Geological Disaster Susceptibility Evaluation of a Random-Forest-Weighted Deterministic Coefficient Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Please provide a brief, one-sentence description of the research gap after the first sentence of the abstract.

2. Please clarify the research aim and research questions in the Introduction.

3. Please reorganise the content of Figure 1, where the text size and resolution are too low.

4. Figure 3 contains eight sub-images. However, the content and text in each image are not readable. Please reorganise Figure 3. 

5. As one of the principal results, Figure 7 contains a lot of valuable information. The current zoning map of the four levels shown in Figure 7 needs to be clarified. It is suggested that the content of Figure 7 be split into four subplots: (1) Locations/partition of low-prone areas; (2) Locations/partition of mid-prone areas; (3) Locations/partition of high-prone areas; (4) Locations/partition of extremely-high prone areas. The four figures above show only the related content. Alternatively, the authors have presented prone partition results in 5.1. Inserting the above four figures here will help the reader to understand the specific partition results.

6. The Discussion should be replaced before the Conclusion.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments

1.        It is unclear why the study focused on the Huize County.

2.        The hypotheses of the study were not clearly presented and discussed.

3.        It should explain how the current study is different from the previous studies.

4.        Acronyms like ROC should be explained in full term when used for the first time.

5.        The fonts in the Figures are blurred such as “Legend” and “Elevation/m.” Please present them in a clearer format.

6.        Section 3 needs to have overall explanation of how the models were selected to achieve the research objective. What I mean by this is the connection between the method explained in the subsections 3.1 to 3.3 is not explained.

 

7.        The conclusion part or discussions section should explain how the results of the study can be applied for other regions that are likely to face similar geological disaster. 

The English is fine but some minor editing like adding full term for acronym is required.

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, this is a good article, however, there are points that need revising. Please see below:

Geological Disaster Susceptibility Evaluation of Random Forest Weighted Deterministic Coefficient Model

Abstract

The abstract can be more impactful. Although it offers some key information it is slightly repetitive. Consider this might be read by a wider readership. I would advice to simplify it slightly to make sure a broader audience will show interest on it.

In addition, an indication of the results would be useful to be given the abstract as well.

1. Introduction

Good section, providing key information. I would like to see an short paragraph on why this topic is important and its relevance/impact on sustainability and environmental issues.

2. Overview of the study area

Good section on the study area.

3. Introduction to the Model method

This section jumps straight into models and equations. I would recommend to start with the broader methodological concept and a simple explanation of the method used on the study. Is there a philosophical theory or not?

4. Evaluation of Geological Disaster Susceptibility

The section starts with Figure 3, without any text. The figure has not been introduced prior. Add a short paragraph explaining this section.

Figure 7: The wording on the legend seems slightly distorted. Consider revising.

5. Evaluation Results and Accuracy Verification

Well written section. It would be even stronger if there were more links in relation to sustainability, environmental soundness and the impact on our communities.

6. Conclusion

I think this is more of a key findings section. For a Conclusions section I would like to see a stronger, more impactful section focusing on key findings and their impact on the paper. New knowledge and originality should be discussed also briefly in this section.

7. Discussion and Prospect

It is strange to see a discussion section after the conclusions. Furthermore, part of the discussion could be possibly be in the methodological section. Consider moving this section prior to Conclusions and integrate the prospects within the conclusion section.

References do not seem enough. The suggestion is for more references to be added throughout the manuscript.

spell check and proofreading

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the authors now revised my previous comments.

The English is fine but found some sentences using similar phrase.

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx