A participatory approach to determine the use of road cut slope design guidelines in Nepal to lessen landslides

Robson, Ellen B.; Dahal, Bhim Kumar; Toll, David G.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-949-2025

Articles | Volume 25, issue 3

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-949-2025

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-949-2025

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

Articles | Volume 25, issue 3

Research article

|

04 Mar 2025

Research article |

| 04 Mar 2025

A participatory approach to determine the use of road cut slope design guidelines in Nepal to lessen landslides

Ellen B. Robson, Bhim Kumar Dahal, and David G. Toll

Download

Final revised paper (published on 04 Mar 2025)
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Jun 2024)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1300', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Jul 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1300/egusphere-2024-1300-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1300-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ellen Robson, 27 Sep 2024
  
  We thank the reviewers for their thorough comments on our manuscript: “A participatory approach to determine the use of road cut slope design guidelines in Nepal to lessen landslides” by Ellen B. Robson, Bhim Kumar Dahal and David G. Toll.
  Attached we provide detailed responses to these comments and how we will proceed if the editor invites us to submit a revision. The reviewer’s comments are shown in black text, while our responses are in blue text. We highlight the added text in bold and strike out the deleted text. We have also included a reference list at the end of added references.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1300-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1300', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Aug 2024

After careful reading the pre-print, it is recommended to revise Manuscript egusphere-2024-1300 from the NHESS section. It needs major improvements in structure, content, and discussion.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1300-RC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ellen Robson, 27 Sep 2024
  
  We thank the reviewers for their thorough comments on our manuscript: “A participatory approach to determine the use of road cut slope design guidelines in Nepal to lessen landslides” by Ellen B. Robson, Bhim Kumar Dahal and David G. Toll.
  Attached we provide detailed responses to these comments and how we will proceed if the editor invites us to submit a revision. The reviewer’s comments are shown in black text, while our responses are in blue text. We highlight the added text in bold and strike out the deleted text. We have also included a reference list at the end of added references.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1300-AC1

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) (07 Oct 2024) by Robert Sakic Trogrlic

AR by Ellen Robson on behalf of the Authors (07 Nov 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Nov 2024) by Robert Sakic Trogrlic

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (25 Nov 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The revised Manuscript egusphere-2024-1300 from the NHESS section has significantly improved and authors have addressed thoroughly the comments from the first revision. It showcases the value of applying participatory approaches to evaluate and improve the road cut slope design guidelines in Nepal. The paper provides a well-reasoned and detailed analysis of the issues surrounding road cut slope design guidelines in Nepal, with practical and actionable recommendations to prevent landslide occurrence. Thus, it is of relevance to the field of natural hazards and the Journal.
However, it needs to strengthen the discussion and conclusion with the following revisions:
• Discussion: The use of road construction as a political bargain is a recurring theme in the text; however, the paper doesn’t explore recommendations to tackle this issue.
• Conclusions:
o While the study offers valuable insights for Nepal, especially regarding technical recommendations, it is essential to expand on the broader implications and applicability of these conclusions to other regions facing similar challenges. This particularly pertains to weighing the advantages and limitations of participatory approaches rather than providing specific technical recommendations for road cut slope design in Nepal, which are already covered in the Results and Discussion.
o The conclusions section is lengthy, content overloaded in duplicated content from previous sections, particularly in terms of technical recommendations. A concise summary of both the gaps/challenges and the recommendations is necessary to enhance clarity and impact.
o Next steps should prioritize future research rather than detailing the requirements for new guidelines. Any text currently in that section should be relocated to the discussion to maintain relevance, while a clear research outlook should be articulated. The conventional statement of: “Future research should focus on…” in alignment with emerging/remaining knowledge gaps and/or methodological limitations encountered.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (26 Nov 2024)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I am satisfied with the substantive changes that have been made and think the paper more clearly articulates its impactful contribution to the literature and DRR policy. I have recommended some minor, technical adjustments which the authors might wish to incorporate for readability. These are attached and below. I do not need to view the MS again before publication.

Technical comments:
Line 20 – using a new sentence starter instead of “whilst”. Either needs to be a conjunction or a different word to start the sentence. Reads awkwardly as is.
Line 90 – the transition from line 89 to the new para on line 89 does not flow well. Not sure it needs to be a new paragraph. You could remove the sentence beginning “It is argued that these geopolitical…” and go straight from “… projects.” Into “Thus, and as argued by Rosser et al and KC et al (maybe remove ref to Robson et al 2021 which is used quite a lot throughout), landslides in Nepal tend to be caused by a complex interplay of geophysical and geopolitical processes that are challenging to unpick and address (also see later comment re. importance of speaking across disciplines etc).
Line 157 – 166 – It feels like there’s quite a bit of repetition in this paragraph. Consider paring down so that you only reference Paudyal and Robson refs only one or twice.
Line 208 – Note typo on Gill reference.
Line 279. Feels like the sentence starting “However” should come before Fig 3.
Line 515 – As I read this, I find myself thinking there is something to say here about the challenges of interdisciplinary working for DRR (e.g. Donovan et. al, 2023), which also links nicely to your conceptual section where you outline that landslides/disasters are characterised by complex interactions between the geophysical and geopolitical (consider adding specific reference to interdisciplinarity in the last bit of section 2.1?). In short, is there scope to mention this as an area for future research? I.e., mention that there is a need to develop vocabularies and best-practices for interdisciplinary research and action on the links between roads, risks, and resilience? Whether this comes around this section or nearer the end would be up to you.

Reference(s)
Donovan, A., Morin, J., & Walshe, R. (2023). Interdisciplinary research in hazards and disaster risk. Progress in Environmental Geography, 2(3), 202-222.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (03 Dec 2024) by Robert Sakic Trogrlic

AR by Ellen Robson on behalf of the Authors (20 Dec 2024) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (09 Jan 2025) by Robert Sakic Trogrlic

AR by Ellen Robson on behalf of the Authors (15 Jan 2025)

Short summary

Slopes excavated alongside roads in Nepal frequently fail (a landslide), resulting in substantial losses. Our participatory approach study with road engineers aimed to assess how road slope design guidelines in Nepal can be improved. Our study revealed inconsistent guideline adherence due to a lack of user-friendliness and inadequate training. We present general recommendations to enhance road slope management, as well as technical recommendations to improve the guidelines.