Evaluation of Geological Hazard Risk in Yiliang County, Yunnan Province, Using Combined Assignment Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very interesting paper. I think, in order to improve the paper quality, the conclusions should be numbered. Accept with minor revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In the article, the evaluation units introduced are grid units, slope units, basin units, and geographic units. Given the steep mountains and slopes in Yiliang County, Yunnan Province, please explain the reasons why choose to use grid units as the evaluation units.
2. Nine evaluation factors such as slope, elevation and topographic relief are selected, and the risk assessment of geological disasters in Yiliang County is carried out by using the combination weighting method. But it is necessary to select more representative indicators considering the actual local conditions and determine the respective weights for different regions or different purposes of assessment to obtain more accurate assessment results.
3. For the nine evaluation factors such as slope, elevation and topographic relief, please clarify which evaluation factor is the more critical factor and contributes significantly to the evaluation results.
4. Limited by the availability and completeness of data, some important impact factors and indicators may be overlooked. In addition, the choice of different indicators and dimensions may also have an impact on the assessment results. Therefore, there is a need to further improve the assessment methods and evaluation indicators based on more data and information.
5. English expressions need to be improved. For example, "nearly 46.98% of the hazard points are distributed in the very high-risk area" can be revised as "nearly 46.98% of the hazard points are distributed in the area classified as very high-risk".
Minor revision of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
For the work to have a dimension of global interest, alternatives for portability of the model presented in two aspects that would be useful were missing: a) Decision in the scarcity of data and b) semi-quantitative model applicable to the lack of this information.The inversion between rows and columns of table 1 would bring more clarity to the information.
All the equations used and Table 2, if they were part of an appendix, would make reading the text more fluid for an audience that only uses mathematics and statistics in an operational way.
The choice of variables affects the models. This information should appear in every article that has a non-expert readership.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Editor
I would thank you for the invitation to review the manuscript entitled "Evaluation of Geological Hazard Risk in Yiliang County, Yun an Province, Using Combined Assignment Method ". The present studied geological disasters prevalent during urbanization in the mountainous areas of south west China known by complex geographic and fragile geologic conditions, the study was conducted by nine evaluation factors is carried out by using the combination weighting method. The methodology is in the scope of the journal.
Recommendation
Major revision.
MAJOR COMMENTS:
Comment ≠ 1: In the present study authors provide several maps without any interpolation method detail, only for the average annual rainfall map that was achieved by employing spatial kriging to interpolate (Line-241). Authors should give more explanations about the interpolation method used for the other maps, because it very important in your study, if we change the interpolation method we will have different results and all next results will change! Moreover, in the same method like kriging if we calculate and adjusted the variogram the results will be change. The authors need to add more explanation and details.
Comment ≠ 2: Why authors used only Binary Logistic Regression Model not used other methods, may, if you used and compared with other techniques may they give more accuracy? The authors need to convince me the reason for choosing this technique.
Comment ≠ 3: Discussion should separate from the conclusion and should improve as possible with comparison with other study area. In current form the ms seem as technical report.
SPECIFICCOMMENTS
Comment ≠ 1: Abstract section it very general authors should improve and add more details of the results and highlights the finding (accuracy of hazard evaluation results,….).
Comment ≠ 2: Study Area Overview Line 115-150; should add the reference corresponding.
Comment ≠ 3: Table1 should move after Figure 1, for the figure.2 the legend not clear should improve.
Comment ≠ 4: Line 293; 3.3. AHP Add the whole (Analytic Hierarchy Process)
Comment ≠ 5: Figure.4: authors should add the interval for each level of risk in legend risk zoning.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The conclusion part is suggested to be simplified.
2. In an academic paper, it is generally recommended to place the discussion section before the conclusion section.
Moderate editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors replied seriously to all my comments and suggestions, in the current form I believe the ms is acceptable for publication after taking on consideration the comment below.
Comment:
Authors should move the discussion before the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
