Very interesting work and well explained ! It was nice and easy to read, my only comment would be maybe to split the paragraphs a bit more for the final abstract. So that it would follow kind of this shape : 



General Background

Specific Background + Knowledge Gap 

Results

Implications

So in my opinion, it would look like this with potential additions :

Recently, the disaster risk field has made substantial steps forward to develop increasingly comprehensive risk assessments, accounting for the incidence of multiple hazards, trickle-down effects of cascading disasters and/or impacts, and spatiotemporal dynamics.

While the COVID-19 outbreak increased general awareness of the challenges that arise when disasters from natural hazards and diseases collide, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of the role of disease outbreaks in disaster risk assessments and management, and that of health impacts of disasters. In specific, the occurrence probabilities and the impacts of disease outbreaks following natural hazards are not well-understood and are commonly excluded from multi-hazard risk assessments and management.

Therefore, in this perspective paper, we call for 1. learning lessons from compound risks and the socio-hydrology community for modelling the occurrence probabilities and temporal element (lag times) of disasters and health/disease-outbreaks, 2. the inclusion of health-related risk metrics within conventional risk assessment frameworks, 3. improving data availability and modelling approaches to quantify the role of stressors and interventions on health impacts of disasters. Based on this, we develop a research agenda towards an improved understanding of the disaster risk considering potential health crises.

This is not only crucial for scientists aiming to improve risk modelling capabilities, but also for decision makers and practitioners to anticipate and respond to the increasing complexity of disaster risk.

Hope this comment will help ! 

The manuscript calls for advancement in research to improve the assessment and management of natural hazards and health crises with a feasible research agenda. Looking forward to the exciting and impactful results in the future.

The manuscript proposes a research initiative on a topic within the scope of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). I would recommend this manuscript for publication with the attached suggestions.

Review NHESS 2025-920

The paper proposes a research agenda towards an improved understanding of the disaster risk considering potential health crises. On this basis, the topic is aligned with the interests of the journal. Moreover, the topic is very relevant and important, and I agree that there is a gap in the space at the interface between natural hazards and health.

However, I am unsure about the goal and the scientific basis of this paper.

1) authors write multiple times “we call for a research agenda”: do authors call or develop the agenda? What is the (scientific) process to define the agenda?

2) two points of the anticipated research agenda are: (i) develop quantitative health risk metrics and (ii) identify potential data sources and develops approaches to identify and map the role of stressors. I was expecting clear steps for these points, whereas (at the end) the “agenda” consists in Table 1 and Figure 2.

3) Where is the research agenda coming from? I would expect a third column where authors list sources from where they depicted the particular item for the agenda (referring to the literature review). At the moment, the paper is quite speculative and with somewhat shallow research base (vs a systematic, objective procedure).

If the aim of the paper is to develop a research agenda, the process to arrive to the agenda should be much more articulated, sound and motivated. At the moment, the methodological approach of the paper does not satisfy the standard of the journal – in my opinion. For example, I would have expected inputs from stakeholders (interviews? surveys?). Perhaps, this expectation was set also from the title (“Invited perspective” usually is used for external elicitation, while in this paper I am not sure who “is invited”). About this, the paper is quite limited in addressing the issue of multiple stakeholders involved in the various domains underpinning natural hazards and health. The paper’s idea is excellent, however the paper is not “making it” yet.

Authors are invited to review the paper and work on the scientific depth of it. Despite the different subject, examples to which they may refer are: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15569; https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12568

Minor suggestions are attached as comments in the pdf.