Inclinometer and Improved SBAS Methods with a Random Forest for Monitoring Landslides and Anchor Degradation in Otoyo Town, Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. What method does the author adopt in the horizontal and vertical decomposition of the deformation, and whether the error brought by the decomposition is taken into account?
2. It is suggested that the author add this reference to the research background in the introduction.
[1] Yu, B., Li, Y., Sun, Q. et al. Calculation and Analysis of Multi-scale Earth Gravity Field Parameters Based on Self-developed EIGEN-5C Model Software. Journal of Geovisualization & Spatial Analysis, 2022,6(2):32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41651-022-00128-8
3. Did the authors measure the accuracy gains from model improvements?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I find your work quite interesting and useful for improving the use of interferometric data.
My main doubts about your manuscript concern the structure. The reader is forced to scroll through the pages many times to follow the description of the figures. I would suggest that you address this issue for the improvement and greater appreciation of your work.
Please consider the few comments in the attached file.
Best regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The study investigates the landslide and anchor degradation using inclinometers and multi-temporal InSAR analysis. Both ascending and descending images of Sentinel-1 data were used, and displacement velocity was determined. However, there is a limited number of InSAR points which does not seem to be informative. The authors should consider the suggestions and answer the questions given below;
1. The abstract should include the main quantitative result of the research.
2. There are some typos in the text:
· Figure 4: word “Goldstien” should be “Goldstein”
· Line 232: word “adujsted” should be “adjusted”
3. Line 19: caption number should start with 1 (one).
4. The introduction is limited. There are many studies on landslides, InSAR, and inclinometer. The contribution of the study should be emphasized considering the literature.
5. What is the level of multilooking?
6. As the LOS values of ascending and descending tracks do not overlap, how east-west and vertical components were created in Figure 6?
7. Line 155: Sentinel-2 does not have 5x20 m spatial resolution and 12 days revisit time. This information is related to Sentinel-1. Rewrite the sentence and give the correct information for Sentinel-2.
8. Supervised Machine Learning and Random Forest were not mentioned in the introduction.
9. How the correlation between NDVI and coherence was calculated? They have different spatial resolutions. Also, there is no quantitative evaluation.
10. Which data is used for ground-truth? It is not clear in the manuscript.
11. Figure 8: It is mentioned a strong correlation, however, there is no quantitative evaluation.
12. What is the standard deviation of the InSAR results? They should be provided.
13. The reliability of the study is low due to a limited number of CB-SBAS points considered, as shown in Figure 10.
14. Discussion should be extended including previous similar studies that used InSAR and inclinometer.
15. Reference 34 is missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Please, consider my minor suggestions in the attached file.
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The new version of the paper is improved with additional information and interpretation included in the sections of the paper. However, there are still some unclear parts, the authors need to clarify these parts given below;
1. Previously, the standard deviations of the InSAR results were asked. It is mentioned as 4.9 mm/year with RF and 6.8 mm/year with the conventional method. Do these belong to the results for Table 3? The results of displacements shown in Table 3 indicate three displacement values, and their standard deviations are not given. Meanwhile, the standard deviations for Figures 6 and 7 are not given.
2. Regarding the correlation between MODIS coherence, Ref 16 also does not explain the details of the correlation between MODIS NDVI and coherence. As they have different resolutions, one of them should be resampled. Ref 17 analyses the correlation between Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 which have the same/similar spatial resolution. Please clarify the processing step of this part.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
