From rockfall source area identification to susceptibility zonation: a proposed workflow tested on El Hierro (Canary Islands, Spain)

Sarro, Roberto; Rossi, Mauro; Reichenbach, Paola; Mateos, Rosa María

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1459-2025

Articles | Volume 25, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1459-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-1459-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 25, issue 4

Research article

|

16 Apr 2025

Research article |

| 16 Apr 2025

From rockfall source area identification to susceptibility zonation: a proposed workflow tested on El Hierro (Canary Islands, Spain)

Roberto Sarro, Mauro Rossi, Paola Reichenbach, and Rosa María Mateos

Download

Final revised paper (published on 16 Apr 2025)
Preprint (discussion started on 24 Jul 2024)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on nhess-2024-85', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Aug 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2024-85/nhess-2024-85-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-85-RC1
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Roberto Sarro, 21 Oct 2024
  
  Thank you very much for your positive feedback on the manuscript. We appreciate the important suggestions that will improve the readability and comprehension of the article. In the revised version, we have carefully considered all the comments and suggestions. In the following pages, we present comprehensive responses to each point.
  
  We sincerely appreciate the revision and the opportunity to provide a new version of the article.
  Our bests
  The authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-85-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on nhess-2024-85', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Aug 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2024-85/nhess-2024-85-RC2-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-85-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Roberto Sarro, 18 Oct 2024
  
  Thank you very much for your comments and feedback on the manuscript. We would like to clarify some points that, in our opinion, do not reflect the content and the main objectives of the manuscript or that are addressed in the text may be not clear enough to be understood by the reader.
  In the following pdf, we would like to clarify, highlight, and address each point of the reviewer to provide some more clear explanation of our work.
  Our bests
  The authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-85-AC2
RC3:
'Comment on nhess-2024-85', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Sep 2024

Good job. Please refer to the attached document, where all my comments are presented.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-85-RC3
- AC1: 'Reply on RC3', Roberto Sarro, 18 Oct 2024
  
  Thank you very much for your positive feedback on the manuscript. We appreciate the important suggestions that will improve the readability and comprehension of the article. In the revised version, we have carefully considered all the comments and suggestions. In the following pdf, we present comprehensive responses to each point.
  
  We hope that our replies could be successfully aligned with the request of the reviewer and with the standard of the journal.
  Our bests
  The authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-85-AC1
- AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Roberto Sarro, 21 Oct 2024
  
  We apologize for the inconvenience, but the links to the figures in the previously sent PDF document were not working properly.
  Please find attached a revised version where this issue has been corrected.
  Our bests
  The authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-85-AC4

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (03 Nov 2024) by Oded Katz

AR by Roberto Sarro on behalf of the Authors (05 Nov 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 Nov 2024) by Oded Katz

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (21 Nov 2024)

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (02 Dec 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The manuscript is currently undergoing a "major revision" process, and I sincerely acknowledge the authors' efforts to address previous reviewer comments and improve certain sections.
However, considering all these efforts, I must state that the paper still faces significant challenges in demonstrating sufficient novelty. The methods applied have already been used in the same study area, and apparently, no new datasets have been introduced to advance the state of knowledge. Additionally, the frequent references to the authors' previous work diminish the standalone value of the current study, making it heavily reliant on prior publications. Consequently, the only new contribution is the comparative analysis.
Unfortunately, the relevance and impact of this comparative analysis are limited. The presentation of results raises some questions, partly due to the inconsistent introduction of methods and the superficial description of workflow steps and data used. Moreover, the study lacks a robust uncertainty assessment, which is essential for convincingly demonstrating the advantages or broader applicability of the proposed approaches. The conclusions remain overly general and fail to provide significant novelty or actionable insights.
While portions of the paper are well-written, some statements are overly simplistic and require greater precision and clarity. Inconsistent usage of established technical terminology in the text should also be addressed to ensure coherence and improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
The authors should consistently use established terminology to strengthen the paper, provide a more detailed and transparent presentation of the methods and data, and streamline the workflow with clear and consistent definitions of its components (e.g., susceptibility analysis and runout zonation). Additionally, the discussion should include a rigorous assessment of uncertainties and present a more explicit interpretation of the results. Addressing these issues, the paper could add value as a rigorous and insightful case study.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (03 Dec 2024) by Oded Katz

AR by Roberto Sarro on behalf of the Authors (10 Jan 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (14 Feb 2025) by Oded Katz

AR by Roberto Sarro on behalf of the Authors (17 Feb 2025)

Short summary

This study proposes a novel systematic workflow that integrates source area identification, deterministic runout modelling, the classification of runout outputs to derive susceptibility zonation, and robust procedures for validation and comparison. The proposed approach enables the integration and comparison of different modelling, introducing a robust and consistent workflow/methodology that allows us to derive and verify rockfall susceptibility zonation, considering different steps.