The paper concerns the susceptibility assessment of landslide dams in a large area of Central Asia.

The paper is well structured and undoubtedly represents a good, albeit preliminary, attempt to identify the landslides that can potentially obstruct the riverbeds in this area.

However, the scale used is too small to allow us to go into detail and for this reason the study represents a preliminary phase of investigation which, however, can allow to subsequently concentrate the attention on the areas identified as more critical. This should be said more explicitly.....

A limitation of the paper is the scarce attention paid to the geology of the studied area, only summarily described in chapter 2. One suggestion is to insert a geological map, even if on a small scale, of the study area, which allows to identify the possible relationships between outcropping lithotypes (and formations) and the degree of entrenchment of the hydrographic network, which is certainly an element predisposing to the possibility of riverbed occlusion due to landslides.

Finally, one doubt concerns the plot of Figure 2 and the resulting linear equations, on which the whole methodology described and applied is based.

Do the plot and the proposed equations have a general meaning? For extreme combination values between the two parameters considered (volume of the landslide and width of the valley), the answer is surtely yes;; this is not the case for intermediate values, so much so that the authors insert a central band which presumably represents a field of uncertainty... Is it true?! If so, this should be explained better...

Or the linear equations have been deduced from an analyzed series (Where? For how many cases?).

The suggestion is to better explain the meaning of the plot of Figure 2 and of the linear equations that follow from it, clarifying the above doubts.

Other minor details and typos are indicated in the attached PDF file.

Dear authors,

thank you for your contribution. I have following suggestions.

General comment: I understand that according to the scale the results have some limits and authors agree with more detailed study in future. Nevertheless, would it be possible to include a chapter (into Discussion) about verification? I mean to consider significant landslide (rockfall) events from the literature review a compare how they fit (or not?) with the presented results.

Another doubt is about the geological setting. I agree that using this scale is impossible to consider geological setting because of large variability of the region. Nevertheless, what about to consider main fault zones? Because those structures predispose more frequent jointing and could serve as detachment zones for large slope movements. As well as relation to seismic zoning (seismic intensity) will higher the credibility. On the other hand, this comment is just for authors, for next possible more detailed paper. It is not necessary to enlarge the scope of this paper.

Specific comments: What is important is to improve the content of Conclusion. It is to general, vague, and rather short. Main results from the paper will stress the scientific value.

Technical comments: For detailed comments see the enclosure, please.