Dear Authors,
Following the recommendations of both reviewers I agree your paper should be published in NHESS, subject to minor revisions as detailed in the referee’s reports. To proceed with the closed peer-review process, please submit your revised manuscript accompanied by a point-per-point reply on the referee comments, and a manuscript version highlighting the applied changes. After resubmission, your paper will be reviewed again by the editor.
Best regards, A. Günther

Dear Dr. Olivera,
I have read your revised manuscript and think you have well incorporated the comments made by the referees and agree your article should be published in our journal. However, some points indicated below still need some improvement and therefore the paper should be again subjected to minor revisions. Please revise your paper following the comments below and resubmit your article together with a point-per-point reply on the editor comments, and a manuscript version in track change mode highlighting the applied changes. After resubmission, your paper will be reviewed again by the editor.
Best regards, A. Günther

General comment
The most important concern I have on the presentation is that landslide properties and the characteristics of the different soil/bedrock-associations should be better described and less confused. For example, the authors refer to shear strength properties of soils, but use the data to classify a bedrock lithology map. This should be justified and explained.
The conclusions of the article are just a summary, and the paper lacks a discussion on the proposed methodology regarding problems, benefits and future improvements. A little bit discussion on how to derive spatial information on soil/bedrock properties for both deterministic and statistical landslide susceptibility analyses at the basin scale would be particularly welcomed, also because the paper touches a lot of aspects on this very important subject.

Specific comments
Title: I think somewhere in the introduction the authors should define what the mean with “basin scale”.
P2, L9-11 Landslides inventory information is essential for calibrating stability models through back-calculation (as the authors did).
P3, L5-9: I would highly recommend referring only to lithology and omit the local formation names. The descriptions of the lithological units should be with the legend of Fig. 1 (see comments on Figures)
P3, L10: “wide curvature angle tectonic rebound”: Please explain this.
P4, L5-12: Please give some more information on the landslides: Areas, volumes, … Can different landslide types, sizes, frequencies be observed in different lithologies? Where major shear- and cutoff planes of shallow landslides are located (bedrock interface, material contrasts within soil cover, etc.)?
P5, L14: please write out all number below 10.
P5, L21: Please offer a half-sentence for the explanation of TPI
P7, L4-5: It would be important to show the correlation of the calculated thicknesses with the observed values!
P7, L11: “LU1, LU3, LU8”: Are you referring to “lithological units” when using “LU”? This should be stated.
P7, L9: “Table 2”: Please organize your tables in a succession as referred to in the text.
P8, L28: “superficial soils”: Here (as in table and figures) you refer to “soil” rather than to “lithological units”. If you have obtained your shear strengths parameters only for the soil cover, the reader wonders why you´ve used a lithological bedrock map for regionalization and not a soil map. If you would judge your shear and material parameters representative for lithological units and using a bedrock lithology map, you should justify this. Regarding this, a proper description of landslides and the soil/bedrock associations in which they occur should be provided.
P11, L4-8: Here, the text refers to some sensitivity analysis. Does this refer to Fig. 8 in the manuscript (no reference is given to this Figure)? Please check.
P11, L13: “AUC ROC”, you may term “AUROC”. Please give the values for the two models shown in Fig. 7.
P11, L14-19: Would be good to illustrate this using a chart, maybe accompanying one of the map figures.
P12, L13-16: Everything that is written here cannot be verified by the reader. Please illustrate these observations plotting appropriate charts or similar.
Figure 1: Please denote a), b) and refer to in the caption. In b), the lithology-information is important, but cannot be properly envisaged. Please provide legend information, best below the map. Classes 5 and 6 are hardly distinguishable. With respect to the landslides, I wonder if at this scale the landslides may be plotted as polygons? I may suggest it would be best to plot a larger map, use a) as an inset and plot lithology, landslides and geomorphology (DEM hillshade) properly.
Figure 3: You use a lot of land use classes. Do really have all of them landslides pixels? When only the point info is compared this seems not to be the case? How do you deal with parameter classes where no landslide densities can be calculated, if any?
Figure 4: Please show a comparison with the observed thickness data, best a scatterplot grid vs. points, or at least grid info at points.
Figure 7: Please use equal x, y scaling for ROC curve plots. Please give the AUROC values. (Btw, have you ever tried a linear combination of the two models, as e.g. Günther & Thiel in NHESS, 2009, did? And plot a ROC curve?)

Dear Authors,
I am pleased to inform you your manuscript can now be accepted for publication in NHESS.
I only would have one technical comment that you may consider when preparing your files for final upload: In Figure 1, you´ve plotted the landslides as points caused by a misunderstanding (I guess) since in my earlier comment I suggested you to plot polygons, not recognizing you´ve already did, since the map was too small in the former version of the manuscript. Thank you for enlarging this map now, and maybe you can again plot polygons.
Best regards, A. Günther