Climate Indicators of Landslide Risks on Alaska National Park Road Corridors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of this manuscript is to analyze the climate indicators of landslide risk on Alaska national park road corridors. The authors did a lot work on the comparative analysis and prediction of temperature changes and precipitation changes. However, there was no specific analysis of the effects of the mean annual air temperature and heavy rainfall events on landslides along the road corridors in those national parks. Besides, the impact of climate change on landslide risk has only been described qualitatively without in-depth quantitative analysis. From the perspective of landslide risk control, the results and conclusions of this paper are not enough to effectively support risk management.
Author Response
Please see attached 'Lader_NPS_Reviewer_1.pdf'.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper investigates an intetesting topic. The methodology is pertinent and English is also fine.
Some issues have to be considered.
1. Introduction
The novelties of the paper against literature is important to support the originality of the study.
At the end of the introduction, the structure of the paper should be described.
2. Section 3
This is too long. Please consider to separate in two sections with several steps described.
3.
The role of the water inside the soil is an important parameter to be considered. Please describe it and refer to the due literature.
4.
The conclusions should describe the limitations of the paper.
Author Response
Please see attached 'Lader_NPS_Reviewer_2.pdf'.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper the historical ERA5 values of MAAT and summer precipitation (JJA PCPT) were compared to mid-century and late-century downscaled climate model projections across different areas to evaluate the climate indicators of landslide risks on Alaska national park road corridors. This research falls within the scope of the Journal. However, after reading carefully the manuscript, I agree to its publication in condition to Major Revision. Despite considerable works made in this study, I believe this paper lacks sufficient explanations of: (1) literature review, (2) novelty, (3) methodology and (4) results discussion. Specific reasons are stated in the following:
1. The literature review needs to be enhanced to show the limitations of the previous studies.
2. The novelty and necessity of this paper are questionable. They should be clearly presented in the last paragraph of introduction section of the revised paper.
3. In an academic text, some explanations should be provided below each title and sub-title. Please add some explanations under all titles and sub-titles to briefly describe the content of the title and sub-title (For instance, 2. Data and methods).
4. Some real photos (or google map photos) of the investigated areas should be added to the revised paper.
5. The methodology of this research is vague. A flowchart should be added to the revised manuscript to clarify different steps performed in this research.
6. The caption of some figures are vague and should be revised. For instance, the caption of Figure 6 is "As in Figure 4, but for DENA" which is an unusual caption.
7. More discussions on the gathered data and the obtained results should be added to the revised manuscript.
8. From my point of view, the type of soil and also, soil properties of each area have significant influence on the effective climate indicators of landslide risks on that area. Some details and data about the properties and type of soil of each area should be provided in the revised paper. This effect should be clarified and discussed in the revised paper.
9. More discussions about the climate indicators of landslide risks for each area should be provided in the revised paper. It is the main novelty of this paper and should be highlighted.
Author Response
Please see attached 'Lader_NPS_Reviewer_3.pdf'.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I read your manuscript with great interest despite I am not a full expert in the subject. I think the manuscript is very well written and its science spot on. The work based on a very large data set that was amalgamated from different data sources. While the research has a bit of regional aspects, the message is clear and globally relevant. I think the manuscript needs only minor to moderate revision and that is mostly to make the text more reader-friendly and focused. I have provided an annotated PDF with my comments to show where I can envision some alteration of the original submission.
1) you use lot of acronyms and there are some that has not been resolved, or expected the reader know what they are. Please check this and make more reader-friendly your text.
2) there are lot of geographical locations cited in the text but you have not utilized the map figures. Pls cite them more.
3) the maps are useful but not attractive. Some scale or lighter lines and labeling of the geography locations would make them more useful.
4) In the start of the research section you introduce the time frames investigated. It has to be said very clearly which part based on the observed data and which one based on some forward modelling or simulations. I think this section needs some rewriting to make it clear to the reader.
5) the discussion is rather an internal discussion. I think a bit of global implication of your results would have been a refreshing read here.
Overall I read a very valuable manuscript that is nearly ready for publication.
Kind regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached 'Lader_NPS_Reviewer_4.pdf'.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has improved.
Regarding point 3, please refer to the attached pdf.
Thanks
Regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached 'Lader_NPS_Reviewer_2_R2.pdf.'
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
All comments made by the reviewer are addressed properly. The revised paper is suitable to be published in the Journal.
Author Response
Please see attached 'Lader_NPS_Reviewer_3_R2.pdf.'
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
I have checked the revised version of your manuscript and find that the revision clarified most of the raised issues posed by the reviewers. The manuscript now in the condition that I can recommend it to be accepted as it. I have no further comments.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see attached 'Lader_NPS_Reviewer_4_R2.pdf.'
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
