Kind thanks to this reviewer for their time to review this manuscript, and comments. In response to minor issue #1 we have inserted additional text to highlight the uncertainties inherent in the interpretation of these model results. In our conclusions section we inserted the following sentences:

“There are inherent uncertainties built into our modelled results, due to the series of assumptions made in the construction of future river discharges, and future extreme sea levels based on projections for our changing climate. Future studies could explore the bounds of this uncertainty with more data, or with new techniques”

For issues #2 and #3 raised, we fully agree that local adaption strategies and impact of policy recommendations are important, and are interesting things to consider in relation to the changing profile of compound flood hazard in this region. There is plenty of information publicly available where this could be more roundly explored. However, on these topics, and also on the socio-economic impacts of compound flooding, we feel (especially given that the length of the existing document is already long), that these avenues go beyond the scope of the aims and objectives of the original manuscript. Instead, we have named these as specific recommendations for future study, and within the conclusions section we have added the following paragraph:

“... there are clear socio-economic impacts from compound flooding and future studies could explore this more widely. In our analysis we employed a scenario assuming a worst case scenario of a TC strike and river flood peak occurring almost concurrently, at a date in the middle of the wet season. Variations of this set up will alter model outcomes and be interesting to explore. In particular, the compound hazard where TCs make landfall at different locations/orientations has not been explored here, nor the impact of compound flooding in a delta with changing morphologies due to sand mining, coastal development, or land subsidence. These topics could also be interesting and rewarding areas of future research”

Kind thanks to this anonymous reviewer for their time and comments. We have rewritten parts of the introduction in order to better frame the scientific gap and question behind this study, as suggested. The following paragraph has been inserted before the text outlining our three core objectives:

“Despite it being an economic powerhouse for the region, and it’s strategic value to regional food security, no research has been carried out specifically to look at TC-linked compound flood risk within the wider Mekong River delta area. The recent work of Rodrigues do Amaral et al., (2023) explored the compound flood hazards to the adjacent city of Ho Chi Minh, from Typhoon Usagi (2018) and found that river flooding and rainfall runoff caused flooding up to 0.8m because of the co-occurrence of high sea levels which prevented normal drainage. However, Ho Chi Minh City is not within the large Mekong River delta catchment. Triet at al., (2020) assessed the combined impacts of climate change: increased river discharges, and rising sea levels (including tides), on the future (2036-2065) Mekong River delta assuming representative concentration pathway (RCP) number 4.5. This was within the context of continued hydropower development within the catchment. They found that flood waters would submerge some new areas, and prolong the flood in some parts of the delta by an additional 1-2 months. However, neither of these studies examine multi-driver or compound flood risk from TC activity in the delta, specifically the combination of river flooding combined with TC-linked storm surges at the coastline.  The research question for this study is therefore, “how is the Mekong River delta impacted by compound flooding linked to TC-activity in the region (river flooding + storm surges), and to what extent will these impacts change due to climate change by year 2050?”