Dear Dr Santangelo,
thank you for responding to the two reviews we received for your manuscript. The paper has merit and may be acceptable for publication, though the reviewers also identified a number of issues.
Please upload the revised version of the paper together with a rebuttal. One of the reviewers is going to assess the revision, and the decision will be made based on the outcome of the second review.
I look forward to seeing the improved version of the work.

best regards,
Norman Kerle, Editor NHESS

Dear Dr. Santangelo,

thank you for your patience. It took a while for one of the original reviewers to check the revised paper - everyone seemed to be struggling to tie everything up before the end of the year. Nevertheless, the reviewer was quite happy with your latest version, and only asks for one small additional point to be addressed, see below. I trust that this can be done quickly, and only I will check your response. Please make the necessary change and describe in a brief rebuttal how you addressed this point, and what changes were made where (providing a "track changes") version will also help.

I look forward to a version that I can accept for publication.

Best regards,
Norman Kerle
Editor, NHESS
_______
In my opinion the raised points by the reviewers were mostly addressed in the new revised version.
A further point to consider is that as mentioned in the text one of the purposes of this study was to set up protection measures (i.e., elastic barriers), however still the results of the analysis indicate that blocks can be deposited on pixels with <=1 trajectories from the run out results. In that sense, those pixels should also be taken into consideration for the installation of protection measures, and this includes almost the whole road. Given this, I think that the authors need to explain a bit further how their analysis helps in suggesting limited protection measures, as mentioned in the abstract.

Dear Dr. Santangelo,

since you opted not to address/implement the manuscript modification suggested, I checked this issue again with the reviewer, which explains why it took a few days again. I'm happy to inform you that the review agreed with your argumentation and does not request further changes. Therefore I can accept the manuscript.
I look forward to seeing your article in print.

Best regards,
Norman Kerle, Editor NHESS