Dear Authors,
According to the comments of the two reviewers, of which one suggested “reject” and one “major revisions” your manuscript needs substantial further revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication. Particularly the method and result descriptions of your study need to be improved. Reviewers identify similar shortcomings of your manuscript, which need special attention: (i) the methodology e.g. coupling of the models is unclear, (ii) the description and discussion of your findings need to be improved, (iii) to which extent are the results specific for the case study and to which extent and how could they be transferred to other sites.
I ask you to revise your manuscript in accordance with all the comments and recommendations of each of the reviewers. When you have completed your revision, please submit your revised manuscript with the changes marked, and a detailed item-by-item response to each of the reviewer's comments.
Best regards
Heidi Kreibich

Dear Authors,
Your revision has improved the manuscript; however, there is still significant room for further improvement. The reviewers provide very helpful and detailed suggestions. Particularly, some more analyses to test the sensitivity of indexes and discussion about your results are necessary.
I ask you to revise your manuscript in accordance with all the comments and recommendations of each of the reviewers. When you have completed your revision, please submit your revised manuscript with the changes marked, and a detailed item-by-item response to each of the reviewer's comments.
Best regards
Heidi Kreibich

Dear Authors,
It is my pleasure to inform you, that your paper is now accepted for publication in our Journal NHESS, given you will undertake the necessary technical corrections as indicated by reviewer #2.
Thank you for choosing NHESS for the publication of your paper.
Best regards
Heidi Kreibich