Dear authors,

according to the detailed comments of three anonymous reviewers, your manuscript needs substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication. All three reviewers come to similar conclusions that (i) the review lacks context and presents a limited view of vulnerability, (ii) resilience indicators might also be essential for this review, and (iii) the review seems biased, so that more literature, including other reviews, need to be added.

I ask you to revise your manuscript in accordance with the very detailed and helpful comments and recommendations of each of the reviewers. When you have completed your revision, please submit your revised manuscript, and a detailed item-by-item response to each of the reviewer's comments. This can and should of course be based on your author comments which you provided in the open discussion.

Best regards
Heidi Kreibich

Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for the very thorough revision of your manuscript. I think the idea of reviewer #2 is very good, so I want to encourage you to include a table or flowchart showing how findings in the review of indicators lead to the recommendations in the end. Please undertake this minor revision. I'm confident, that your manuscript is then acceptable for publication in NHESS.
Best regards
Heidi Kreibich

Dear Authors,
Thank you very much again for revising your manuscript. It is now ready for publication in NHESS. Thank you for choosing NHESS to publish your findings, we appreciate your valuable contribution to our journal.
Best regards
Heidi Kreibich