The authors present a new framework considering the issues of mental health related to disasters by natural hazards. This simulation approach aims to help decision makers to allocate mental health resources according to their priorities of mental health severity or economic loss. The manuscript has a clear structure and provides a literature review on the topic as background for the framework. In the section ‘methods’ the three-phased approach is presented and explained in detail. The application of the framework is presented in section 4 followed by a discussion, the limitations of the approach and a brief conclusion.

The study addressed a topic in the context of risk management, which is known but has less attention in the planning of a post-disaster recovery process. Thus, I think this is an important topic and framework for NHESS community. The study is innovative in combining different approaches for developing a coupled-state transition and linear optimization model for the allocation of the mental health resources.

However, several input parameter of the model are based on studies in the beginning of the century and I miss the consideration of current research of possible contributing parameters or differences between groups. Furthermore, more detailed and scientific based information on the SVI is needed. I recommend extending the literature research in this context and adapting or including accordingly these parameters in the framework.

More specific comments:

Line 35 onwards: Do you have any information for comparison - years before the event or the situation one year later?

Section 2.1: I recommend including further recent reviews and meta-analysis studies in this context to provide a wider overview and more details in your study. E.g.: to name only a few important article:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0887618513000583

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/psychological-distress-and-psychiatric-disorder-after-natural-disasters-systematic-review-and-metaanalysis/D84B03CEC50473E56938D2C09CD7464E

https://www.proquest.com/openview/fb9b872a410b4ef72fc968fc3aa197ef/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=31252

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003999315001409

Section 2.2.: please provide also scientific literature in this context. What is the difference to SoVI developed from Susan Cutter and her team and widely used in the U.S.? Why you did not apply this scientifically proofed approach? see: http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/geog/hvri/publications

Section 2.3.: Please provide a short input about other possible models in this context.

Section 2.4.: Please check if you can find more recent estimations for this part or provide a methods to adapt this to the current situation (indexation of the costs, ...)

Line 498: please provide citations. Do which studies to you refer to? 

This study presents a framework for allocation of mental health resources by using a simulation-optimization approach. The manuscript is well-written and topically appropriate for NHESS as a research article. Overall, the findings are of interest to both the research community and the management area (e.g., decision-makers), and this paper made a good contribution by demonstrating a proof-of-concept of the proposed approach. I, therefore, recommend publication after addressing the, mostly minor, concerns and comments outlined below.

Key comments / concerns

1. Although the authors review literature well in Section 2, it is difficult to know the current methods and protocols for treating disaster-related mental health problems. For example, what are the current standards and guidelines for allocating mental health clinicians and other resources following a disaster event? I expected to see this in Section 2.3, but this section describes methods for analyzing treatment measures rather than treatment options.

2. The SVI is a composite index that combines multiple social and economic indicators to represent overall vulnerability. However, as the authors explain in Section 2.1, a tailored vulnerability based on a set of specific indicators would be more reasonable to model a specific type of mental health illness, patient, and hazard. This could also provide new options for decision-makers. Please elaborate on this point in the proper section.

3. Lines 473-474: I think the baseline model needs to include clinicians to reflect the real world rather than the do-nothing approach. Could you include a baseline model that allocates clinicians according to the number of populations, and then compare it to the optimized results (i.e., Figure 5)? I believe this can better quantify the benefits of this approach.

4. I recommend explaining additional input parameters, objectives, and constraints in the Limitations section. The current variables are sufficient for a proof-of-concept, but future research must address realistic factors. This could be related to the current standards and guidelines mentioned in my comment #1.

Minor comments:

Lines 66-67: “before constructing a model” is repeated.

Lines 379-381: Could you include population and SVI maps in the manuscript or supplement file? This will assist readers in identifying the optimal allocations spatially across socio-economic statuses.

Lines 230-245: Please provide references to support these sentences.

Equations (2-3) and (6-7): Please specify the subscripts “NT” and “T”.

Equations (5 and 8): Please specify the subscript “j” and use “N” or “J” for all census tracts.

Please explain a potential application of agent-based modeling for clinician allocation, as a recent study does (Lines 205-206).

Given the frequency of natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes), the proposed approach can be applied to serial multi-hazard events. I recommend expanding on this benefit as well.