Dear authors

thanks for your submitting your research to NHESS. Both reviewers agreed your research fits NHESS and can be of interest to the scientific community, however they also highlighted that the work should be presented in a more focused and clear way. In your reply you agreed with most.
I therefore ask the authors for a revised version which will go into another round of review.
I look forward receiving the revised version in due time.

Regards
Thom Bogaard

Dear authors
the referees agree the paper significantly improved. I agree and I think the paper is almost ready for publication. There are some minor remarks made. I furthermore advice you to reformulate the conclusions in such a way you really address all research questions raised in the introduction (you do seem to follow them in the discussion). Now the conclusions read somewhat like a 'final thought'.

I look forward receiving the revisions in due time

kind regards
Thom

Dear authors

thanks, conclusion links much better to paper in my opinion. Unfortunately, I saw the requested/suggested edits of referee #2 based on the former version seem to have slipped your attention. Please take them into consideration. I repeat them here (NOTE, the line numbers link to the former version):
# Referee 2:
The paper has considerably improved after the first revision and I think that now it’s ready for publication in the journal.
A few more things are reported below:
Pag 11 Line 25: After 1007 mm add (excluding the snow water equivalent)
Pag 13 Line 24: Delete during
Pag 14 Line 6: How did you collect these informations?
Pag 14 Line 13: Change into Feistl et al. (2015, 2016)
Pag 15 Line 22: Is artificial afforestation a commone practice in the area? I was thinking that this practice should be described in the Introduction section.
Pag 15 Line 28: Change landislides into debris flows. See also pag 16, line 2.
Pag 15 Line 35: What about the artificial afforestation? See also Pag 17 Line 9
Pag 17 Line 13: Delete a space after (….2017)

Kind regards
Thom