Dear Estefania Aroca-Jimenez,

As I read your response file to the reviewers comment in the interactive discussion, I released that you misunderstood the idea of the response file.
Please study the guidelines of NHESS (http://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html)

You should consider following steps, which is outlined for NHESS in the process of peer review:
5) Open discussion (8 weeks) (taken from the guidlines)
Upon online publication your paper is open for public review and discussion. The discussion phase represents a unique opportunity to engage in an iterative and developmental reflective process. During this phase interactive comments can be published by designated referees (anonymous or named) and all interested members of the scientific community (named). All participants are encouraged to stimulate further deliberation rather than simply to defend their position. This enhancement lead process is offered to maximize the impact of the article. Normally, every discussion paper receives at least two referee comments. Authors are invited to take an active role in the debate by posting author comments as a response to referee comments and short comments of the scientific community as soon as possible in order to stimulate further discussion by interested scientists. For more information see interactive public discussion.

Therefore, I miss your short author comments as a discussion input to the comments of the reviewer. Please have a look to another NHESSD and interactive discussion, e.g. http://editor.copernicus.org/index.php/nhess-2017-69-AC1.pdf?_mdl=msover_md&_jrl=7&_lcm=oc108lcm109w&_acm=get_comm_file&_ms=57302&c=122134&salt=514893910310862587
This discussion shows you also that you have not to agree to all comments of the reviewer and you can bring more arguments for your statement. Depending on the comments of the reviewer and reading also your comments, the next step is:

6) Final response and peer-review completion (taken from the guidelines)
After the open discussion, the authors are expected to publish a response to all comments within four weeks, in case they have not done so during the open discussion. Based on the responses, the editor either invites the authors to submit a revised manuscript or directly rejects the manuscript. If necessary he or she may also consult referees in the same way as during the completion of a traditional peer-review process.

Therefore, only after this decision you proceed to revise your manuscript. To summarize, read the guidelines of the journals and the discussion forum.

Regarding the comments of the reviewers I decided a major revision. However, having a quick look on your supplements, I encourage you address in the revision the comments of the reviewer in more detail as in your current supplement version. Please consider that you citing different vulnerability concepts, some of them have very different perspective and basic assumption. Thus combining them without discussing the differences need to be avoid.

I kindly ask you to follow this time the guidelines of NHESS because this would make the assessment of the reviewer and myself much easier and less time consuming. Furthermore, the next steps are to prepare one response file (as .pdf) including (1) comments from referees/public, (2) author's response to each comment one by one, and (3) author's changes in manuscript. Regarding author's changes, a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf including the author's response must be submitted. Additionally, you have to upload the new version of the manuscript (see also please consider therefore the guidelines of the NHESS procedure again (http://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html#interactivepublicdiscussion).

The revised version will be reviewed by one reviewer and the editor. If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]

Dear Estefania Aroca-Jimenez,

Thank you for the revision of the manuscript. I received one review report on this version and I agree strongly with the recommendation of the reviewer. I was also surprised that you addressed the comments on the first manuscript in detail in the response file, but mostly did not include these thoughts, additions and consideration in the revision of the manuscript.
Therefore, I ask you to include all the addressed topics of the response file also in the new revision of the manuscript. This will lead to an added value of the readers and improve your manuscript.

The revised version will be reviewed by the editor. If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]

Dear Estefania Aroca-Jimenez,

Thank you for the revision of the manuscript. I read the new version of the manuscript very carefully and checked if you addressed the different comments of all review reports. Therefore, I added directly comments in the manuscript with suggestions where I see still a potential to improve the manuscript.
In summary I ask you
• to check the quality and size of the figures
• to rephrase some parts in the manuscript (shorter and clear sentences, clear relations within a sentence or between sentences)
• to relate the discussion more to the results of your study
• to rephrase the conclusion.

The manuscript will go through and language editing after it is accepted, however I highlight recommend asking a native speaker for some support, because there is high number of sentences which are very difficult to understand due to their structure.

The revised version will be again reviewed by the editor. Therefore, I ask you to include all the addressed topics of the response file also in the new revision of the manuscript. This will lead to an added value of the readers and improve your manuscript.

If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]

Dear Estefania Aroca-Jimenez,

Thank you for the revision of the manuscript and your detailed response. However, I wondered why you explain in the response but you did not change for several comments anything in the manuscript. I and also the reviewer made comments and suggestion if something was not clear or should be expressed differently to make your message. If I and the reviewer could not understand it and ask you to change some parts, there is also a high likelihood that other readers will face the same problem. Therefore, I kindly ask you again to consider all points which were highlighted in my last decision letter and include the information/explanations that you provided in the response also in the manuscript. Furthermore, we would highly appreciate if you can follow the guidelines of NHESS using the track-change modes for the response file (e.g. changes in the abstract, I had to check would you changed)

Further explanation to some points:
7) Sources of the maps is missing.  I assume you did not develop the map and administration boarders of your study site. From whom did you get the official maps? This would be the source you should provide

If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]

Dear Estefania Aroca-Jimenez,

Thank you for the revision of the manuscript and your detailed response. I am happy to inform you that the manuscript is accepted and will now proceed to the publication phase.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]