Thank you very much for your positive assessment and helpful comments. We have increased the size of all figures, with special attention to GPR profiles, and adjusted the font size of all associated labels to improve readability. We have also revised the manuscript layout to ensure that, wherever possible, each figure now appears on the same page as its corresponding caption.

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions. Based on your feedback, we revised the manuscript to improve clarity and readability:

1. We increased the size of all figures and the font size of all labels, colorbars, and annotations.

2. We added several photographs of the study sites to aid interpretation of the geophysical results.

3. We expanded the description of how the different methods (ERT, GPR, and thaw probing) agree or disagree at each site, and we highlight these comparisons at the end of each results subsection.

4. We clarified and standardized the site naming used in Figure 1 and ensured consistency with the text and other figures.

5. We added additional information on soil and sediment conditions in the Utqiagvik.

Thank you very much for your interest in the article and for the detailed and thoughtful comments. According to your comments and suggestions, we revised the manuscript as follows:

1. “It is not clear what the guiding scientific question is for this work…”
   
   The main scientific question of this study is to assess how near-surface permafrost (active layer thickness and shallow structure) responds to different land types and infrastructure impact in Utqiagvik, and how the combination of GPR, ERT, and thaw-depth probing can be used together to characterize these differences. We added a clearer formulation of this question at the end of the Introduction and refer back to it in the Conclusion section.

2. “For the GPR profiles where the author interprets ice wedges and labels them with dashed red lines…”

Thank you a lot for this important comment. We revisited our GPR interpretation and the way ice-wedge–related features are shown. In the revised figures, the dashed lines no longer extend through the entire active layer up to the surface. Instead, we restrict them to the deeper, perennially frozen zone.

1. “The manuscript would benefit from revisions to improve figure quality and consistency. At present, the figures are too small…”

Thank you for this comment. We increased the size of all figures and the font size of axis labels, colorbars, and annotations to make them easier to read and interpret.

1. “Review figure axes, color scales, and labelling… For the ERT figures specifically…”

Thank you for the suggestions. We checked and corrected the consistency among all figures and the text. The ERT resistivity values are displayed on a linear scale and are now clearly labeled as resistivity in Ω·m. The color bar is different on the large scale and the coarse scale, because the large scale demonstrates subsurface ice-rich features, while the coarse scale mainly aims to show active layer depth. References to subfigure labels (including Figure 6) were also corrected in the text.

1. “The ERT tomograms show elevation above sea level while the GPR radargrams show depth…”

Thank you. We changed the vertical axis in the ERT tomograms to Depth (m), which makes them consistent with the GPR profiles and simplifies direct comparison between the two methods.

1. “The resistivity zones (A–E) are inconsistently labeled and referenced…”

Thank you. We checked all ERT figures, captions, and the main text and corrected the labelling so that zones A–E are used consistently throughout the manuscript.

1. “The ERT tomograms appear to have abundant vertical artifacts…”

Thank you for pointing this out. We examined the inversion settings and mesh, and we agree that some of the vertical streaks in Figure 5 likely represent inversion artifacts and local small-scale heterogeneity. In the revised text, we explicitly state that these vertical features are not interpreted as discrete geological bodies and that our estimates of active layer depth are based on broader, laterally coherent patterns in the tomograms. Therefore, these artifacts do not affect our main interpretation of active layer thickness.

1. “The satellite maps currently include only a scale and a north arrow…”

Thank you. We updated the satellite maps to include a simple coordinate grid (latitude and longitude), which improves the spatial interpretation and provides more precise location information.

1. “Providing a more detailed description of the thaw-probing methods would aid in the transparency and repeatability…”

Thank you. We added clarification in the Methods section, including details on the probe type, spacing of measurements, and procedure for recording thaw depth.

1. “The description of the ‘undisturbed tundra’ site (site D) requires further clarification…”

Thank you for this remark. We clarified in the text that Site D is used as a local reference tundra site that is less directly influenced by infrastructure. We also added a note that the vegetation cover and surface drainage appear undisturbed in this area.