You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Raphael Knevels1,*,
  • Alexander Brenning1 and
  • Simone Gingrich2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Peter Blistan Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  1. The article is interesting and current.
  2. I have no major comments.
  3. From figure 1.-B the location is not clear.
  4. I think it would be better if each part of figure 1 (A, B, C ...) had its own legend.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a very well written paper, documented and containing a valuable section of analysis, using suggestive graphs and images. The supplementary files were useful.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The coauthors and I are thankful for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “Towards the use of land use legacies in landslide modeling: Current challenges and future perspectives in an Austrian case study” to the Special Issue “Land Use/Land Cover and Natural Hazards: Interactions, Changes, and Impacts” of the Land journal.

No comments to address.

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

The paper aims to assess the effect of LULC legacies of nearly 200 years on landslide susceptibility models in two Austrian municipalities (Waidhofen/Ybbs and Paldau). The study combined historical landslide inventories derived from high-resolution digital terrain models (HRDTM) generated using airborne light detection and ranging (LiDAR). It is very interesting and complete. A strong analysis was performed. It is of interest of the readers.

I cannot evaluate the statistical analysis performed in the manuscript; however I will evaluate the GIS component.

Some main comments are in the attached PDF.

In general, the English is good and understandable, the structure of the manuscript is also good.

I suggest a table with the data description, spatial resolution and sources.

At some point, some parts of the section 2.2 are better in methods section (section 2.3) instead of data section (section 2.2.), because you referred (in section 2.2.) some processes performed in GIS software, but you just refer the software in section 2.3.

Be careful with the figures in the beginning of a section. Miss some text to introduce the figures.

More comments are in pdf attached.

The manuscript requires a minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx