Dear authors,

Firstly, thank you very much for your submission of your paper to the NHESS journal. The paper addresses a very interesting and important topic, which warrants further in-depth consideration within the field of vulnerability research. I have some general comments, which I would like to address below:

Overall, I would like to ask you to reconsider four core issues:

1. a) The current version lacks a strong theoretical framework. Section 3 tries to initiate a debate on why we need to rethink the current critical infrastructure literature. I suggest shifting some parts of section 3 to section 1, or creating a new section, where you provide a broader theoretical discourse.
2. b) The lack of a broader theoretical discussion also affects your discussion section, which does not read like a discussion. You need to show how your results/paper link to the ongoing literature and what your new theoretical contribution is.
3. c) The research questions need to be reconsidered. Provide a more in-depth explanation of why these questions are important and what the new and innovative contribution of the paper is.
4. d) The method section needs to be reconsidered. The literature review in your paper does not need to be mentioned, as it does not employ a proper scientific meta-analysis or systematic literature review. Furthermore, regarding the household survey, I am unsure of its added value. Clarify what you aim to answer with the survey. It might be beneficial to rethink which methods and data you can include in the paper to address your research questions and the gap in the literature.

A minor aspect: Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are interesting but feel somewhat misplaced in the paper. While I see the value of both sections, they might need to be relocated to different parts of the paper. Regarding Section 5.2.5: first, I am not sure if the title is appropriate, and second, it currently only uses descriptive statistics. More analysis is needed to justify the inclusion of this data in your paper.

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript and the extensive work it represents. Your research offers a valuable contribution to understanding the role of sensitive infrastructures, particularly those serving vulnerable populations. The focus on disabled communities and sensitive infrastructures is timely and highlights an often-underexplored area in disaster risk management.

Some clarification is needed on the following key points:

• The paper currently positions itself as a mixed-methods study, but the primary approach is qualitative, with reliance on interviews and document analysis. To ensure clarity and methodological coherence, it would be more accurate to frame the study as qualitative. If quantitative elements are present, they should be better integrated and explicitly discussed throughout the manuscript. I don’t see the integration of the household survey, or its benefit for the current manuscript.
• The paper mentions the use of expert interviews and workshops as part of the research, but the details of these qualitative methods are underdeveloped. To strengthen the methodological rigor, it would be helpful to provide more information on how the interviews and workshops were conducted (e.g., participant selection, structure of interviews or workshops, the specific data analysis techniques). Additionally, it is important to address any potential biases in the data collection process, and how these were mitigated. A description of how the qualitative data were evaluated, whether through thematic analysis, coding, or another method, would also be valuable.
• There is strong emphasis on regulations and their implementation, but the theoretical foundations related to vulnerability, resilience, disaster risk management, coping, and adaptation could be more clearly articulated. Currently, these concepts appear in the text, but they are used somewhat interchangeably. A more distinct differentiation of these concepts would provide greater clarity and coherence. Additionally, the literature review is not well defined and currently not supported.
• While the paper rightly focuses on people with disabilities, their voices seem absent from the data. Were individuals with disabilities, or their representatives, included in the interviews or consultation processes? Including these perspectives directly would add depth to the findings and make the research more inclusive.
• The paper uses exposure as the primary criterion within its novel framework, but this focus might be too narrow. The manuscript acknowledges limitations such as data issues, high uncertainty, and climate change, challenging hazard maps. Since hazard maps may not fully reflect current or future risks, particularly given the Ahrtal flood example, is the focus on physical exposure alone justified? The concept of the "levee effect" could further challenge this focus. Additionally, while the second decision level introduces vulnerability and coping, these concepts are not clearly defined or supported with sufficient theoretical discussion, leaving their role in the framework unclear.
• The method and results sections feel somewhat disconnected, and the flow between them could be improved. Furthermore, the discussion introduces new perspectives that do not always clearly link back to the research questions, methods, or results. Reworking the structure to ensure that the findings align with the initial research questions would improve coherence.

Minor points for clarification:

• The maps provided are important, but their readability could be improved. Specifically, the resolution and color schemes may not be suitable for readers with color vision deficiencies. Ensuring that maps are color-blind friendly and enhancing the visibility of key features like roads and schools, and complete legends would be beneficial.
• The manuscript is somewhat lengthy and sometimes lacks a clear focus. Tightening the narrative and ensuring smoother transitions between sections would enhance readability. Guiding the reader more explicitly through the structure of the paper would help maintain engagement and improve clarity.
• Improving the clarity of the terms used, especially when discussing theoretical concepts like vulnerability and resilience, would help avoid confusion and increase the precision of the argument.