The manuscript (ID: nhess-2022-55) mainly analyzed two questions about natural hazards via the journal (NHESS) Online Survey Form from 350 natural hazard scientists, government workers, and practitioners. Through the analysis of the questionnaire, the authors identified the most significant scientific challenges to the understanding of natural hazards and step changes to achieving sustainable development goals. This work is very interesting and important since it provides perspectives of the natural hazard community on the SDGs after 7 years into its launch. The paper is well written with good logic and well-organized structures. I would recommend publishing with minor revisions. My main suggestions for improvement are as follows:

1. From Table 3, (Q1 Theme 1A) and (Q2 Theme 2D): these two themes look like cause and action, but the results seem inconsistent. 64% of the respondent identified “shortcoming in the knowledge of risk and risk components(Q1 Theme 1A) ” as the main challenger but only 23% put “better understanding of natural hazards(Q2 Theme 2D)” as the steps change to achieve. If lack of knowledge is a problem, then steps need to be taken to generate that knowledge. The author may want to elaborate on these. A similar case can be found between Q1 Theme 1E and Q2 Theme 2A.
2. The article has made many interesting findings. Maybe authors could take it further to discuss the issues behind these findings in order to better guide the research. For example, in Line 408, the article indicated the interaction between human societies and natural hazards and emphasized its increasing significance in scientific research. Readers would be more interested to know the reason behind this trend and in your opinion, how to integrate these two components in scientific research.
3. Line 431, a comparison of the numbers of identified links between natural hazards community and SDGs was presented. The author may further discuss which SDGs are the increased linkage from UNDRR (2015) and Izumi (2020) and why. This could provide insight on the progress since the laughing of SDGs.
4. In the conclusion, this paper listed the challenges and required effort to support the implementation of SDGs. The author may improve them by elaborating the six calls into more actionable steps instead of providing general directions.
5. Line 472 and 473: Typo on the symbols ‘’ . Please modify it.
6. Table 3: the 3rd row of “REGION,” the region's name is not shown.

The manuscript shows perspectives from the wider natural hazards community on key challenges within their scientific field. The study builds on a questionnaire survey conducted online with the journal’s wider community. The results are consistent with the relevant literature, but add little new knowledge. However, they provide an additional comprehensive picture of the natural hazard community. The manuscript is overall well written and comprehensible. I recommend a minor revision prior to publication. In detail:

• Line 14: The reader would have a better introduction to the manuscript if the authors already added the key findings (like in line 480-486) briefly in the abstract.
• Line 33: Who do the authors mean by "our"? The authors of the manuscript? The community? Or the current state of science? Please specify.
• Line 34: What is the background to this list? Is it based on a discussion between the authors or a comprehensive analysis of the literature? Even if it is stated as not complete, adding some more items might be necessary. One thing to mention is the issue of warnings and forecasts (e.g. the importance of social media), which is of deeper relevance in the later course of the manuscript and the discussion of the results.Overall, a deeper engagement with existing literature on key challenges would be useful.
• Line 56: The abbreviation DRR is used here for the first time without further explanation.
• Line 139 (Point 4): Was the analysis carried out equally by all authors? Can we speak of consensual coding?
• Line 462: Interestingly despite the more physical science background, lots of the comments are on social issues and the integration of disciplines. It would be interesting to read the thoughts of the authors on this issue.