I would like to congratulate the authors on a great and very valuable paper! They have conducted a very timely, valuable and thorough study, and they can feel very proud of their work. The topic of multi-risk recovery of urban areas is very important but currently very much understudied in our field. I hope the following suggestions can be used to further strengthen the paper and further heighten its value for our community. My main suggestion would be to strengthen the focus of the analysis specifically to recovery in the context of multi-risk and urban areas. While bellow the authors will find a long list of suggestions, they are not meant to discourage the authors. In contrary, I believe the authors conducted a great and very valuable study.

General comments

• I think the paper could benefit from some restructuring.
  • There are many 1-3 sentence paragraphs, which seem to interrupt the flow of the paper and at times cause some confusion. Examples include, but are not limited to:
    • 90 onwards: this seems to still be about the methods (critical lit review) so should this paragraph be part of the previous paragraph (L. 86-83), which is also on the critical lit review?
    • 147-151: should this paragraph maybe be part of the previous and/or next paragraph?
  • To me it seems that paragraphs L.46 – 54, L. 55-62, and L. 67-78 discuss definitions of / changes in thinking about resilience and recovery while in between those, L.63-66 seem to introduce the urgency to adopt a multi-risk perspective.
  • The authors could consider moving the method description (second half of the intro) to a separate method section (basically, including a section header at the start of the description of the approach).
• I think the multi-risk aspect of the paper is an important novelty and strength of the paper. I would encourage the authors to strengthen this in their introduction. In the paragraph at L. 63-65 the multi-risk aspect seems to almost appear as an afterthought. I encourage the authors to strengthen this particular element of the paper in the introduction, including a more elaborate explanation of those “additional challenges in decision-making”. In restricting the intro (see previous point), this particular element could maybe be described more prominently and extensively. I can imagine something more general on multi-risk recovery challenges and those specifically within an urban setting.
• 81: “inadequacies” in terms of how we define post-disaster recovery or how we manage post-disaster recovery?
• 113-114: how were these particular key words selected?
• Reading L. 132-133, it is unclear to me how this is different from what will be addressed in Issue 2.
• Table 1 is a great way to demonstrate the evolution of our understanding of “recovery” over time. Very nice!
• 169: it may be helpful to include a definition of build back better. This may for example help to understand L. 176. In addition, I found the paragraph of which it is part (L.165 – 179) a bit difficult to follow (for example, what do the authors mean by the “subjective functions” and “objects”).
• 261: I think it is very nice that the authors mention an example that shows the fuzziness of the boundaries between stages. Maybe they can describe this in a bit more detail to demonstrate the fuzziness more clearly to people who are less familiar with the aftermath of this particular disaster?
• At the start of section 2.2, it may be nice to remind the reader of the phases of the DRM cycle.
• Since some sections are lengthy and contain a lot of information, the authors could consider adding a couple of sentences at the end of each issue bringing it together.
• Since section 5 aims to focus on challenges specific to multi-risk planning (in urban areas?), I wonder if it would be possible to focus that section and the identified challenges specific to multi-risk (in urban areas?). As I understand it now, some of these challenges are not unique to multi-risk recovery but rather recovery in general. This is maybe something the authors could also reflect on in the earlier sections; whether these sections can be tailored more to multi-risk?

Minor comments

• Some writing issues. E.g. the first sentence of the abstract: there is a strong push within the field to move away from using “natural disasters”. Here I think it could be easily avoided by writing “Post-disaster recovery…”.
• In the third sentence of the abstract: do the authors mean planning (that takes place before a disaster) of recovery-related actions (e.g., getting a contract for debris cleaning) or do they mean preparedness actions (e.g. to mitigate the potential impacts of a disaster).
• 26: I assume the time stamp here is a typo?
• 28 “dates” back to?
• 31: it is a bit unclear what is meant here with “complex system”. In general, the authors use many different disaster related terms (e.g., natural hazard event, extreme event, disturbances, etc); this can create some confusion. The authors could consider adding a box or table defining some of the key terminology used in their paper.
• 37-38: I am not sure I understand the second half of the sentence; it is not clear to me how the previous statement (or definition) supports the claim in this sentence that resilience is linked to DRM.
• 47: I believe that with a quote, the citation also need to include a page number – but I may be wrong there.
• 63: “a variety of sorts and categories” -> not sure what the authors mean here. Could they be more explicit?
• 85: maybe include a “(e.g., XXXX)” to explain what you mean by physical elements (buildings, infrastructure,…?)
• 130-131: maybe for legibility, the authors could consider adding this info to the issue 1 -3 description in L.125-129 instead of having a separate sentence on this.
• 140-142: “recognizable activities” and “evolutionary notions” not sure what the authors mean.
• 208-211: I wonder if there is any literature to support these statements.
• 219: what is meant by “diverse groups”?
• Figure 2: looks great, very useful. Maybe the authors can add BBB to the legend or description and explain its meaning (in relation to Point F). Maybe the font size of the x and y-axis labels could be decreased a little.
• 485-489: the use of both multi-risk and multi-hazard may cause some confusion.
• Figure 4 is again; I was just a bit confused by the use of different DRM phases compared to those presented in figure 2. It may be helpful to the reader to add the meaning of ABC to the figure caption.

In general, and as pointed out by the other reviewer, the paper could benefit from an English language check (sentence structure, word use, missing words, etc). I highlight some things but these are just some examples:

• 28 “dates” back to?
• 57: “DRM cycle phases one on another” -> “on one another”
• 75: “recovering from them” -> from disasters?
• Incorrect use of “the” (e.g., L. 93: ‘the recovery” -> recovery; L. 111 “the google scholar” -> google scholar)
• 194: “However, this would not be possible.” -> this is never possible or this is challenging?
• 197: “because socioeconomic recovery is dependent on physical structure” -> is dependent on the recovery of physical structures (?)
• 208: “in a disaster community” -> in a disaster-struck community (?)
• 214: “evaluating quantitatively recovery plans” -> “quantitatively evaluating recovery plans”
• 242: “quick interventions like financial support or food for reconstruction” -> “quick interventions such as financial support for reconstruction or food”
• 275: “Fig.” -> Figure
• 346: “while” -> during

Best of luck!

Dear authors, thank you for this very interesting paper that I have truly enjoyed reading. It is always a pleasure reviewing a paper when one also learns a lot in the process. This study is a great addition to an apparent gap in multi-hazard and multi-risk literature, which is an exponentially growing field of research. I believe this will be a great addition to the literature and potentially a highly influential paper. I really enjoyed your focus on the socio-economics of recovery as well as a clear distinction between recovery and reconstruction, and especially enjoyed your discussion on community involvement.

I propose a rather long list of suggestions and hope these could be useful for improving the paper; however, these are mainly minor.

My overall comment is that I would like to see the framing of the paper stronger at the very beginning: primarily, why urban areas? In my view, there is a need for a stronger case and I believe this could be easily added. And secondly, the multi-hazard framing needs to be stronger and come much earlier, already in the introduction. Also, how are the findings of your work unique for urban areas? Do they also reflect recovery and reconstruction beyond urban areas?

Please see below my list of more specific comments.

1. Abstract: In the problem setting, I miss a sentence referring to multi-hazards, before the introduction of the ‘’two-aim’’
2. P1 L22 more updated information available?
3. P1 L27-23 Incomplete sentence
4. General: perhaps use more the term ‘’urban areas’’ rather than ‘’cities’’ throughout the paper. What is so specific about urban areas and their hazard and risk scapes that make it particularly important to study? Please elaborate on this in your problem setting.
5. P3 L82-83 New research directions will not ‘’enable’’ stakeholders to improve decision-making per se and by themselves. Therefore, this is an overstatement, please rephrase.
6. P3 L86 Perhaps this should be a separate heading and section focusing on the details of the study approach. The Introduction is currently way too long and at times difficult to follow.
7. General: in the Introduction, I miss the definition of multi-hazards and multi-risks and why are these crucial to be studied in the context of urban recovery and urban resilience. Perhaps also include a real-world example of that shows the completely of MH recovery? This is currently way too late in the paper.
8. General: The DRM cycle is highly criticised by some researchers as the phases are not easily distinguishable and they overlap in practice. Would be useful if you would make sure this literature is included and reflected on.
9. P4 L113 Was there a combination of keywords used and if yes, what combinations?
10. General: I strongly advise creating a figure that will represent your literature searcher and selections and a series of research issues mapped against your objectives. It will aid the clear overview of the paper and make it easier for your reader.
11. P5 L151: Nice distinction, however, a dated reference. I am wondering if there is anything more up to date?
12. P7 L194: Perhaps add ‘’recovery’’ before ‘’socio-economic activities’’
13. Figure 1: Great figure and very clear! Was this based on some inputs from a literature as there are not references in the figure? Fine if not, but wondering about the description of the figure in the text: I would expect some references as it is a review paper?
14. P9 L229: The fact that the phases should be separate. This could be problematic – please see my comment above on the criticism on the DRM cycle.
15. General: The paper has a lot of very long paragraphs that sometimes make the reading a bit challenging. I suggest editing this throughout the paper, shortening and separating thoughts per paragraphs where possible.
16. P13 L350-355 Really interesting! Any further explanation on why? Perhaps do reflect on the literature on the role of politics and electoral cycles- even with a reference or two.
17. P13 L366 on community involvement – I truly enjoyed reading this part of the paper. However, what I miss is mentioning the need for community involvement in pre-disaster planning, also getting input and community priorities into the recovery and reconstruction plans.
18. Table 3: it mentions seven publications in the table title, while four are listed.
19. Section 5: Which of these are specific to urban areas and which in general to recovery and reconstruction?