The Invited Perspectives: “Small country, big challenges – Switzerland’s hazard prevention research” provides an interesting overview of the Swiss Research Concept for hazard prevention and describes some aspects of practical risk management.

I have two main suggestions to further improve the manuscript:

The list of research topics provides a rough overview. However, this part of the paper would gain a lot if 3-4 of these topics were dealt with more soundly and in more detail. Thus, I suggest that you pick 3-4 topics as examples and describe the state of the art of this research topic and what innovations are expected via this research plan within the next 4 years. Clear examples of ongoing research projects to improve knowledge in these areas would be very helpful.

The paragraph “What  concerns  everyone  can  only  be  resolved  by  everyone” is too general to provide any interesting information. Please describe the integrated risk management approach in Switzerland in more detail. How is it organized? How well does it work? What are remaining challenges and ideas how to solve current problems. The concept, that all actors need to work together to achieve an effective risk management is good, but what is done to achieve this vision? For instance, in Germany, according to § 5 of the German Federal Water Resource Act that was enacted in 2009, every person that could be affected by a flood is obliged to undertake appropriate actions that are reasonable and within one’s means to reduce flood impacts and damage. Does a similar law exist in Switzerland? What incentives are provided to motivate private precaution?

Minor comments:

Line 17: No “seashore” in Switzerland. Better “along rivers and lakes”.

Fig. 1 Do you have the right to publish this figure? Please provide evidence of this, e.g. written consent from WSL.

The perspective from a governmental institution like the Swiss Federal Office of the environment is a particularly relevant contribution to the Special Issue. These Institutions have a very large influence on research. In particular, their view determines which topics are intensively supported, either by themselves or by the related funding bodies. Their influence can even provide a basic requisite for research on natural hazards, the availability of data. The FOEN perspective on hazard prevention research presented is based on the cited “research concept environment 2021-2024”, published in 2020. It consists of a list of rather detailed tasks for research. The manuscript is, in my opinion, a valuable contribution to the special issue, and should be published. I have a few questions and suggestions, and would expect that the authors can provide answers in their manuscript.

1. I wonder what the naming of priorities in the perspective (and in the research concept) actually means. Is this a list of equally important research fields? As I have not seen a prioritization between them, the concept might be a “first come first served” concept. Alternatively, is the idea that all areas are equally covered?
2. While it appears that the research priorities are subject to regular change (“concept 2021-2024”), the challenges named in the first part appear to be rather persistent. It should be mentioned, if possible, what basically determines the longer term changes in the research concept.
3. It appears that the FOEN’s perspectives is be limited to hazards relevant to Switzerland. As basic tsunami research is mentioned, it might be worthwhile to mention in how far work on non-Swiss hazards are part of the FOEN perspective or left to the consideration of other agencies.
4. How is the final pledge for a role of everyone supported? With respect to a research perspective, could it be, for example, that sociological research is needed to improve the readiness of “everyone” to improve their personal responsibility in the field of natural hazards?

Minor remarks

(line 15) The storm Lothar could be combined with the storm Martin, as both form a storm sequence affecting the area ( see, e.g., https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-279-2021 ).

In Figure 1, it is difficult to distinguish the different shades of grey. A coloured layout would improve  improve readability significantly.

The references given appear to be links, but these links are not explicitly included. If possible, DOIs should be given, and regular publication information if possible