Dear Authors, the reviews have brought up a number of important points and helpful suggestions for the improvement of your manuscript. Your considerate responses show that you will be capable to address these in a revised version of the manuscript. This is why the decision is minor revisions, although it will involve a considerable amount of work. In your revised version, clearly indicate the novelty of your research and its contribution to societal responses to natural hazards. Make sure to add a few key recent references, as noted by the reviewers, and tap into the knowledge and experience of all co-authors. For some of the reports, add the web address and access date in the reference list. Your revised version will be carefully re-reviewed. I am looking forward to it.

Dear Authors, thank you for your considerate responses to the review. The article will need major revisions and will be re-reviewed. Clarify the novelty of your work and its contribution to societal responses to natural hazards. Make efficient use of recent literature on the topic. Improve the tables, as suggested by reviewer 1. Make sure to tap in to the diverse knowledge and experience of all co-authors.

Dear Authors,
Thank you for the corrections and improvements. The comments of the reviewers have in general been well addressed. In light of the reviews and the new additions in the manuscript, please address the following comments:

l.75: municipalities or communities (l.495)?

l.82: Please give an explanation and reference from the peer-reviewed literature for Communities of Practice.

l.108-110: Please add this sentence to the previous paragraph (2 approaches).

l.110-124: It is not clear how many measures in the online portfolio are from the desk study, how many are new and/or how many are a combination (specific implementation). How (and by whom) were the governance needs of the existing measures from the desk study assessed? Isn’t a governance assessment case specific?

l.135 Table 1: Considering the advantage of the flexibility of the socio-economic approach, as mentioned in the response, and in light of the added descriptions of the cases studies in Section 6, please add here the socio-economic method (MCA, CBA..) used for each measure or case study (and refer to figure 1). Consider making the research site a subheader, instead of a column, to keep the overview clear.

l.157: Please add the questionnaire as supplemental information.

l.278: anno –> year

l.418-489: Here you mix analysis methods and case studies in a not always easy-to-follow manner, sometimes 1 method 3 case studies, sometimes 1 case study 2 methods. Please re-organize a bit.
l.419: Socio-economic and governance -> Socio-economic

l.435-439: Mm3 (as elsewhere in the manuscript)

l.441: propose an increase

l.490-514: Please clarify what analysis methods were used to elucidate all this information.

l.495: Water Authority?

l.513: Not clear what specific groups.

l.634-638: Derived from socio-economics or social justice or both?

l.641-644: Please stay with same order (governance before socio-economics)

Dear Authors,
Thanks for the corrections. All comments have been addressed and this revised version of the manuscript is fine. Please note that the Supplement should stand by itself (a title page will be added). Make it applicable for the readers. Remove specific project names in titles and subtitles. You can add an explanatory sentence with a reference to a project website. Please also add any used scientific references.