Landslide Risks to Bridges in Valleys in North Carolina

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting work, although we do not think its scientific relevance is excessive. It provides interesting case studies and databases, but some aspects need to be greatly improved, especially the figures.

In lines 44 to 52, a series of data on catastrophes are given that it would be good to indicate in some type of graph, for example a pie chart, as far as possible.

Line 69: triggered by Maria. Add “Hurricane Maria”

Figure 1 requires a convenient graphic scale and series to describe the type of terrain: geology or lithology of the soils involved.

The relationship between section 1 of Puerto Rico and section 2 of North Carolina is not understood. Explain more in detail.

A figure is needed with a better defined geographical location map and a basic geology of the environment of the study area. In Figure 4 the name of the states cannot be easily read, and the scales are very small. Delete what is not relevant and expand legend and important data. Add some geographic information: rivers, mountains. It is not clear where the sea is.

Figure 5 and 6 are confusing. Include some geographical reference: cities, rivers, mountains, coast, etc.

In figure 7 the legend is not visible, expand it, make two figures.

In section 3.2 Conditioning Factors we do not find adequate references to the influence of geological and geotechnical aspects, apart from seismicity.

Line: 198 and 201 what version of ArcGIS Pro?

In section 3.5 North Carolina Highway Bridges, some diagram of the bridges would be convenient, as it is difficult to get an idea of them and their problems.

It would be convenient to relate figures 10 and 11, placing the area investigated in 11 on figure 10.

Study the relevance of many of the photos in figures 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. Photos c and d of image 12 are of low quality and the scale is not well appreciated, you will improve or include a diagram that explains what is relevant of the photo. Idem for the photos in figure 13 c and d and figure 14 c, figures 15 b and d. Figures 16 b,c and d. Many of these photos do not seem relevant, the most important ones from each place could be summarized.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your suggestions and comments. We have responded accordingly (please see attached response)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Whether in valleys or on ridges, this helps establish a strategy to ensure bridges before major storms occur. However, the bridge positions shown in Figure 3 are all located in relatively flat terrain areas;

Need to add a flowchart for the research content of this article;

In Figure 7, the landslide condition factors used in this study did not involve lithology. Therefore, the reliability of the predicted landslide susceptibility needs to be discussed in terms of its advantages and disadvantages;

The abstract section contains too much content and needs to be streamlined;

The advantages and disadvantages of two models for predicting landslide risk should be discussed;

In Figures 12-16, some images do not show bridges. What does the image mean?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

good.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your rich suggestions and comments. We have prepared our replies accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have included the suggested modifications, however we get the impression that the template has been misplaced, please verify

Author Response

All figures have been revised with increased resolutions.