Drone-Borne LiDAR and Photogrammetry Together with Historical Data for Studying a Paleo-Landslide Reactivated by Road-Cutting and Barrier Construction outside Jerusalem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study lacks innovation in research methods, only historical data, drone-borne LiDAR and photogrammetry are used and analyzed mostly through visual analysis. The conclusion of the study also lacks new viewpoint and discovery with only conventional understanding obtained at last.

Author Response

We have made significant changes to the manuscript and hope it is now suitable for publication in the Geotechnics journal. The innovation in this study lies in integrating survey methods (historical maps, drone-borne LiDAR, and photogrammetry) with meteorological and seismic data. Moreover, combining these aspects allows an assessment of the relative roles of anthropogenic versus natural factors in compromising slope stability and jeopardizing lives and infrastructures on a busy motorway. This is now pointed out in the Abstract (line 20), Introduction (line 58), and Conclusions (Line 388). These points are also thoroughly elaborated in the Discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, your work is interesting and well presented and deals with a study of the territory in an attempt to understand the presence and effects of landslides. In nature, landslide areas are often hidden over time by the growth of trees and a general greening, which even manifests itself in areas characterized by gullies. The approach of territorial control through remote sensing has an important impact on road management and road safety. Some advice before publishing:

1) Figure 1. Mark the blue box better (photo frame of the landslide area) because it is hard to see. Furthermore, to facilitate direct understanding of the area, insert a hatch to show the road and enlarge the one relating to fractures and topographic discontinuities.

2) Figure 5. a) The lidar image (the point cloud) is not easy to read (although understandable). Furthermore, there is no color scale to indicate the levels (absolute or relative). Finally, I recommend inserting a metric reference on the cloud, for example a polyline whose value can be given in meters. If possible and only if the figure is clearer, you could increase the size of the dots a little.

3) I think you should include some more information on aerial photogrammetry and lidar (by UAS). It is clear that in this work the techniques are not under discussion and no innovative methods are proposed from an engineering or analysis point of view, however a slightly more complete description of techniques and methods (for example a short paragraph with explanation and characteristics of the data used) could strengthen the impact of the work.

4) Regarding figure 7 (very interesting and well presented), are the orthophotos and corresponding images deliberately proposed in grayscale or, based on the acquisition times, some original pictures were in RGB colours?

5) Figure 8 (top image). The contour lines are not clearly visible and should be better highlighted.

6) 4.2 LiDAR comparison. Also in this case I think it is appropriate to add a brief description of the main software routines used (in particular for image alignment and comparison).

7) Figure 10. Could be a little better. The cross sections are visible but "a little so-so". It would be better to add the axes and units of measurement and mark the points better, perhaps with a different choice of colors.

8) I think it would be very useful to conclude the work with an additional figure in which to present the subarea most subject to variations in terms of the 3D model of the newer and older model. Place the color based on the topographic level to highlight the variation in the morphology more clearly and completely. Generally, the large quantity of points obtained with remote sensing techniques, at the time of final modeling, allows for very clear maps to be obtained thanks precisely to the data density. Even overcoming, on average, measurement errors. This point, in my opinion, would give that extra touch to the work but consider it as an optional request of my revision.

9) In the conclusions and appendices, you try to understand the triggering phenomenon by evaluating the climatic/atmospheric impact (rainfall) and the occurrence of main seismic events, which do not seem sufficient to start this landslide phenomenon. An anthropic problem is also indicated due to the construction of the road and the consequent creation of a topographic discontinuity. Human actions are often responsible for mechanisms that then become difficult or impossible to contain. I agree with your preliminary opinions on the combination of "arthropic weakening" and natural noise causes. I wonder if at this stage of discussion it would not be useful to include an example bibliography in understanding the phenomena caused by urban planning or traffic choices by local administrations.

In conclusion, I believe that these comments and suggestions have the character of a minor revision and I think that the requested additions are, in fact, easily made.

Good work and best regards

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. The article has undergone significant changes
We hope that it is now suitable for publication in this journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. The article has undergone significant changes
We hope that it is now suitable for publication in this journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a great effort in revising their manuscript and it has greatly improved. From my point of view, I think that this manuscript is ready to be published.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate your acceptance of our manuscript.