This paper addresses an important tsunami risk problem, which is aggravated by the increasing trend in population exposure, tourism etc..  The analysis undertaken identifies a number of important tsunami risk issues, but falls short of what is required for a robust population tsunami safety study.  To make the conclusions more robust, some additional scenario analyses would be insightful and instructive.  First, all tsunami wave height outcomes are subject to a substantial degree of stochastic variability.  Venturing beyond the actual 2004 tsunami wave height measurements, the implications for local upward variations in wave height should be considered by perturbing the tsunami source dynamics.   Furthermore, other potentially dangerous earthquake-generated tsunamis merit attention, and an ensemble of some alternative potential tsunami scenarios should be considered, especially those which impact regions of recent economic development.  This broadening of the basic tsunami modelling content of the paper would make the results more reliable for informing the practical risk management strategies and other conclusions listed at the end of the paper.   

This paper presents a study on the effects of changes in the shoreline and land use due to the 2004 tsunami on the socio-economic sector of the South Andaman coast.

The arguments are relevant to the scientific community. However, some issues should be clarified.

• The author adopted the TUNAMI-N2 model to evaluate the area submerged by the tsunami flow. The authors should describe: i) the model, ii) the calibration parameters and how they are selected; iii) the characteristics of the computational grid. The model is applied to a real event, therefore a validation with some field data could be useful.
• Regarding the shoreline changes, uncertainty must be evaluated. Due to the low slope of the beach in some transects, uncertainty must be correlated with the water level (tide and barotropic surge).
• NSM and EPR are not “statistical” parameters, since they are related to the difference between two observations.

Minor points:

1. L. 48-50 – check the sentence.
2. Figure 3 a and b – please add labels in the axes and the colour bars.
3. L, 226 – Delete “rates”. EPR is already a rate.
4. Figure 5 – the axis-labels are too small.
5. pages 14-15 – Check the reference to figures SM1 – SM4,
6. L. 285-288. Are you sure about the change in water depth? The ground colours in the 2005 and 2022 images also show a noticeable difference.