Dear Pratik Chaturvedi and co-authors,

your manuscript entitled "Learning in an Interactive Simulation Tool against Landslide Risks: The Role of Amount and Availability of Experiential Feedback" was reviewed by three independent referees.

They highlighted issues in the paper and made several comments and suggestions, which can be shared. On the other hand, your point-by-point replies were detailed and useful for a huge improvement of your manuscript.
Two referees proposed major revisions for your work, while one suggested a rejection of the paper. Overall, my opinion is that that your work has potential and interest, and it meets the topics of NHESS and of the Special Issue. Nevertheless, it need a huge improvement before being considered for publication. Thus, I have decided that it has to undergo major revisions before being reconsidered. The reviewed manuscript will be deeply checked again by referees and editor before proceeding for next steps.
In preparing the revised version of your work, please follow strictly all the comments and suggestions made by the three referees, and make them visible.

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stefano Luigi Gariano

Dear Authors,
your paper passed through a second round of review and received again constructive comments.
I still believe that your paper has potential but need a huge improvement before being considered publishable. Some drawbacks remains in your paper, both in the contents and in the presentation.
I suggest to reconsider all the comments made by reviewers in the first round of revision and to address all of them. In some case, you did not provide precise answers to the referees’ comments.
Moreover, I suggest to follow the suggestions proposed by the referees in the second round of revision. In particular, please: i) include a section related to previous events in the area; ii) justify the values of weights adopted to calculate hazard probability; iii) clarify the link between hazard and risk; iv) improve the discussion of the methods used for assessing landslide probability and susceptibility; v) discuss other economic issues (such as the sensitivity of the different social classes in relation to their economic and cultural resources; the public/private intervention in the investments; and a cost-threshold).
Finally, I suggest an amelioration of the manuscript presentation, in particular regarding the figures, which are still improvable.
My decision is that your manuscript need again major revisions before being reconsidered for publication. The reviewed manuscript will be checked again by referees and editor before proceeding for next steps.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stefano Luigi Gariano

Dear Authors,
Anonymous Referee #1 has found several improvements in your manuscript, achieved during the review phase. Thus, he/she has evaluated your paper as publishable after minor revisions.
I suggest you to follow his/her suggestions and to re-submit a final version of your paper. Moreover, since the reviewer noted that your work can be improved and deepened in next years, I also suggest to add a short paragraph in the conclusions describing the future planned improvements of your research.
The reviewed manuscript will be briefly checked again by me, before proceeding with the subsequent steps.
Best regards,
Stefano Luigi Gariano
NHESS Guest Editor

Dear Authors,
after a constructive review process, your manuscript is now acceptable for publication in NHESS journal.
Best regards,
Stefano Luigi Gariano
NHESS Guest Editor