Next Article in Journal
Top of the Atmosphere Reflected Shortwave Radiative Fluxes from ABI on GOES-18
Previous Article in Journal
Dataset Construction for Radiative Transfer Modeling: Accounting for Spherical Curvature Effect on the Simulation of Radiative Transfer Under Diverse Atmospheric Scenarios
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Atmosphere
Volume 16
Issue 8
10.3390/atmos16080978
Review Report
atmosphere-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
Article
Peer-Review Record

Dynamic Risk Assessment of Collapse Geological Hazards on Highway Slopes in Basalt Regions During Rainy Seasons

Atmosphere 2025, 16(8), 978; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16080978 (registering DOI)
by Lihui Qian 1, Peng Zhao 1,* and Zhongshui Li 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Atmosphere 2025, 16(8), 978; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16080978 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 20 July 2025 / Revised: 13 August 2025 / Accepted: 14 August 2025 / Published: 17 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Climatology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a dynamic assessment of geological collapse hazard risk using the S3K highway slope in Changbai Korean Autonomous County, China, as a case study. However, several improvements are necessary to enhance the clarity, depth, and scientific contribution of the work. The following revisions are recommended:

  1. Abstract: Include more specific results in abstract.
  2. Expand the introduction by discussing the nature and severity of collapse geological hazards in the study area. Provide a more detailed explanation of the adopted methodology. Additionally, introduce other existing methods used for mapping collapse hazards and clarify the comparative advantages of your proposed approach.
  3. Lines 63–64: Elaborate on the "four-factor theory of natural hazard risk mentioned in these lines to provide better context for the theoretical framework.
  4. Section 2.1 Research area and data, separate the presentation of the study area from the description of the database for clarity.
  5. Include hydrological and climatic data relevant to the area. Add a precipitation chart to support the discussion.
  6. Data Description (Lines 86–92): Provide a more detailed description of the data mentioned in these lines, including their characteristics and relevance.
  7. Add a summary table listing the datasets used, including their units, sources, and types.
  8. Section 2.4 - Basis for Calculating Parameters in the SD Model: Include the database and maps of the influencing factors used in the model, along with a clear description of these maps.
  9. Line 221: Clarify how model testing and validation were performed.
  10. The manuscript mentions a five-year risk prediction for CGHs in line 228, but Figure 4 only shows four months. Please reconcile this inconsistency.
  11. The figure 4 is currently illegible. It should be revised for clarity.
  12. Add the names of the villages mentioned in lines 252 and 253 to the figure 4.
  13. Section 4. Results and Discussion: Provide a more in-depth discussion of the results. Analyze the key factors that contributed to the identification of high-risk zones and the interactions among them. Compare the findings with results from other regions that share similar environmental or geological conditions.
  14. The discussion of limitations is too brief. Elaborate on the constraints faced in the study.
  15. Although existing studies are cited, their methodologies and results are not discussed in detail. Including this information would help highlight the specific contributions and innovations of the present work.

Author Response

 

Comments 1: [Abstract: Include more specific results in abstract.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have refined the textual details of the results.

 

 

Comments 2: [Expand the introduction by discussing the nature and severity of collapse geological hazards in the study area. Provide a more detailed explanation of the adopted methodology. Additionally, introduce other existing methods used for mapping collapse hazards and clarify the comparative advantages of your proposed approach.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. The introduction has been improved(the fourth paragraph of the introduction). The advantages are explained in the last paragraph of the introduction. If you have any good suggestions, please guide, thank you.

 

Comments 3: [Lines 63–64: Elaborate on the "four-factor theory of natural hazard risk mentioned in these lines to provide better context for the theoretical framework.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we summarize the advantages of this theory based on the reference.

 

Comments 4:[Section 2.1 Research area and data, separate the presentation of the study area from the description of the database for clarity.]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added Section 2.2 and changed the chapter number simultaneously.

 

Comments 5:[ Include hydrological and climatic data relevant to the area. Add a precipitation chart to support the discussion.]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. In order to save space, the hydrological and climatic profiles of the region have been described in data table 1, and the rainfall forecast data table has been added.

 

Comments 6:[Data Description (Lines 86–92): Provide a more detailed description of the data mentioned in these lines, including their characteristics and relevance.]

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The data table(table1) has been created for description.

 

Comments 7:[Add a summary table listing the datasets used, including their units, sources, and types.]

Response 7: hank you for pointing this out. In incorporating the sixth comment, we have added Data Table 1.

 

 

Comments 8:[ Section 2.4 - Basis for Calculating Parameters in the SD Model: Include the database and maps of the influencing factors used in the model, along with a clear description of these maps.]

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. This manuscript builds upon our previous work. The current revisions strive to balance the paper's length with its overall consistency, and the basic data have been elaborated in the text. Should it be necessary to add figures (or other visualizations) for the basic data, we are happy to incorporate them. Please kindly provide your guidance.

 

Comments 9:[ Line 221: Clarify how model testing and validation were performed.]

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified the text description.

 

Comments 10:[ The manuscript mentions a five-year risk prediction for CGHs in line 228, but Figure 4 only shows four months. Please reconcile this inconsistency.]

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. This study focuses on short-term forecasting. Simulation results reveal that the rainy season risk values will exhibit minimal changes over the next five years. Future research will conduct in-depth simulations of extreme rainfall events. In the present study, graphical representations were simplified to conserve space, and textual explanations were provided in the annotations to resolve this contradiction.

 

Comments 11:[ The figure 4 is currently illegible. It should be revised for clarity.]

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made the necessary revisions.

 

 

Comments 12:[ Add the names of the villages mentioned in lines 252 and 253 to the figure 4.]

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. To avoid cluttering the figure, we opted to add a name to Figure 1 and provide an explanation in the text.

 

Comments 13:[ Section 4. Results and Discussion: Provide a more in-depth discussion of the results. Analyze the key factors that contributed to the identification of high-risk zones and the interactions among them. Compare the findings with results from other regions that share similar environmental or geological conditions.]

Response 13: We have added Section 4 of the Discussion to highlight the key highlights and innovative aspects of the article.

 

Comments 14:[ The discussion of limitations is too brief. Elaborate on the constraints faced in the study.]

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. I have provided necessary discussions on the limitations, which will also serve as topics for future research.

 

Comments 15:[ Although existing studies are cited, their methodologies and results are not discussed in detail. Including this information would help highlight the specific contributions and innovations of the present work.]

Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. We have refined it in the discussion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to develop a new model for slope stability prediction. Despite numerous studies in this area, the problem of landslides as geological disasters remains relevant. The main research question of this work is to test the working hypothesis about the possibility of integrating the anomaly of basaltic regions associated with iron staining as an indicator of slope stability/instability. The methods of system dynamics and computer technologies were used as the main research tools. Field verification confirms the reliability of the developed complex of models. This study overcomes the main limitations of traditional slope stability assessment models, improving dynamic predictability and applicability to basaltic territories. The search for a path to the goal led the authors to create a new methodological paradigm for dynamic risk analysis of geological hazards. Along this path, the authors developed an integrated complex of structural dynamics and GIS technologies, which provides scientific support for the development of targeted disaster mitigation strategies. The methodological basis of the work, illustrated in Figures 1, 2 and 3, can serve as a valuable analogy for relevant stakeholders.

Formal assessment of the manuscript:

The topic of the manuscript corresponds to "Atmosphere".

The research methods correspond to the topic of the manuscript.

All structural elements of the manuscript, including tables 1-2 and figures 1-4, are logically interconnected and aimed at solving the research problem.

The conclusions summarize the results obtained.

The methodology and results of the study are of scientific and practical interest to many readers.

However, the manuscript needs some revision.

Comments:

  1. Line 70. “… spatial gridding is employed…”. It is recommended to indicate the number of dimensions.
  2. Line 103. “… (it is represented by…)”. Please explain in detail.
  3. Line 110. “… (it is represented by … in the SD model)…”. Please explain in detail.
  4. Lines 128-129. “The index is dimensionless and ranges from 0 to 1 [31]…”. Although reference [31] is given, it should be indicated which index value corresponds to the highest sensitivity.
  5. It is recommended to add a list of abbreviations.

Author Response

Comments 1: [Line 70. “… spatial gridding is employed…”. It is recommended to indicate the number of dimensions.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the dimensions.

 

Comments 2: [Line 103. “… (it is represented by…)”. Please explain in detail.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a textual explanation to this variable.

 

Comments 3: [Line 110. “… (it is represented by … in the SD model)…”. Please explain in detail.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a textual explanation to this variable.

 

Comments 4: [Lines 128-129. “The index is dimensionless and ranges from 0 to 1 [31]…”. Although reference [31] is given, it should be indicated which index value corresponds to the highest sensitivity.

]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised and refined its description based on the references.

Comments 5: [It is recommended to add a list of abbreviations.]

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out.This article contains very few abbreviations. Including a list of abbreviations would render the manuscript redundant. However, if it is deemed absolutely necessary, we are happy to make further revisions accordingly. Many thanks.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions have been implemented; however, the following additional comments are proposed:

  1. Provide a description of the “Four-factor theory of natural disaster risk” mentioned in the introduction, before discussing its advantages.
  2. In the presentation of the study area in Section 2.1 Research Area and Data, include a description of the region’s hydrological and climatic characteristics.
  3. In Section 2.5 Basis for Calculating Important Parameters of the SD Model, add the maps of the influencing factors used in the model, along with a clear description of each map.
  4. Figure 4 is illegible.

Author Response

 

Comments 1: [Provide a description of the “Four-factor theory of natural disaster risk” mentioned in the introduction, before discussing its advantages.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have implemented further improvements to this problem.

 

Comments 2: [In the presentation of the study area in Section 2.1 Research Area and Data, include a description of the region’s hydrological and climatic characteristics.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have incorporated additional details pertaining to the hydrology and rainfall of the study region.

 

Comments 3: [In Section 2.5 Basis for Calculating Important Parameters of the SD Model, add the maps of the influencing factors used in the model, along with a clear description of each map.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out.We have completed the incorporation of text and finalization of figures.

 

Comments 4: [Figure 4 is illegible.]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have refined the figures to enhance their clarity.

 
Back to TopTop