The subject of the paper is suitable for the journal and for the special issue. As the referees also note, due to space constraints some ideas may come too short in the paper. The editor suggests to explain the critical points more at large, according to the referees comments. The message of the paper may not be understood properly because of the concise form and it is a pity as the message is worth it. Particularly the review of the state of the art needs to be improved. There are few references - about 20 are recommended - to prove that there is a discussion on the matter. Also, and especially related to the short list of references, there are many self citations. The discussion part also needs to be extended in order to proper support the conclusions. This applies to comments on the figures and tables in particular.

The paper has improved in contents and followed thoroughly the comments of the reviewers.
However, some improvements are still needed. There is a problem with the structure of the paper. Sections 2 and 3 should come under a heading of Review of previous research or similar, section 4 deals as far as I see with Materials and Methods and the current subtitles should be subheadings of it. For section 5 it is not sufficiently clear if it shows results or a new methodology, adapted to the case study of Poland. Please clarify.
The conclusions and references list still can be slightly expanded, while the conclusions should include a brief discussion.

This is a concise and relevant article presenting the classification of the severity of wind hazard in Poland and the methodology how this was achieved. Wind hazard equally affects natural and cultural landscape.