Dear Matthias and Christoph,

Thank you for your submission to NHESS and short responses to reviewer comments. Thank you to both anonymous reviewers for their thorough comments on the paper.

Both sets of comments are quite similar in terms of items to address, particularly relating to clarity of methods and structure. Both sets of reviewers indicate the paper requires major revisions. Your proposed changes in your individual responses to reviewers sound like an appropriate way to address this.

With regard to Reviewer 2's comments regarding Table 1, if you decide to keep this as one table, please ensure the figure caption is clear on what this table describes.

I look forward to seeing a revised version of the manuscript. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Faith Taylor

Dear Matthias and Christoph,

Many thanks for your thorough revisions to the paper. Both reviewers have commented on how the paper is significantly improved and with appropriate minor revisions, I will be happy to accept the paper.

Reviewer 1 has requested one minor revision: a little typo regarding referencing at Page 5, lines 11-12 and at Page 16, lines 8-9.

Reviewer 2 has identified a number of minor revisions, but also asked you to more broadly take a look at the length of paragraphs and some of the repetition in the methods section:
Overall, there has been a significant improvement since the first submission. The authors have done well to address the comments and rectify many of the issues and I would like to commend them on this. There are parts which I feel are quite repetitive; particularly across the data and methods sections. I think the paragraph structure is sometimes a little difficult to follow, with overly short paragraphs followed by much longer ones, including multiple discussion points; the authors should take a look at this (e.g. P10, lines 8-13 should be a paragraph, lines 13-P.11, a second paragraph).
P.2, L.24 - References appear in wrong order
P.4, L.18-26 – This reads like part of the introduction and should be moved accordingly.
P.4, L.30 - Remove the bracket
P.5. - The authors discuss slope and TRI as being important in this analysis, but it is not clear if this has been included and how; this needs to be explicit. It is also well understood about the effects of geology and lithology, but again, I'm not sure how these data have been used.
P.9, L.7 - You introduce the concept of a "target area" in the results, but I think that this should be introduced in the methods as it's not imminently clear why or how the authors do this.
P.10, L.8 onwards - This section reads more like methods and should be moved and expanded as it provides insights into some of the other comments made.
I think the authors should summarise the findings of the research at the end of the discussion or in the outlook - I want to know how explicitly how landslides may change in the future. In the results, the authors demonstrate an increase in landslide interaction with road networks and transport, I think that this is important and should be made clear to the reader.

I do not believe these revisions will be too time consuming to implement, and will improve the communication in the paper. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you to both of the anonymous reviewers for their input.

Best wishes,

Faith

Dear Matthias and Christoph,

Many thanks for your responses to both sets of reviewer comments, and thank you again to both anonymous reviewers for their input. I am satisfied your revisions have addressed reviewer comments and am happy to proceed with the publication of the article.

Best wishes,

Faith