Dear Dr. Islam,

thank you very much for your response to the 2 reviews. As you have seen, both referees feel that the manuscript really needs a lot of improvement in order to be considered for publication in nhess. Please put emphasis on conciseness and clarity in your revision. It also needs to be very clear what the scientific contribution and innovation of the work is. Case studies can be published in nhess, however, it does not suffice to only apply established methods, so you should be very careful in pointing out what could be tranfered, whether there are generic findings etc.

Best regards, Bruno Merz

Dear Dr. Islam,

both reviewers have looked at the revised manuscript and find that it has considerably improved. However, they also provide a number of comments where they think that improvements are still necessary. I have looked as well at the manuscript and think that claritiy and conciseness should further be improved. Moreover, I miss clarification about my earlier remark on the first version: "... It also needs to be very clear what the scientific contribution and innovation of the work is. Case studies can be published in nhess, however, it does not suffice to only apply established methods, so you should be very careful in pointing out what could be tranfered, whether there are generic findings etc...." Please think about what this work could offer to the international audience of nhess that is not interested in your case study area, but could be interested in whether/how your insights and methods could be transfered to other area. It would be good to have a few thoughts/sentences in the introduction, discussion and/or conclusions chapters on the issues of scientific contribution and transferability.

Best regards, Bruno Merz

Dear Dr. Islam,
thanks a lot for your thorough revision. The reviewer has identified a few, very minor issues which can be resolved easily, I assume.
Best regards, Bruno Merz