Geological Hazard Assessment of Secondary Collapses Due to Volcanic Earthquakes on Changbai Mountain in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I appreciate the efforts you put into adapting the manuscript to my recommendations. Here and there, there may be a few thing that could be polished but I nonetheless understand that this has been a major effort, so I think that the manuscript is OK as it is.

One hearty recommendation for the future: being myself a non-native English speaker too, I warmly invite the authors to strengthen their English writing, or to consider having professional language checking for their future work.

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

It is a very interesting work

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Manuscript ID:  ijgi-2416776

Type: Article

Title: Geological hazard assessment of secondary collapses due to volcanic earthquakes on Changbai Mountain. (NE China)

Authors:

Zengkai Pan , Qiuling Lang * , Yichen Zhang , Jiquan Zhang , Chenglong Yu , Chenyang Wu

 

Ø General comment:

 

I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript by Zengkai Pan et al. and overall, it is quite impressive. The elements of the manuscript are organized well and flow coherently. The topic is well-researched, and the results align with the stated objectives. However, I would recommend that the authors seek the assistance of a grammar specialist to review the document, as there are a considerable number of errors and some sentences that require rephrasing.

 

Ø Abstract:

-       The abstract requires some revisions as there are several linguistic and grammatical errors. A few sentences also need to be rephrased. Please find below an attempt to modify the language used in the abstract. (The manuscript needs language processing like this):

(In recent years, the volcanic activity of Changbai Mountain has been accompanied by several earthquakes, and the frequent human engineering activities have led to a gradual increase in the number of collapses in the region, which severely impacts residents' lives and property safety. In northeastern China, the Changbai Mountain area in the southeastern Jilin Province is a typical mountain environment. This paper selects 12 evaluation indicators to build a hazard assessment system, including slope, aspect, elevation, curvature, lithology, NDVI, land use type, distance from the fault, the river from the road, volcanic earthquake, and annual average precipitation. Using emotional weight (G1 method) and objective weight (WOE-CV method), the hazard due to collapses in the study area is evaluated too. Among them, the transcendence probability of volcanic earthquakes greater than Ⅵ degree represents the relationship between Changbai Mountain volcanic earthquakes and the assessment of geological collapse hazard. The results show that high and very high-hazard areas are mainly distributed in densely populated areas and national and provincial trunk lines, with apparent spatial agglomeration characteristics. The low hazard area, medium hazard area, high hazard area and very high hazard area accounted for 19.33%, 44.19%, 33.85% and 2.63% of the total area of the study area, respectively. By comparing the previous geological hazard survey reports in the area with the collapse hazard zoning map in this paper, 87.72% of the known collapse hazard areas are distributed within high and very high hazard zones, indicating that the conclusions of the article are more accurate and in line with the actual situation. Results from collapse-related hazards can provide relevant guidance for preventing and controlling geological risks posed by volcanic earthquakes affecting Changbai Mountain.)

Ø Introduction

-       The introduction needs to add a small paragraph indicating how previous studies have dealt with similar topics in China and around the world.

-       Talking about the study area is sparse in the introduction element. It is advisable to group it in one paragraph, while showing the research gap in the same paragraph, preferably the last paragraph of the introduction.

Ø Study Area

-       Perhaps the addition of another paragraph by the authors would greatly enhance the reader's understanding of the study area. Specifically, detailing various geographical aspects, including geology, structure, topography, urban and population changes, as well as other natural and human factors, would be highly valuable.

-       (Figure 1.) Please show the roads and cities on the map. Also, one more question, how to determine the point of collapse geological hazard? Is it possible to show some field photos of some of them?

Ø Methods and Data

-       Line 118 (The G1 method and WOE-CV) It would be good if you provided a brief explanation of the method.

-       Line 186 -192, please rephrase it to be easier for readers.

-       Line 349-350. (In this paper, the area, the number of hazard points and the density of hazard points of the three models are calculated.) rephrase or delete.

 

Ø Conclusion

-       Line 408, There are no tangible results of the danger sites based on field photographs or an explanation of the forms and types of danger to the infrastructure.

Ø References

-       The list of references is good and needs some revisions. There are minor errors in writing some references. Sometimes you write the author’s name in binary and a short letter, and sometimes you write one name and a short letter. Please standardize the style.

In general, thanks for this wonderful and good work, which needs minor modifications to suit the Journal.

Kind regards

 

 

Needs more editing from native speaker. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Geological hazard assessment of Secondary collapse of Chang-2 bai Mountain volcanic earthquake” puts forward an interesting research topic, aiming to assess a geologic hazard via 12 indicators.

I reviewed the paper, and unfortunately I have to recommend rejection due to multiple reasons:

- The term of “disaster” is incorrectly used throughout the paper. A disaster is a situation represents a manifestation of a natural/anthropic risk (which occurs at the intersection of a hazard with vulnerability) that has an impact so powerful that human communities have to rely on external help to get back to desirable states again.

- The methodological framework is faulty, meaning that the indicators used to assess the hazard, are in fact vulnerability indicators. Hazards may be characterised in terms of frequency, magnitude, intensity, coverage area, duration, manifestation particularities etc. On the other hand, slope, aspect, elevation, NDVI and the other indicators selected for hazard assessment are factors that increase the susceptibility of human communities/spaced to the impact of the hazard. This the definition of vulnerability put forward by UNDRR (“TThe conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards.”). Even the column of “Principle of selection” in Table 1, points out that these factors influence the type of hazard impact, which is related to vulnerability (not to the hazard).

Therefore, I advise the authors to get accustomed to official, standard and internationally accepted definitions of hazard, vulnerability, risk, exposure, disaster (please see https://www.undrr.org/terminology) and reframe their research around these.

- The Discussion section is very short and incomplete. This section should provide a critical view on the results, state their national and international implications, argue on the novelty and utility of the study. Also, the findings should be linked with previous ones in the scientific literature. The section should also mention the limitations of the research paper and future research directions.

- Lastly, I recommend the authors to go through the manuscript and correct the English language mistakes.

Reviewer 2 Report

While I appreciate the effort of addressing multiple hazards in a very interesting region, I am afraid this paper lacks a fundamental understanding (and, therefore, orderly discrimination) of the seismological, geological/geomorphological and volcanic processes involved in the hazards being addressed.

I am enclosing an annotated manuscript with numerous comments and indications.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Well done!!!