Dear Authors,
based on your responses to the comments of the referees, I made my decision on your manuscript as "minor revisions - further review by Editor".
I expect you to incorporate in the new version of the manuscript all the amendaments you decleared in your comments' responses.

I would also add a few points:

1- In response to R1L348,you provide an interesting comment on Fig.8. I think it should be added in the text of the evised manuscript. Moreover, you changed "false alarms" in "late alarms": please, check if this change is appropriate.

2- I think the suggestion of R2 at point 2 (influence of variability into FS) should be better addressed in the revised text.

3- R3 point e): the effect of location of cuts and loads in your stability analysis should be addressed providing more details, also citing Hutchinson 1984 (as suggested by the referee) could be useful.

4- R3 point e-bis): in my experience it happened a few times that using the lowest value of FS led to an underestimation of the dimensions of the rupture surface. I try to explain with an example: it could happen that the software identifies a small 0.9FS rupture surface and a larger surface with 0.95FS. If you take into account the 0.9 one, you end up with a small slide, while with the 0.95 option you would have a larger slide. In my opinion, it is more correct to take into account the envelope of all theoretical rupture surfaces with FS<1, because the physical meaning of the formula is that everything below 1 will slide. Please, take into consideration this issue.

I look forward to receive your revised paper, which I believe could make a good contribution to our special issue.

Regards,

S.

Dear Authors, I'm sorry to ask you once more "minor revision - review by editor", but I found that, while you addressed properly all referees' comments, you did not considered my comments enclosed to my previous communication (17th of October). Probably you didn't noticed them, so I copy them hereafter, along with a short list of small amendments to the text.
I look forward to receive your revised paper, which I believe could make a good contribution to the special issue.

- SMALL CHANGES TO THE TEXT:
L22-23: "In addition, population growth, 22 increased urbanization, recent estimations (CEPED 2012) indicates that..." This sentence is not clear. Please, rephrase.
L71: HIRESS
L2016: are associated = can be explained
L274-275: "low stability stable". Isn't it better simply "low stability zone"?
L421: please link the DOI to the full reference
L487: the reference is incomplete


- PREVIOUS EDITOR COMMENTS NOT ADDRESSED:
1- In response to R1L348,you provide an interesting comment on Fig.8. I think it should be added in the text of the revised manuscript. Moreover, you changed "false alarms" in "late alarms": please, check if this change is appropriate.

2- I think the suggestion of R2 at point 2 (influence of variability into FS) should be better addressed in the revised text.

3- (something similar was added to the revised manuscript)

4- R3 point e-bis): in my experience it happened a few times that using the lowest value of FS led to an underestimation of the dimensions of the rupture surface. I try to explain with an example: it could happen that the software identifies a small 0.9FS rupture surface and a larger surface with 0.95FS. If you take into account the 0.9 one, you end up with a small slide, while with the 0.95 option you would have a larger slide. In my opinion, it is more correct to take into account the envelope of all theoretical rupture surfaces with FS<1, because the physical meaning of the formula is that everything below 1 will slide. Please, take into consideration this issue.

Dear Authors, I think your manuscript is finally ready to be published, provided you perform a few very small edits that I recommend you:

L2 (Title): Please check if "Disentalngling" may be more appropriate and grammatically sound than "disentangle".

L305: Please change “This can be seen in more clearly” into “This can be seen more clearly”

L356: Please change “Once shallow landslides in the study area” into “Since shallow landslides in the study area”

Fig. 10: The terms “Instability zone” and “Unstability zone” are used. Please use the same terminology. I suggest to use “Instability”.

Thank you once again for taking part into our special issue.
Regards,
S.