Dear authors,
Your article has been revised by two reviewers who raised critical issues: one reviewer suggested a rejection while the second major changes. Usually, in such circumstances, an appropriate editorial decision should be rejection. However, because the topic is potentially interesting and because you spent an effort in replying to the reviewers with the promise to change some sections of the work, I think you should have a chance to propose a revised version of the work. Therefore I decided to reconsider this paper after major revisions.
However, there is a warning: the article needs a substantial revision.
Please note that this editorial decision does not guarantee that your paper will be accepted for final publication in NHESS. A decision will be made when the revised version will be available and evaluated again with the help of the same or new reviewers. A failure in providing a suitable reply would result in a rejection next time.
Best regards
Paolo Tarolli
[NHESS Executive Editor]

Dear authors,
Your article has been further revised by two reviewers who raised critical issues: one reviewer suggested minor changes, while the second major changes. From my side, I would like to stress the fact that the article should contain more mentions on hazards, in order to meet the NHESS journal scope, otherwise the work will remain closed to a pure geology/geomorphology journal rather than our journal.
Therefore, I decided to reconsider this paper after major revisions.
Please note that this editorial decision does not guarantee that your paper will be accepted for final publication in NHESS. A decision will be made when the revised version of the work will be available.
Best regards
Paolo Tarolli

Dear authors,
Your article has been further revised by one reviewer who suggested minor changes. However, it seems that you did not reply (nor enriched the text) to the point I raised: I stressed the fact that the article should contain more mentions on hazards (the word "hazard" is just mentioned in the references), in order to meet the NHESS journal scope, otherwise the work will remain closed to a pure geology/geomorphology journal rather than our journal. Please enrich the text, both on the introduction and discussion part, with more mentions on hazards and possible advances of this research in coastal risk management.
Because of the above issues, I decided to reconsider this paper again after major revisions.
A final decision will be made when the revised version of the work will be available.
Best regards
Paolo Tarolli

Dear authors,
You provided a suitable reply to my comments. Your article is now ready for publication.
Best regards
Paolo Tarolli

Dear authors,
Considering your replies to the comments of the editor and of the reviewers, I am happy to recommend your article for publication in NHESS.

I thank you for having considered NHESS for the publications of your research.
Best regards,
Piero Lionello