases introduced by this approach. Additionally, due to the uncertainties detected, including a section on method limitations and data collection, is essential for transparency and credibility.
Subjectivity in Factor Selection: The challenge of subjectivity in factor selection is acknowledged but must be addressed adequately. Future iterations of the model should reduce this subjectivity and explain the methodologies employed to achieve this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors have done a good review and addressed all comments from the previous round. No further review is required within my sphere of competence.
