Dear Frank et al.:

Thank you very much for responding to the comments of the two reviewers.

As you point out, most of the comments relate to technical corrections that are easy to address. In addition to the comments provided by the reviewers, I have a few additional suggestions for your revisions:

1) Line 95+: It might be easier to just refer to local time as the time zone does not really matter that much.

2) Line 260: Your choice of using 1, 2, 3, and 4 for representing the danger rating levels for your calculations implies that you are interpreting the danger scale as a linear scale. In the same paragraph, you state that you tested exponential growth patterns, you discarded them because of their high correlations with the linear pattern. While I understand the simplification, and I suspect that it does not make a big difference in the results, it seems a bit unfortunate to treat the danger scale as a linear scale when we know that it is not as shown in your Figure 1 and some of the references you cite.

3) Line 342: Should this be 1,000 km2? Everywhere else you talk about counts per 1,000 km2, and this is the only time 10,000 km2 shows up.

4) Line 355: Missing d in human triggereD

5) Table 4: I like this overview of the results, but because of the shading and the graphic elements, it will be treated as a figure and not a table. I wonder whether it would be possible to come up with a design where the analysis of all data sources would be presented on a grid with the same horizontal axis and the figure column for all rows could be aligned. This might make the figure less busy and easier to read.

6) Line 511: Avoid short forms like “can’t” or “doesn’t” in scientific writing.

7) General: Please make sure that your formatting is consistent throughout the entire manuscript. (e.g., in-text references to figures and tables are abbreviated or not, formatting of large numbers (10’000 or 10000), order of test statistics and p-values, etc.).

Addressing these comments should take too much time. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.

I am looking forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript in the near future.

Best wishes
Pascal Haegeli
NHESS Editor
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC, Canada

Dear Frank and co-authors:

Thank you very much for taking the time to revise your manuscript. Even though the revisions were just minor, I believe that they helped to further improve you manuscript.

There is one last technical correction that I would like you to do in the production files: In the right panel of Figure 2, please revert the the color scale back to what it was in your original submission. I find it awkward to have a completely new color scale that is not at all related to the danger scale levels presented in the map and that makes the comparison with the left panel more difficult. I think that having the legend only show the levels that are actually shown on the map already makes the different levels of orange more distinct.

I leave it up to you whether you want the outlines of the polygons to be white or grey. However, the text on line 109 should say "(polygons with grey/white outlines in Fig. 2)". The better wording for the caption of Fig. 2 would be "... In addition, the warning regions, the smallest spatial units used in the Swiss forecast, are shown as polygons with grey/white outlines in b). ..."

Congratulations on very interesting study.

Best wishes
Pascal Haegeli

NHESS Editor
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver BC, Canada