Hazard Assessment of Shallow Loess Landslides Under Different Rainfall Intensities Based on the SINMAP Model: A Case Study of Yuzhong County

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study appears to be very localized. It does not show the actual gap in knowledge that is real solving especially in a body of knowledge. The paper, in its form, is not ready for publication. It requires the following improvements:

We need to see the geology of the study area, and secondly, the soil types in the study area. We need to see the layers or factors that were used to conduct what they call modelling, or rather GIS analysis. We need to see the accuracy of the model. We need to see the sensitivity among others. 

 

The validation used in this study is not sufficient to demonstrate that the study makes a contribution. Following that, the work appears to be a preliminary study that is not yet suitable to be published in this high-impact journal. From my observation, this appears to be a technical note or conference paper, not an article. I could not see any contribution from this paper. 

Its scientific sound is very low; however, if the methodology can be improved and results can be expanded, the possibility of seeing a contribution may come, but as it is, there is no contribution. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an interesting analysis of the f landslide stability due to rainfall, in a region in China. The paper is well structured and written. I recommend it for publication after a minor revision in compliance with the following comments.

1. Please explain the Personnel Risk Level better. How did you get the mathematical form given in Line 246 (Population density, divided by e^(3*SL))? Provide references, if such exist.
2. In Eq. (1) the authors use one symbol (ϕ), I suppose for the internal friction angle, but later use another symbol (φ). Please correct this.
3. Is the analyzed region prone to earthquakes? If so, do you plan to include seismic-related landslide risks in future studies?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a study on the stability of shallow loess in rainy conditions, which is of great importance. The research is very interesting and relevant, especially with regard to the safety of populations living near slopes. However, the manuscript requires some minor corrections.

1. Highlight the main advantages of SINMAP compared to other methods.

 

2. Cite the source of SINMAP version method.

 

3. Correct the format of the units defined in equation (1) as well as the notation for angular units (phi) in the text.

 

4. Clearly describe the meaning of the subscripts w and s in the variables of equation (1).

 

5. In order to clarify the parameters in section 3, it would be useful to insert a graph of the SINMAP model.

 

6. In table 4, write correctly the units of the Area.

 

7. Table 5 and Figure 4 contain the same information, Is it correct? In such case is it possible eliminate Table 5?

 

8. In addition of Figure 5, if the histograms are plotted for each Rainfall Intensity (individual color) could be different for each stability region.

 

9. In table 6, write correctly the units of the Landslide Density.

 

10. In section 6 authors must justify the Risk Level equation as well as Personnel Risk Level defined in lines 253-254.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My recommendation is Major Revision.

 

With this recommendation, instead of recommending Reject, I am giving the authors the opportunity to submit a substantially revised version of the manuscript. In this new version, they must clearly and thoroughly explain the novelty of their work. This concern is particularly relevant considering previous studies, such as Feng et al. (L64–65) and Keles et al. (L71–72), who have already published applications of the SINMAP model to analyse shallow landslide stability in loess areas. I must therefore repeat my question: what is the actual novelty or new development presented here regarding the use of SINMAP in landslide stability analyses? If the only contribution is the combination of model results with an assessment of potential impacts on residents, I question whether this constitutes sufficient innovation to warrant publication in Applied Sciences.

 

Additionally, the authors should reorganize the structure of their manuscript to conform to the sections recommended in the Applied Sciences “Instructions for Authors,” namely: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.

 

Finally, the authors must carefully revise the text to avoid the repetition of words within the same sentence, as well as redundant sentences that reiterate concepts already presented earlier.

 

Some specific observations/suggestions are:

 

L16. I suggest changing from “were calculated” to “were identified”.

L18. Explain the meaning of “risk level”. Is not defined.

L18. Explain the meaning of “stability index”. Is not defined.

L32. You can erase “making them the predominant type in China”.

L33. Avoid repetitions: “damage by damaging”. Please rewrite.

erge these two sentences into one. Perhaps: Lanzhou City, located on the Loess Plateau is a region characterized by rugged terrain with frequent landslides [11–13], where rainfall is the primary triggering factor.

L37. Perhaps the word “increasing” should be added so that the phrase reads: “due to changing climatic conditions and the increasing occurrence of extreme rainstorms.”

L40-43. Merge these two sentences into one. Perhaps: Rainfall-induced landslides, which account for over 90% of all cases in China [16,17], are highly destructive, unpredictable, and severely hinder economic and social development in loess regions.

L47-48. Word “analysis” appears three times. Avoid repetitions.

64-61, about the references by Feng et al. and Keles et al. Among my general observations I addressed this issue. Which is the novelty of this study?

L71. Why KELES is written in capital letters? Please revise and correct

L75. Is Yuzhong County related to Lanzhou city? Please revise.

L77. The use of ArcGIS is to produce a spatially distributes catalogue? Please complete.

L81. Introduction lacks a presentation to the issue of personnel risk level. Please complete Introduction.

L82-289. All this should be part a new Material and methods section.

L110-114. Words “landslides” and “shallow” are repeated 4 and 2 times respectively. Avoid repetitions.

L112. Explain “material composition”. Meaning?

L114. About small and medium scale landslides, please provide dimensions (volumes, affected areas, others).

L117. Please explain how the disaster points were obtained, to be included on Fig.1

L136. R is defined here as the “steady-state groundwater recharge”, then on L160 and L167 as “effective precipitation”. Please chose one and keep it along the manuscript.

L139-141. These parameters have already been defined.

L153, about a 30-m resolution for the DEM. This is the reason why it is required to give some dimensions of the landslides, especially those small scale. Is this 30-m resolution enough to identify small ones?

L171. How many simulations/validations were performed? Please complete.

L186. I suggest completing the title of Table 3 to: T/R values for different rainfall categories. Then, by using a “/” before each unit?  Finally, move units for TRs to the same level than for rainfall.

L187. Here should be section Results.

L190-191. The panels in this figure are too small to clearly distinguish the different classes of stability distributions. At the current resolution, all maps appear very similar.

L201. a) The word “table” can be erased in the title of Table 4; b) by using a “/” before km2?; c) move the words “rainfall category” above the rainfall categories; d) add the % of stability levels for each rain category.

L215, Fig 3. In the Y axis you can erase “%”. The title reads “Percentage of…”.

L217. About actual conditions: was this used for validation? Not clear, please expand.

L218. Where are the landslide sites mapped? Which figure?

L225. Explain “points”. Are they associated to the sites mentioned in L218?

L245-247. All this should be part of Methods. In addition, include a reference for the PRL equation.

L253. The Hazard Index is introduced here without prior explanation. Please add a description in the Methods section detailing how this index was calculated.

L303. Nothing about Discussions, especially comparing results from those presented by Feng et al. and Keles et al. In this section you must also address uncertainties, potential sources of error, how to reduce them in future studies.

L325. The Conclusions section should also indicate potential future work, including possible improvements or extensions of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Avoid repetitions

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My recommendation is Minor Revision.

This version represents a substantial improvement compared with the previous one I reviewed. The authors have successfully reorganized the structure of the manuscript to align with the sections recommended by Applied Sciences. They have also revised the text to avoid word repetition within the same sentence and removed redundant statements that reiterated previously presented concepts.

Specific observations and suggestions:

• In my previous review, I recommended changing “were calculated” to “were identified.” The authors indicated that they had made this correction; however, in this version, the word “calculated” remains. Could you please clarify this?
• I recommend completing the first sentence and then starting a new one, beginning with: “These gaps are: (1) …”
• Please clarify the use of the term “revision”; its meaning is not clear in this context.
• L407–439. The discussion section is incomplete. The authors have added important subsections (Model sensitivity analysis, Model validation, Limitations and future work); however, this section still lacks a discussion of the study results and their comparison with similar studies. Such a discussion should appear as the first subsection of this part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf