The paper entitled "Regional-scale GIS-models with fuzzy logic for Susceptibility Maps of debris flow: A Case Study in Pinggu District of Beijing, China", focused on the debris flow susceptibility map computation of a series of drainage basins of the Pinggu District of Beijing. The authors proposed a methodology based on GIS-models, combining diverse methods: grey relational method, data-driven and fuzzy logic methods. The manuscript deals with the application of susceptibility analysis on debris flow. The topic is interesting and is suitable for the journal. The model used in the manuscript not only considers the scientificity and accuracy, but also considers the application in engineering practice. I think the article can be acceptable after some revisions are made.

I have two main questions for the authors to explain:

1. In ArcGIS, the watershed algorithm is to obtain the sub watershed units of the whole Pinggu region. How can the author select these specific watersheds in the article? How are other unqualified units excluded?
2. How to explain the similarities and differences between models R6-R17?

Specific comments are listed as follows:

- The introduction needs a section concerning susceptibility methods.

- The Results and Discussion needs to be more detailed and organized.

-The language in this article should be polished by a native speaker. The English is in some cases not good enough for the reviewer to understand the points the authors are trying to make, or follow their descriptions of the research.

-Line 26  by the results → by results

-Line 26  validated by the other two → validated by two other

-Line 27  the method to → a method to

-Line 47  significance to establishing → significance to establish

Line 76  disaster chain and that the geomorphic → disaster chain and the geomorphic

Line 76  rather than simple data fitting → rather than simply data fitting

Line 80  account for → accounts for

Line 90  1.  Data and Methodology → 3 Data and Methodology

Line 99  watershed characteristics factors → watershed characteristic factors

Line 103  our primary assumption here are → our primary assumptions here are

Line 103  First → Firstly

Line 105  Second → Secondly

Line 114  by professional team--- by professional teams

Line 138  factors (Type B) factors → factors (Type B)

Line 159  a effective method → an effective method

Line 169  3.4 fuzzy memberships → 3.4 Fuzzy memberships

Line 217  can be used to derived their fuzzy →  can be used to derive their fuzzy

Line 238  order to use properly → order to use it properly

Line 247  Compared with other four fuzzy operator → Compared with other four fuzzy operators

Line 247  Fuzzy Gamma (Eq.6) → Eq.5

Line 261  seventeen results were compared (Table.6) → Table.5

Line 278  the results is not comprehensive → the results are not as comprehensive

Line 282  there are total 135 basin → there are total 135 basins

Line 306  uncertain factor compared with factors compared → uncertain factors compared

Line 309  bedrock fracture flow; and root strength--- bedrock fracture flow, and root strength

Line 334  in which all factors as a single---in which all factors are considered as a single

Line 362  nonlinear methods is consistent → nonlinear method is consistent

Line 377  clear and the data easy to obtain → clear and the data is easy to obtain

I have only partially revised the manuscript "GIS-models with fuzzy logic for Susceptibility Maps of debris flow using multiple types of parameters: A Case Study in Pinggu District of Beijing, China". The manuscript deals with the application of susceptibility analysis on debris flow and could be interesting for the journal. Unfortunately, the manuscript is not written in a good English and many statements and descriptions are very difficult to understand. I revised only up to line 203 (3.4.2 Data-driven method in susceptibility modelling). I recommend the authors to submit a revised version of the manuscript after the revision of an English-speaking person. Few comments are throughout the text.