Assessment of Ground Instabilities’ Causative Factors Using Multivariate Statistical Analysis Methods: Case of the Coastal Region of Northwestern Rif, Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Based on the ground instability inventory, the draft analyzes the weight of influence of the different factors of ground instability of the Coastal Region of North Western Rif by using multiple correspondence analysis and principal component analysis. Among many factors such as lithology, hydraulic conditions, geometric shape, altitude, etc., the author observed that lithology has an important impact on the existing instability types. Principal component analysis shows that landslide is the result of multiple factors. This paper proposes that multivariate statistical analysis plays an important role in assessing ground instabilities causative factors and provides a reference for regional risk assessment and disaster prevention and reduction, but there are still some problems that need to be modified:

(1) It is suggested to further beautify the pictures. The pictures and the words in the pictures are not clear, such as in Figure 1.

(2) Please add the legend for Figure 8. The conclusions should be given on lines 197-200.

(3) Please give the reference figure in lines 244-245.

(4) The Flight angle and Elevation described in 308-309 are not shown in Figure 11a. 

(5) Please give the reference figure in lines 321-326. If the reference figure is figure 11, the information about friction angle, joint density, altitude, and slope are not shown in the figure.

(6) The use of the multiple correspondence methods and principal component method requires an accurate ground instability inventory of the study area.  If the ground instability inventory in another area is inaccessible or inaccurate, can the method used in this paper still be applicable? How much will the accuracy of the results be affected? I suggest the authors discuss these issues. 

Author Response

• It is suggested to further beautify the pictures. The pictures and the words in the pictures are not clear, such as in Figure 1.

We worked on to beautify the pictures. Figure 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 have been changed

• Please add the legend for Figure 8. The conclusions should be given on lines 197-200.

Thanks for this remark. Modifications have been realized. Fig 8 is extensively described lines 203 to 211.

• Please give the reference figure in lines 244-245.

As requested, we add the reference of the figure (see line 298)

• The Flight angle and Elevation described in 308-309 are not shown in Figure 11a. 

Friction angle and elevation were in Fig 11 but there was no homogeneity in their name (it was “f” and “average elevation”). We reverify all the text to be sure that the same name was given all along. Many thanks for having pointed out this incoherence.

• Please give the reference figure in lines 321-326. If the reference figure is figure 11, the information about friction angle, joint density, altitude, and slope are not shown in the figure.

As requested, we add the reference and verify the homogeneity of the given names.

• The use of the multiple correspondence methods and principal component method requires an accurate ground instability inventory of the study area.  If the ground instability inventory in another area is inaccessible or inaccurate, can the method used in this paper still be applicable? How much will the accuracy of the results be affected? I suggest the authors discuss these issues.

We decided to add a new paragraph 5.4 to discus this very pertinent remark

Reviewer 2 Report

The objective of this paper is assessing the ground instabilities causative factors by applying multivariate statistical methods, while it was implemented in the coastal region of north-western rif in Morocco.

The subject of the paper is interesting, while the approach is innovative. The structure is satisfactory, as the major sections (Introduction, Study area, Materials and Methods, Results and discussion, Conclusions) are included. However, the following corrections should be performed, which will improve the paper:

Lines 48-56: Please, rephrase this paragraph, setting clear the objectives of the paper. In the current form it is difficult to understand. Maybe, numbering of the objectives will be useful.

Line 58: “…in the extreme Northwest of Morocco”. Please, rephrase; it is not comprehended.

Line 59:”.... a large geographical portion of the Mediterranean coast”. Please, rephrase; it is not comprehended.

Line 64: “…which constitute a platform for several dynamic…”. Please, define the “platform” term.

Lines 67-70: Please, apply smaller sentences. This is a four-line sentence, making it difficult to read and understand.

The same part is referred to a geologically wide area, so include the appropriate references, please.

Lines 74-75: This is irrelevant to the geological description of the study area. Please, remove.

Figures: Please, increase the Figure resolution. A lot of them include blur parts.

“Conclusions” section: This section should be rewritten. It should include the major and specific concluding remarks of your research (do not include general information, which can be included in the Abstract or “Introduction” section). Numbering conclusions could be very useful. Please, apply the changes.

General comment: Although the paper is well-structured, significant linguistic changes should be performed.

Author Response

• Lines 48-56: Please, rephrase this paragraph, setting clear the objectives of the paper. In the current form it is difficult to understand. Maybe, numbering of the objectives will be useful.

As requested, we rephrase the paragraph

• Line 58: “…in the extreme Northwest of Morocco”. Please, rephrase; it is not comprehended.

As requested, we rephrase the sentence

• Line 59:”.... a large geographical portion of the Mediterranean coast”. Please, rephrase; it is not comprehended.

As requested, we rephrase the sentence

• Line 64: “…which constitute a platform for several dynamic…”. Please, define the “platform” term.

In order to be more understandable, we change the “platform” term to “zone”

• Lines 67-70: Please, apply smaller sentences. This is a four-line sentence, making it difficult to read and understand.

As requested, we cut the 4-line sentence

• The same part is referred to a geologically wide area, so include the appropriate references, please.

We reformuled all the paragraphe to be more understandable. If you think  important references are missing, please let us know

• Lines 74-75: This is irrelevant to the geological description of the study area. Please, remove.

The paragraph was about geological description, but the section was larger. We decided to keep the sentence as the climate and specially the information about watercourses is important but we moved it in the first paragraph ().

• Figures: Please, increase the Figure resolution. A lot of them include blur parts.

We worked on to beautify the pictures. Figure 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17 have been changed

• “Conclusions” section: This section should be rewritten. It should include the major and specific concluding remarks of your research (do not include general information, which can be included in the Abstract or “Introduction” section). Numbering conclusions could be very useful. Please, apply the changes.

We completely rewrite the conclusion paragraph to have it more conclusive

• General comment: Although the paper is well-structured, significant linguistic changes should be performed.

The whole paper has been corrected with the help of an English engineer

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

The paper evaluates the weight of influence of the different factors of ground instability of the coastal region between Tetouan and Jebha, through the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) and the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The Authors have discussed with great attention and wealth of details the items of the research. The paper appears well constructed, well documented and the results encourage the application of the method in other areas with different geo-environmental features to verify its reliability. Hence, it is recommended that the manuscript now can be accepted for publication in its present form.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his (her) very kind comments.