Dear Dr. Hoch,

Thank you once more for submitting your manuscript to the NHESS special issue “Advances in computational modelling of natural hazards and geohazards”. I have read with interest your manuscript, the reviewer’s comments, and your response on how to address these comments. Your paper nicely describes a framework for coupling hydrological models, its limitations, and potential future directions to improve adequate flood risk management practices. Although the recommendation of the reviewers were not similar, they express a common concern: better explain the model validation section. Additionally, reviewer 1 (AC1; Dr. Schumann) raised important topics which I would encourage you to address: a) explain the (dis)advantages of one-way and two-way coupling, and b) better explain the model description and how they were applied. And I concur with the 2nd reviewer (AC2) that the manuscript will improve when expending in the discussion on gained insights of coupling numerical models.

Overall, I would encourage the authors to proceed addressing the reviewers comments as indicated in their response.

Best regards,
Albert Kettner

Dear Dr. Hoch,

Thank you for submitting a revised manuscript that addresses most comments raised by the reviewers. I have reviewed the manuscript and the modifications and have only a few minor comments (see below). Please work with the editorial team to make your manuscript ready for publication.

Best regards,
Albert.

Page 6, line 30 to page 7, line 1: ‘The difference …. CMF model.’ Please include the percentage difference in area as well as the percentage difference in volume to give the reader a better indication of how much the overestimation in catchment area affected the differences in water volume between the two models.

Page 7, line 8: write out GHMs (Global Hydrological Models)

Page 8, line 11: include ‘to’ so it reads ‘location close to the river’.