Topic and key findings of manuscript

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which analyzes 18 municipal archetypes for the Italian territory, incorporating geographic, demographic, and socio-economic characteristics. Deriving archetypes for risk, exposure and vulnerability analysis is a highly relevant topic for scientific investigation. The paper is therefore an interesting contribution to the interdisciplinary debate on how to construct such archetypes. However, the arguments and the way they are presented need to be revised before publication.

(a) Title: consider revising the title. First of all, you speak of “urban” archetypes but your analysis includes several rural archetypes as well. Maybe “municipal” would be more fitting. I suggest you revise this throughout the manuscript. Secondly, you speak of multi-risk, but do not really elaborate on that. I would suggest you rather revise the title so that it is clear that your main goal is to construct the archetypes.

(b) Abstract: The abstract should be revised to incorporate the changes detailed below.

(b) Structure of the manuscript: I recommend revising the structure to improve conciseness (see detailed comments below). The introduction, discussion, and conclusion are relatively brief, whereas the materials and methods section is quite extensive and could be streamlined. Additionally, clearer section headings, especially in sections 2 and 3, would help distinguish between the introduction and the materials section.

(c) Introduction: The introduction would benefit from further elaboration. Specifically, I suggest clarifying how archetypes enhance the understanding of exposure and vulnerability in this context. Additionally, since archetype analysis can take various forms, it is important to highlight how previous studies have approached archetypes and to clearly define your own understanding of the concept. Providing a brief explanation of how you apply the concept and implement it with your data—before presenting the archetypes in Chapter 5—would improve clarity. A figure of the framework could help with clarity. Further, I suggest to include the research question more prominently in this section.

(d) Materials and Methods: I appreciate the thorough justification and explanation of the datasets. However, this section could be more concise. For instance, Tables 1 and 2 might be combined. Additionally, it would be helpful to clarify why you differentiate between main and sub-clusters, as this reflects your understanding of archetypes. The methods section is quite extensive and could be streamlined. I also recommend making it clearer why you use different clustering approaches and what distinguishes their outcomes. Since testing these differences appears to be a key finding, it should be addressed not only here but also in the introduction, results, and discussion sections.

(e) Results: The distinction between the materials, methods, and results sections could be clearer. Since you refer to Italian regions, I suggest adding their borders to the results map to aid readability. Additionally, consider adjusting the colors in Figure 9, as some archetypes are difficult to differentiate.

(f) Discussion: The discussion could be expanded, as it is currently quite brief. It should engage more with existing literature and clarify how your choice of data and methods influenced the results. Since you refer to dimensions of validity, I recommend elaborating on this aspect by discussing how these dimensions are addressed in relation to the literature. Currently, the claim that your archetypes meet validity requirements lacks sufficient support.

g) Conclusion: Ensure that the conclusion aligns with the preceding sections. Either here or in the discussion, clarify what is needed to refine the archetypes and how they enhance the understanding of exposure and vulnerability.T

Minor issues:

Figures 4 and 6: Both figures currently have the same caption. To avoid confusion, clarify that they represent different methods and specify the distinctions in their captions.

Introduction and Abstract: You mention single and multiple hazards but do not elaborate on them in the main sections. Since your focus is primarily on exposure and vulnerability, consider toning down these references for consistency.

Tables and Formatting: The placement of tables is inconsistent, with some splitting across pages in a way that affects readability. The editorial team should ensure that, where possible, tables fit within a single page to improve clarity.

Line 526: IIs the reference to cluster 6 correct here? The number does not align with Figure 5. Please verify and ensure consistency between the text and the figure.

Line 287: write remaining instead of remain

Figure 3: The colors used in this figure may be difficult to interpret for readers with color blindness. Consider using a blue-white-red color scheme to improve accessibility.

Figures: Please ensure consistency in your referencing throughout instead of alternating between, for example, "Fig" and "Figure."

Please see attached file.