Winter–Spring Prediction of Snow Avalanche Susceptibility Using Optimisation Multi-Source Heterogeneous Factors in the Western Tianshan Mountains, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled "Winter-spring Prediction of Snow Avalanche Susceptibility Using Optimisation Multi-source Heterogeneous Factors in the Western Tianshan Mountains, China" is a very interesting paper of a topic absolutely suitable for the journal “Remote Sensing”. The authors used Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF) and K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) algorithms to construct three assessment models, which were applied to and verified in the western Tianshan Mountains, China.

The manuscript is well written and well structured and the conclusions are based on the results of the research. The presentation of the research is quite well and even if I am not a native speaker I think that the paper reads well!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Very important and interesting topic.  The paper is well presented.  I suggest to accept the paper with the following revisions.

 

1. It will be good to have a better location map, which shows the context
2. Literature review part can be enhanced a bit with better recent literatures.
3. It will be important to identify clearly the knowledge gap in the current literature, and how this paper fills that gap
4. It will be good to see how the climatic factor is introduced in the parameters.Currently, we see four meteorological factors in Figure 8. It seems that only static values of temperature and wind are considered for spring and winter.  It will be good to see some discussion on the variation and changes.
5. In the discussion, I would like to see some policy implications of the study

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is highly scientific and timely. It is technically sound, but it needs proper arrangment.

1. Abstract: Please mention the outperformed model and its accuracy.
2. Literature regarding machine learning needs to be strengthen.
3. Most of the figures do not have proper captions. 
4. Figuer 1: Legend of snow avalanche and highway is improperly inserted. Please revise.
5. Secion 3.1: Data preparation related to training and testing data is missing.
6. Line 327: resolution is mentioned as 12.5, Line 331: resolution is mentioned as 10m, and Line 492: resolution is 500m. Why authors resampled all data into 500m? As most of the data have been extracted from DEM and satellite images, therefore, they can resample few low resolution image into 10 or 12.5 meters. Because of resampling into 500m, huge information can be lost. Please clearify.
7. Please merge figure 2 and 3. Also provide proper caption. Figure 5 needs detailed caption. I think figure 4, 5, and 6 can be merged together and create two figures from it.
8. Please create figure 11 again and arranged it properly. Also chose suitable color band. Red color can depict very high condition. Color choosing is an optional comment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The purpose of the article should be clearly indicated in the abstract. The abstract should be slightly shortened in terms of the obtained results. It should include the aim, methods, results and conclusions.
2. In the introduction, it would be worth adding, for example, a table summarizing the research methods used so far (in the scope of the discussed issues), along with their advantages and disadvantages
3. In the introduction, unnecessarily data on the characteristics of the research area were added - which is described separately
4. In the introduction is missing of a clearly indicated main goal
5. Due to the fact that part 3. Data Collecting and Processing is very extensive - maybe a graph of the entire research procedure could be useful along with an indication of its stages - facilitating the reception for the reader
6. It is very good that the article has a section on Limitation
7. In section Limitation should be removed  Future Development and it included in the conclusions
8. Conclusions should be extended

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors did a good job in revising the manuscript. I suggest to accept the manuscript in its present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

I can see the Authors' efforts to improve the article. It may be published.