Combined Methodology for Rockfall Susceptibility Mapping Using UAV Imagery Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is well written in terms of english. However, as it is, it seems more like a technical report than a research article. Significant improvements would be required to be published in a research journal.
1) Tell clearly what new value you are bringing.
Please highlight what you bring that is novel in your study. In my opinion, multisensory study from UAV is commonly done by engineers in rockfall risks at an operational level, not research. In my the consulting company where I worke, they are doing this since 2015: UAV acquisition, structural analysis, 3D reconstruction and risk mapping. I am sure that you are adding value, but there is so much “common knowledge” information that I can’t find it. Overall, I would advise you to clearly state what you bring compared to the state-of-art. That particularly concerns the introduction. As it is, it looks more like a technical report than a research article: it has value, but maybe not in a research journal. Again, maybe I am wrong, but then explain why, in the article body.
2) Clarify the method.
The part 4 on method is confusing. The role of the method is to describe what YOU did so that we can understand your results and reproduce if needed. If you list all the potential methods that exist, it is 1) a loss of time for the reader 2) confusing because it is then unclear what you did effectively use in your study. In my opinion, most the text in part 4 is not necessary. However, most of the text in your part 5 “results” is in fact your method (e.g., line 398-410)
3) Shorten the text, it is far too long ! In many place, you may remove what is out of your focus, and also technical details (e.g., line 408: «exported as CV ASCII files or shapefiles»)
4) Validate your results. Figure 8 shows your estimation of rockfall susceptibility. Why not. But a scientific article needs some sort of certainty, not guessing. In fact, to me, Fig8 is where some results start to appear, all figures before are only an illustration of the method. Then, it is mandatory to validate your susceptibility model. I could suggest to compare it with a catalog of rockfalls, to see if your estimation fits with the reality, and how accurately.
Some details:
The figure referencing is wrong in the whole article, please correct.
Line 11-12: «while fundamental research can be concentrated on the detailed contemplation of a research question» à this might be your opinion, but it brings no value to the reader, and expressing such opinion could devaluate your work, particularly in the abstract of a research article.
Line 13-14: Common sense, it brings no value.
Line 85-87: Could you provide a reference ?
You could remove most figures in my opinion to be more synthetic: Figure 1: What is the point of this figure ? Choose Figure 5 or 7 to illustrate the UAV model, but both is useless. Figure 8: what is the point ? Figure 10: out of the topic in my opinion, your article is not about rockfall models.
L546-550: It seems like comment sense, vague, I do not see the value here.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, our answers are included in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents an interesting methodology for assessing rockfall susceptibility in mountainous regions by combining UAV imagery data and GIS applications. The method is applied to a real case study, the Irkutsk region in Russia, where the Circum-Railway is part of the Trans-Siberian Railway. The article is well written and I recommend its publication, it only needs some corrections in the text (e.g. Figure 1 on page 6, rather than Figure 4).
Author Response
Dear reviewer, our answers are included in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article continues a study which was already published in Remote sensing. Authors added analysis of fractures extracted from DSM. Comments and suggestions:
1. It should be added rederences when writing about discontinuity extraction methods because it has been applied in parcitice.
2. Part of introduction should be moved to data and method section (lines 90-108).
3. Add scale and geographic net to left figure 2.
4. Some figures can be removed (like 5, 6, 7, 8) because they don't give a ecential information.
5. It could be done at least in one place statistical measurements (for exapmle 100 fractures in outcrope) by tradional method (by compass) to compare dip and dip directions of fractures gotten by compass and by using UAV. If authors have sush data it must be included in the paper. This would increase confidence in the results.
6. Figure numbers are placed incorrectly.
7. Why there are no normal diagram of fracture orientations which were extracted? It is important to estimate which block will move according to exposition of slope. Stereogram of entire rock slope is for fractures or slopes? There are no reference to this figure in text.
8. The main problem is that authors did not estimate real orientation of discontinuities which is very important for rockfall susceptibility.
9. Where is figure 14 (line 423)? Probably it is the second figure 5. Usually in structural geology it is used another format of diagram.
10. Please explain how you digitized fracture network (line 455)? What do you mean? Did you digitize form DSM or you downloud extraced fractures?
After some explanations and corrections the article may be published. It is suitable for Remore sensing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, our answers are included in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is an interesting case study both for methodological approaches and the relevance of the study area.
However, the structure needs major changes through the re-edition of paragraphs and the insertion of new parts, especially as regards the susceptibility analysis and assessment and the used parameters. The criteria for selecting the parameters should be better described and if they are appropriate, also. In my opinion, the methods are not adequately described.
In the attached file are inserted the comments and the indications relative to the as stated above and to other revisions to make about figures, captions and references.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, our answers are included in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Great job. The article can be publish.
Good luck.
Author Response
Thank you for your work on our manuscript.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The article setup is improved. Small revisions are indicated in the attached file. It would have been better to deepened the correlation between the lithological nature of the slope and the choice of parameters, as stated inthe first report . It would have made the work more robust from a geological and geomorphological point of view in terms of susceptibility assessment using remote sensing approaches that, instead, are consistent with the aims of the journal.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback, it was very valuable. Our manuscript has been edited and resubmitted. The response to your last comments is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
