Dear Punit Bhola and co-authors,

thank you very much again for your submission 'Hazard maps with differentiated
exceedance probability for flood impact assessment' and your responses to the reviewers' comments.

Both referees acknowledge that you address a relevant topic which is of
interest to the readers of NHESS. However, the first referee raises serious
concerns about the novelty of your method and points out major flaws in your
method or weaknesses in its description. The second reviewer confirms this
assessment and adds some additional points to be improved. A crucial issue
consists in the confusion of confidence intervals of ensemble forecasts and
exceedance probabilities of discharge values. From your responses, it seems
that using percentile discharges instead of confidence intervals as you illustrate
in the reworked version of Figure 3 of the manuscript (Figure 1, which is cross-referenced as Figure 2
in your response to reviewer #1) may help to clarify parts of the confusion.
However, I doubt that the term 'risk perception' is appropriate
to unambiguously replace 'exceedance probability'. Risk perception is usually used to
describe the subjective judgement of people about the severity of the risk, and thus you
should clearly define your notion of this term in the study to avoid further misunderstanding.

Further, both reviewers provided detailed reports highlighting all the points you should
thoroughly address in the revisions. According to your responses, I see possible improvements
of a new version of the manuscript.

Please also note that this decision does not necessarily imply acceptance of
the manuscript in the journal NHESS, and it still will depend on your reply
(and subsequent edits to your manuscript), as well as on the reviewer comments
of the revised version.

Please provide a joint revised marked up (track changes) version of your
initial manuscript to make clear how you include the changes in response to
both referees. Please ensure consistency in e.g. figure numbering in this
version. Additionally, you have to upload the new version of the manuscript.

If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the
comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

I look forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript.

Best regards
Kai Schröter

Dear Punit Bhola and co-authors,

thank you very much for your submission 'Hazard maps with differentiated
exceedance probability for flood impact assessment' and your revision in response to the referees' comments.

Both reviewers acknowledge your efforts and confirm that the paper has clearly improved and gained clarity.
However, one of the reviewers raises concerns about the use of 'risk perception' to replace 'exceedance probability.
As I have also pointed out in my previous report, it is doubtful that the term 'risk perception' is appropriate
to unambiguously replace 'exceedance probability'. The reviewer makes a nice suggestion to overcome this problem.
Therefore. I kindly ask you to take all the points raised in the referee report into consideration in the revision of your manuscript.

Please also note that this decision does not necessarily imply acceptance of
the manuscript in the journal NHESS, and it still will depend on your reply
(and subsequent edits to your manuscript).

Please provide a joint revised marked up (track changes) version of your
revised manuscript to make clear how you include the changes in response to
the referee. Additionally, you have to upload the new version of the manuscript.

If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the
comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

I look forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript.

Best regards
Kai Schröter

Dear Punit Bhola and co-authors,

thank you for revising the manuscript based on the last round of referee comments. I think it can now be accepted for publication in NHESS.

Reading through the manuscript I have spotted some typos/grammar issues which you can find in the annotated pdf-file. Also concerning Figure 4 some technical edits are useful.
While reading I got confused at times because you use the term flood hazard without a notion of occurrence probability but rather as a characteristic of flooding. It would be helpful for the reader, if you clearly define the term 'flood hazards' as it is used in your study, e.g in line 23.
Best regards
Kai Schröter