Dear Authors,
thank you for submitting your paper to this Special Issue.
The paper aims to test the application of an already developed, physically based model to forecast the occurrence of shallow landslides in a selected case study in Italy and, to highlight some model improvements related to the soil parameters characterization and vegetation.
Your manuscript received three reviews, and the comments provided in two of them were similar.
Both reviewers agree the paper is not well-structured.
The abstract, Introduction and Discussion need to be upgraded in terms of structure and contents. Please, clearly describe and detail the problematic and the contribution of your research to the issue. The discussion is poor and need to be strengthened, emphasizing the results, the advantages of the method and also the drawbacks. The comparison with other approaches needs also to be considered.
The methodology is another crucial section that needs a full revision: structure and content. Both the reviewers stressed the need of restructuring the section, as follow: 3.1 HIRESSS description” and “3.2 HIRESSS input data”. Please consider this suggestion.

Finally, address each detailed comment and suggestions provided by the reviewers.

After the previous considerations I return the manuscript to you for major revision. When resubmitting your manuscript, please outline every change made point by point.
Your revised version will receive another quick review process.

Best regards
Luca Piciullo

Dear Authors,
the revised version of your manuscript upgrades the previous one. The suggestions followed have increased the comprehension.
However, both reviewers agree on the possibility to further improve this paper. In particular, “Results” and “Discussions” still need a review. The current section “Results” reads more as an explanation of the dataset used in input to the HIRESSS model (as also stated at line 236). On the other hand, lines from 246 to 273 of the “Discussion” basically describe the results obtained by the model. Finally the “Conclusions” need to be improved and extended, because the first part (lines 293-299) reads more as a summary.
For the above mentioned reasons, I return the paper to you for the last revision. Please, review the manuscript accordingly to these instructions. As a suggestion you could consider to change “Results” into “Geotechnical and hydrological characterization of the case study area”. Then, you can move forward to upgrade: “Results”, “Discussions” and “Conclusions”.

Specific comments:
I would suggest to slightly modify the title in: “Application of a physically-based model to forecast shallow landslides at a regional scale”.
Line 285: I guess It should be Figure 11C

Thank you
Best regards
Dr. Luca Piciullo

Dear authors,
I checked the reviewed version of your manuscript. The results and discussions sections have been improved as requested by reviewers.
The paper is ready to be published.
Thank you