dear Authors,

after the latest revisions that you have introduced, I think that most of the technical and science-related issues are now solved. I believe that you have truly spent a lot of time and effort on the modifications and amendments of the manuscript and that now we can consider the peer-review part as completed.
However, in the present form, the text still fails in satisfying international standards as per English writing.
The same thing has been noted by all referees throughout all the manuscript discussion and revision process. I acknowledge that you have gone a long step forward in ameliorating the readability of the text. Nonetheless, there are still several parts that are difficult to understand and many others where fluency is impeded by an awkward usage of terms and sentences.
The entire manuscript needs careful and general polishing by a fluent English speaker, to shorten and simplify unnecessary long sentences, to avoid awkward wording and to opt for standard geological and geomorphological terminology when necessary.

Some examples are e.g.:
page 1 row 14 - "... they look the biggest environmental disasters..."
row 19 - "... maybe for the climatic change..."
many times in the doc - wrong usage of verb "to fix" as a synonym of set
pag 4 row 19 - "... must be studied from an interdisciplinar way..."
pag 4 rows 26-27 - "...both for the difficulty of maintaining these works in efficiency, and for the changed conditions of risk originating precisely from the presence and effects of the functioning of these ..."
pag 8 row 30 - "... momentary pond ..."
pag 11 row 4-5 - Double repeated subject in the same sentence (occurs very often in manuscript due to sentences that are too long)
many times in the doc - wrong usage of term "matter" instead of "soil", "terrain", "sediment", "material"

and so on...

Furthermore, I have noticed that readability would greatly gain from the introduction of symbols to substitute long variable names which often appear in the descriptions, such as e.g. "soil of the cell"
Finally, please avoid the usage of contracted forms such as "hasn't" instead of "has not".

My suggestion, to expedite publication, would be to send the paper to a native English-speaker colleague for polishing or to resort to a professional service (there are many available at a moderate price). In the latter case, revision only takes a few days usually.

I truly hope that you will be willing to make this last effort since the paper really deserves publication and I am sure could represent an important reference for the lahars and mudslide modelling community.

Thank you again,
looking forward to your revised file,
best regards,
FC

dear Authors

after reviewing all your amendments and corrections, we are now glad to tell you that the manuscript is acceptable for publication, provided that you will be able to adjust a technical error at the very end of the manuscript, as previously discussed.

In particular, please remove the unwanted comment from Conclusion section on page 27, lines from 13 to 15 ("The main contributions to this research....").

Possibly, in a different style, you can add the author's personal contributions to the paper in the Acknowledgment section. Please consider, however, that if you want to do so, the contribution of all authors should be listed.

As soon as you have you new manuscript, please upload it to expedite the publication process.

best regards
Filippo Catani