Landslide forecasting and factors influencing predictability

Intrieri, Emanuele; Gigli, Giovanni

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2501-2016

Articles | Volume 16, issue 12

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2501-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-16-2501-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 16, issue 12

Research article

|

30 Nov 2016

Research article |

| 30 Nov 2016

Landslide forecasting and factors influencing predictability

Emanuele Intrieri and Giovanni Gigli

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Nov 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 28 Jun 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'comments and discussion', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Aug 2016
- AC1: 'answers to reviewer 1', Emanuele Intrieri, 01 Sep 2016
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Aug 2016
- AC2: 'answer to reviewer 2', Emanuele Intrieri, 01 Sep 2016
RC3: 'review of the paper nhess-2016-221', Anonymous Referee #3, 28 Aug 2016
- AC3: 'answers to reviewer 3', Emanuele Intrieri, 01 Sep 2016

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (02 Sep 2016) by Thom Bogaard

AR by Emanuele Intrieri on behalf of the Authors (07 Sep 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Sep 2016) by Thom Bogaard

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (15 Sep 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comment:
The paper fails to formally propose a methodology to increase the reliability of landslide forecasting based on displacement monitoring. The approach is presented at the end of the manuscript, as part of the discussion, and with no clear explanation of the sequence of analyses and criteria that should accompany a proposed methodology. Moreover, a probabilistic approach is mentioned, however there are no formal probabilistic techniques or reliability methods formulated that leads to quantified reliability. Plots of average times to failure and standard deviation does not fully address a probabilistic approach.
The findings presented by the authors are important. The databases the authors present are very valuable. The analyses presented associated with their interpretation of the prediction tools and how to compare them are also valuable and worth publication. The analyses presented associated with the application of probabilistic techniques to landslide forecasting reliability, present the necessary data, however they are immature for publication and require further work. The writing style of some paragraphs, in particular the new additions, is not technical and sections of the manuscript are far from NHESS standards.

Particular comments. Line numbers correspond to the file with the authors responses, which include the track changes to the original document submitted.

Title - I suggest the title of the manuscript should not start with a preposition.
L54-59 This paragraph raises an issue. How is failure defined in the paper? Is it first movement? Rupture? I understand the authors refer to the onset of sudden acceleration and collapse, and this should be clearly stated.
L67-72 sufficient lead time for what? What is noise? These require clarification. Do you mean measurement fluctuations around a trend, with a natural origin or caused by monitoring instruments? Data treatment means post-processing? “exploit such methods” which methods? Data treatment?
L121-127 This paper addresses the variability of predictions through the predictive models adopted but do not address a real “prediction rate”, or prediction-realization success. The method further assumes implicitly that fluctuations in the geomechanical behaviour of landslides can be captured by fluctuations in the predicted time of failure. These should be clearly stated at the start so the reader is aware of them.
L197-201 This figure shows the evolution of the predicted time of failure, however does not directly or clearly show how iterating forecasts increase confidence. This is explained in the text and should be removed from the caption of the figure.
L281-294 This paragraph is unclear and our of place. Furthermore, the writing style is poor and far from NHESS standards. Authors are encouraged to read the manuscript and ensure a technical style of writing.
L295-297 Contrary to the author’s statement, prediction plots are not clear in this matter. Supplementary plots or adequate highlights within the plot would be required for the authors to derive this statement and the readers to clearly observed the author’s observations.
L309 The proposed methodology is presented at the end of the manuscript and as part of the discussion, when it should have been introduced early on the manuscript and then proved to the reader. In this methodology, the steps of “Study the shape of the prediction plot” and “inference about the time of failure” have no substance. Although the authors do study the plots and infer times of failure during their discussions of the prediction methods and plots, there is no clear sequence of analyses and criteria that should accompany a proposed methodology. I argue that this manuscript, as it is written, does not formally proposes a methodology for predicting landslide time of failure.
L329-332 This can not be concluded from the data that is presented. You need an adequate presentation of the characteristics of some case studies and their displacement time series that support your conclusion.

Some editorial comments:
L15 should read “is presented here”
L17 “about reliability of prediction”
L22 “are the key”
L23 remove the word “when”
L34-37 needs revisiting. The use of the word “particular” is abused.
L38 Should refer to the paper not to “our research”. Landslide instead of landslides
L67 Creep behaviour not behaviours
L119 grammar: “at most more”
L274-280 This paragraph is unclear and requires re-writing.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (18 Sep 2016)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (20 Sep 2016) by Thom Bogaard

AR by Emanuele Intrieri on behalf of the Authors (22 Sep 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (23 Sep 2016) by Thom Bogaard

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (04 Oct 2016)

ED: Publish as is (31 Oct 2016) by Thom Bogaard

AR by Emanuele Intrieri on behalf of the Authors (07 Nov 2016) Manuscript

Short summary

Forecasting a landslide collapse is a key element in risk reduction, but it is also a very difficult task due to scientific difficulties in predicting a complex natural event and the severe social repercussions caused by a false or missed alarm. In order to help decision makers, we propose a method of increasing the confidence when making landslide predictions. This study also helps understand how geology affects landslide predictability by introducing a predictability index.