Empirical Estimation of Landslide Runout Distance Using Geometrical Approximations in the Colombian North–East Andean Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper proposes an attack-resistant and privacy-aware remote sensing image retrieval system based on edge computing, and the authors validate their theory through many experiments.

However, there are still some issues in the article, and the article can be considered to be accepted after modification.

1. In the abstract, the authors mention that the system's efficiency has been improved, but there is no comparative analysis in the experimental part to reflect its advantages.

2. In the abstract, it is mentioned that the average accuracy of the system exceeds that of the existing PPCBIR system. Still, in the comparison graph in Figure 14, it can be found that the average accuracy of the system is not the highest in all cases.  Please analyze and explain.

3. The format of the references needs to be further improved.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Please see the attached document for our response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The current study presented some insights of the application of empirical models based on geometrical approximations to estimate the landslide runout distance in a context in the north-east Andean region. The whole manuscript was well written, I would suggest accept the paper to be published after a minor revision.

1.           For the selection of the studied area, the author mentioned the cluster sampling. Please clarify why they use this method and what advantages the methods have

2.           Please specify which part represents pre-failure and post-failure in Figure 5.  

3.           “The sampled images were processed and ortho-corrected using the standard processing and postprocessing procedures through the software Pix4Dmapper, which can be consulted in detail within the software documentation”. Please provide the source for the software documentation

4.           Please explain what the x-axis title (i.e., cut slop, confined) represents in Figure 10, which might be good for the reader to understand

5.           Line 356-358:” Figure 13 show the performance of different models aiming at estimate L through the 357 relationships previously expressed in Error! Reference source not found..” it shows format error

6.           Line 383-384:”the relationship here proposed maintain most of the estimations ranging from errors between  0% and 50%...” The current model have a similar RE with Finlay, 1999, why does the R2 for the current study shows better than Finlay? Please give a explanation

English language quality is okay to me

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Please see the attached document for our response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review Report for Sustainability Journal

Manuscript Title: Empirical estimation of landslide runout distance using geometrical approximations in the Colombian north-east Andean region

I appreciate the efforts taken by the authors in this study and there is definitely work done in this study area, however; there needs to be much more refinement in bringing out the results of this study.

The abstract still need to support with results.

The introduction section lack of empirical models’ literature review.

The figure 1 is generalized display and missed some cartographic elements that very important such as scale bar and elevation scale

Figure 2. is not clear and should be preceded by geological and geomorphological map of study area, it is important to show (Page 3 Lines 115-117) phenomena in a map.

In Figure 3, what does the numbers beside texts refer to (Weighted percent of percentage?)

In Figure 4, although red circles appear in different size there is not any scale to clarify it.

In Page 6 Line 188: Citation system (Iverson, 1997) is not proper for this Journal, it should change to [7] !

In Figure 6: please use a proper sub figure, add coordinate to both maps, and add names of selected areas.

Table 1. the data related to current study is required to compare with other studies.

Figure 8 is difficult to read, the relationship between slope angle and geological formations is not clear!

Table 2: data source and scale of data source is required.

In page 13 Line 358: Error! Reference source not found. Please correct!

Table 4. show a big difference between previous study (29) and current study, why?

The results section is lack of maps and spatial variations of landslide movements.

Discussion section still need to critical writing and analysis and support by references.

References list is duplicated

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Please see the attached document for our response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a very practical study. The methods and conclusions of this study are important references for predicting landslide risks.

Suggestions for revision:

1) In the Introduction section, it is recommended to further clarify the purpose of this study and the academic contribution of this study.

2) In the Discussion section, it is suggested to add discussion on how the risk can be better predicted and reduced based on the analyzed results.

3) In the Conclusion section, it is suggested to add a description of the shortcomings of this study and the direction of further improvement in the future.

4) The references are repeated twice.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Please see the attached document for our response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper titled"Empirical estimation of landslide runout distance using geometrical approximations in the Colombian north-east Andean region" submitted by Daniel et al. discusses the empirical estimation results of the sliding length of 49 landslides that occurred in the Colombian Andes region. The Landslide Runout Distance(LRD) is believed to have a great relationship with land use and geomorphological background. The article proposes a method adapted to this study area. Although the regional study of landslide morphological characteristics studied in this article is of great significance, there are some important issues in the structure of the paper that need to be revised. Here are a few points:

1) The paper does not provide a panoramic view of the distribution locations of the 49 landslides to be analyzed in this paper. Although Figure 1 shows the regional locations, Figure 4 shows the distribution locations of some of the total 49, and Figure 6 uses UAV data to show the locations of two cases. The local high-definition image lists the information of each landslide in the attachment. All statistics in the main text are based on the attached table. However, the data set discussed in the entire article is not paid enough attention in the main text. This is an important problem. It is recommended that the author supplement the spatial distribution map of landslides. The boundaries of the two landslides should be circled in Figure 6, and the author should supplement more detailed information of this data set, such as the time of landslide occurrence and the time of UAV shooting, etc., to review Contributors and readers can clearly understand the credibility of the data sets used by the authors in the text;

2) Among the 49 landslides listed by the author in the attachment, some are very small. So are these landslides representative? Because the author mainly discusses the sliding distance of landslides. Generally speaking, only the size of the landslide source area reaches a certain magnitude, and LRD can only be discussed. If the landslide is too small, it seems that it will accumulate on the spot, so its significance is not large enough;

3) Due to the small amount of research data and the occurrence of multiple vases and very small landslides, 18 vases with an area of less than 1,000 square meters appeared, 18/49 > 1/3, so if there are more vases in the text to consider expanding the database and whether to consider expanding the size of the analyzed data set to increase statistical significance.

4) Other details:

1. Line 100  Figure 1 increases the scale bar;

2.Line110  Please add related references;

3. Line133,  20000, should be 20,000;

4. Line 139  Fig.3 should add the reference if it is from the other results;

5. Line 212, the boundary range of landslides should be added to the figure. If the landslide scale is too small, or the investigation time is too late, then the range of landslide occurrence will not be statistically significant.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Please see the attached document for our response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear co-authors,

I have checked your response to my concerns, and the revised version has been improved, I do agree to recommend to accept your paper in its present form.