Dear Camilo, dear co-authors,

As you know, two reviewers have provided their reviews, which you have replied in thoughtful detail to. I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript. Please also kindly provide the ‘author’s reply’ to the reviewers (feel free to use the same PDF documents that you have already uploaded in your replies). Could you also include a track changes document between the old manuscript and the new one, if available? If not, you can also include this as part of your ‘author’s reply’.



I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript and will send it out again to the previous reviewers. 



Regards,
Elisabeth (Schoepfer)
[NHESS Special Issue Guest Editor]

Dear Camilo, dear co-authors,

I kindly would like to thank you again for your revisions undertaken based on the reviewers‘ comments. The two reviewers have again provided their review reports. Both of them recommend to accept this manuscript after some technical corrections.

Accordingly, I am pleased to inform you that the revised version of your manuscript NHESS-2022-183 can be accepted for publication in NHESS after technical corrections (see comments from the reviewers). I kindly ask you to check these comments and consider them in the final version of your manuscript.

Kind regards,
Elisabeth (Schoepfer)
[NHESS Guest Editor]

Dear Juan Camilo Gómez Zapata, Massimiliano Pittore, Nils Brinckmann, Juan Lizarazo-Marriaga, Sergio Medina, Nicola Tarque, and Fabrice Cotton:

I am the NHESS Executive Editor acting as liaison to the editor Elisabeth Schoepfer who has been working on oversight of your manuscript.

I am pleased for this to be accepted pending minor corrections (see comments from the reviewers) and am very pleased that you will be publishing this in NHESS. However, I think that there needs one last and very minor set of corrections, which the editor Elisabeth Schoepfer will oversee.

In addition to comments mentioned by reviewers for technical corrections, please note the following (and apologies if I have repeated something from a couple of reviews ago):
* Abstract. Please do a final check of this. Have you added any appropriate numbers as it is very textual right now. It is fine if you want to leave as is, but do consider where numbers might help the reader. Numbers might be 'we use ## variables' or 'there are ## parts to our assemblage' or 'economic losses were estimated at ## to ## (YYYY values)' etc.
* GENERAL: This will be picked up in copy-editing, but throughout, remove ',' before (YYYY). So for example "Goda and De Risi (2018)" not ", (2018)". Park et al. (2019) not Park et al., (2019).
* INTRODUCTION. The introduction meanders a bit in its text. It takes a while (paragraph 2) until the reader knows what exactly will be studied. Paragraph 2 does explain it, but you could be more explicit. "This study narrows down the scope of **???cascading events, you decide on words????******* by assuming that a second hazardous event is always triggered after the occurrence of the first one, ..." You want a self-containted sentence not dependent on the first paragraph.
* INTRODUCTION. For the second paragraph. At the end of it, tell us what will be in the rest of the introduction. "The rest of this introduction will discuss ***, ***, and ****" This will help the reader understand what is to come.
* INTRODUCTION. At the very end (new paragraph) tell us how the rest of the paper will be organized.
* GENERAL. All variables must be clearly defined where they are first introduced. For example, IM^A, it is not clear if this is "IM" or I and M. Although it might be obvious that A is a constant, this needs to be stated. Please go through and ensure that all variabilities have been defined where they are first introduced. This is one of the reasons I ask for 'minor' revisions (vs. technical revisions) so that the editor can confirm. Please ensure that equations have references where appropriate.
* Table of variables and acronyms. Because of the number of variables, your paper will be easier to read if you have a table of variables (and I suggest a separate part of it with acronyms), introduced early on. This can include units.
* Figure 1. Currently black. I think it has been inverted? Ensure that colour is not the only distinguishing feature (e.g., you could take the 'red' and also make it a dashed line) as there are colour blind people.
* GENERAL. Figure caption and table headers. Make sure these are self-standing, so that one does not need to go to the text to figure these out.
* REFERENCES. Please go again through the text and ensure that ALL facts/information/ideas which build on other people/equations have appropriate in-text citations. In most places this is fine, but I was spotting a couple examples (e.g., line 268, you state the population of Peru, but no reference). Again, this is in general well done, but please do a double check.
* Figure 4. Please put the (a), (b) (c) as part of the figure, and below the sections, not above. Will read better. If you use an acronym in the figure (TIH) then you need to define this in the figure caption "Expected tsunami inundation heights (TIH) in m for three out of six...". Go through all other figures, make sure acronyms are defined.
* Table 1. I found it difficult to read 'quickly' going from left column to middle, as acronyms are not always defined (e.g., RC, which I think means reinforced) and acronyms are only used once. Consider having another part of the table or another table which has a list A to Z of the acronyms, specific for this table? So I figured it out 'after' reading it through a couple times, but it was not user friendly (So I needed to 'interpret' that H1 is 1 story, H3 is three stores, that MUR for line one is unreinforced masonry, etc.
* Table 1 and GENERAL. Any time that monetary amounts are stated (e.g., USD/bdg) then you need to state for what year it has been normalized to.
* Figure 5. Black should not be black? Cannot read any other text above legend or surrounding map, because of the black.
* Figure 5 (and general). Do you mean to have your beginning and ending points exactly the same for your ranges? For example, 23.2 is repeated as upper end of one range and lower end for another range. For this figure, please label the seperate parts (a), (b), (c) and then refer to these in the figure caption (which gets around 'just' using colour, which does look nice, but not everyone will be able to see).
* Figure 6 caption. This is an example of making it complete. The reader will have no idea what all the acronyms mean, so either define them here (I recognize this might take too much space) or refer the reader to a table where they are defined "Acronyms for building class component types are given in Table *".
* Figure 7. Is this meant to be black? In all figure captions, ensure that acronyms are defined. If someone were to remove this figure without the text, they would not know what AeDES means. Because there are only four of them, define VS, FL, RF, IP.
* Section 6. Something happened here to your font. It is now all bold.

The manuscript has some very detailed and interesting research, but would benefit overall to be made a bit more user friendly in its structure, making it easier for the reader to go from one section to another 'quickly' without having to read in detail (a couple of times) a given section. I've given some notes above of some items that might be changed, but you might want to consider how you can really make the paper useable to the average reader.

Regards, Bruce D Malamud
[NHESS Executive Editor]

Dear Camilo, dear all,

I kindly would like to thank you for the minor revisions undertaken according to the suggestions provided by the NHESS Executive Editor.

I have checked the new version along with your responses in the authors` replies document. Accordingly, I suggest to accept the manuscript after technical corrections. When being in exchange with the publication office, please pay particular attention on the following issues and/or correct them if applicable:

Text:
* Figure references in the text: According to the manuscript preparation guidelines the abbreviation "Fig." should be used when it appears in running text and should be followed by a number unless it comes at the beginning of a sentence. This will be picked up in copy-editing, but please pay attention during the final check (currently not homogenous; see Figure, Fig., Fig).
* Figure 11i is not cited in the text yet.
* Caption of Figure 2; Bold S => remove bold editing of “S” (Scale to assess…)
* Header of Table 1: INEI, (2007) is underlined with a dashed line.
* Caption of Figure 7: bracket missing => damage level)).
* Caption of Figure 8: bracket missing => in Figure 7)).
* Caption of Figure 11: Punctuation mark at the end of the figure caption is missing.
* Caption of Figure 12: Punctuation mark at the end of the figure caption is missing.
* line 487: space missing => Sect.3.4 => Sect. 3.4
* Funding: These projects are part of the funding programme CLIENT II – International Partnerships for Sustainable Innovations’. => the beginning of ’ is missing or delete ’ before punctation mark.
* References: Adriano => remove htt

Figures:
* Figure 1: Check capital letters of words, e.g. Loss => loss; check the different font types (is it on purpose?); suggestion to harmonize this in the final version.
* Figure 11: Please check the new comment by the NHESS editorial support office (10 Feb 2023) regarding the use of maps and aerials in the figure. Please see the section "Manuscript composition" in our manuscript preparation guidelines: https://publications.copernicus.org/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html

Kind regards,
Elisabeth (Schoepfer)
[NHESS Guest Editor]

Dear Juan Camilo Gómez Zapata, Massimiliano Pittore, Nils Brinckmann, Juan Lizarazo-Marriaga, Sergio Medina, Nicola Tarque, and Fabrice Cotton:

My sincere apologies for my delays in getting back to you, due to illness.

Thank you so much for the very detailed reply to suggestions made previously.

I agree with the handling editor (below) and am happy to accept this publication subject to technical revisions. We will not need to see the manuscript again, after you make these technical revisions, and instead, it will go to copy editing.

When proofs come back, please do check them carefully.

Regards, and thank you for taking the time to use NHESS to submit your manuscript--this is very appreciated.

Bruce D Malamud
[NHESS Executive Editor, Durham University]



Dear Camilo, dear all,

I kindly would like to thank you for the minor revisions undertaken according to the suggestions provided by the NHESS Executive Editor.

I have checked the new version along with your responses in the authors` replies document. Accordingly, I suggest to accept the manuscript after technical corrections. When being in exchange with the publication office, please pay particular attention on the following issues and/or correct them if applicable:

Text:
* Figure references in the text: According to the manuscript preparation guidelines the abbreviation "Fig." should be used when it appears in running text and should be followed by a number unless it comes at the beginning of a sentence. This will be picked up in copy-editing, but please pay attention during the final check (currently not homogenous; see Figure, Fig., Fig).
* Figure 11i is not cited in the text yet.
* Caption of Figure 2; Bold S => remove bold editing of “S” (Scale to assess…)
* Header of Table 1: INEI, (2007) is underlined with a dashed line.
* Caption of Figure 7: bracket missing => damage level)).
* Caption of Figure 8: bracket missing => in Figure 7)).
* Caption of Figure 11: Punctuation mark at the end of the figure caption is missing.
* Caption of Figure 12: Punctuation mark at the end of the figure caption is missing.
* line 487: space missing => Sect.3.4 => Sect. 3.4
* Funding: These projects are part of the funding programme CLIENT II – International Partnerships for Sustainable Innovations’. => the beginning of ’ is missing or delete ’ before punctation mark.
* References: Adriano => remove htt

Figures:
* Figure 1: Check capital letters of words, e.g. Loss => loss; check the different font types (is it on purpose?); suggestion to harmonize this in the final version.
* Figure 11: Please check the new comment by the NHESS editorial support office (10 Feb 2023) regarding the use of maps and aerials in the figure. Please see the section "Manuscript composition" in our manuscript preparation guidelines: https://publications.copernicus.org/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html

Kind regards,
Elisabeth (Schoepfer)
[NHESS Guest Editor]