Dear colleagues,
I am pleased to announce, that both reviewers agreed on the suitability of your manuscript for NHESS after major revisions.
I kindly ask you to follow strictly the reviewers comments and to supply with your revised version also a letter to each reviewer, in which you define step by step, how the respective remarks and comments have been addressed. The revision has to be based on your comments which have been already provided within the published interactive discussion.
I am looking forward to receiving your revised contribution.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Glade
Member of Ed. Board

Dear colleagues,
I am pleased to announce, that both reviewers agreed on the suitability of your manuscript for NHESS after major revisions.
I kindly ask you to follow strictly the reviewers comments and to supply with your revised version also a letter to each reviewer, in which you define step by step, how the respective remarks and comments have been addressed. The revision has to be based on your comments which have been already provided within the published interactive discussion.
I am looking forward to receiving your revised contribution.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Glade
Member of Ed. Board

Dear authors,
thanks for the revised ms. This has been cross-checked again by the former reviewers. One reviewer has a technical comment only. However, the other suggests rejection because [a] more frequently occurring water levels are not considered, [b] no complete risk computation is done and [c] no comparison is made between failure probabilities of [a] a flood risk analysis, [b] an earthquake risk analysis and [c] a combined risk analysis. This would be expected from the introduction
I can fully understand the view of the second reviewer, however, I still think that you can address these topics in the paper. Thus please be more precise in what you actually do in your introduction and please mention, that the presented paper is just a first introduction which will be followed-up by another paper which contains the additional research. Please mention that in the intro, but also in the final perspective, so that the reader knows exactly how the presented paper is framed.
Based on your respective revisions, I'll check it again and make the final decision.
I am looking forward to your revised paper.
Yours sincerely
Thomas Glade
Mem. of Ed. Board

Dear authors,
thanks for the revisions. The paper is now ready for publication. I am looking forward to seeing it online soon.
Best regards
Thomas Glade
Mem. of Ed. Board