Dear authors,

thanks a lot for your responses to the reviews. As you have seen, both reviewers are very positive about your manuscript. Although reviewer #2 rates the manuscript as excellent, I ask you for major revisions. Since the assessment of reviewer #2 is very very short, I have gone myself through the manuscript and found that a few things should be improved (besides the concerns and questions of reviewer #1):

- Scientific contribution of the work: Could you please put more emphasis on the scientific contribution? What is the novelty of the paper? There are some points on that in the Conclusions section, but I feel that this point should be made clearer, in particular in the Introduction.

- Issue of breaching of seafront defences: I understood that your model chain did not include breaching, although you attempted to include the breach of the 2013 storm, correct? I think it would be important for the reader to clearly understand whether your approach includes breaching, and if it does not, what this would mean for the results.

- Captions of tables and of (some) figures: I believe that the captions should be made more informative. Many readers will look at the figures and tables before reading the paper in detail. Hence, I ask you to provide more information in the captions, so that a reader can understand what is given in the table or figure without trying to find the associated text. For example, I recommend to explain the scenarios, and not only to give the acronyms, such as ENC1_SLR0.

- Errors, English and style issues: The manuscript contains quite some typos. There are some French words in the figures and tables, and the English needs improvement. The first 2 bullets in the reference list are dummies. Please check carefully the complete manuscript.

Below there is a list of minor comments.

Overall, I feel that the manuscript is very valuable, and I am looking forward to your revisions.

Best regards, Bruno Merz

Minor comments:
- P. 2; L. 29: is it a factor of 10 (which would be 1 order of magnitude)?
- P. 1; L. 32: Here starts a very very long paragraph. I propose to split it into several paragraphs for easier reading.
- Could you please check carefully all the acronym and mathematical terms, and introduce them properly? I have the feeling that several acronyms / mathematical terms are used without explaining them (e.g. WFD, APSFR, Hs, Tp) when they are used for the first time.
- P. 3, L. 23: Could you please be clearer and more specific about the difference between return period of input variables and those of system responses, e.g. by giving an example? This would also help to better understand the last sentences of this paragraph where you discuss reliability methods – here I was not sure whether I completely understood what you meant.
- P. 5; L. 1: Please give a reference for the MEDNORD model.
- P. 5; L. 29: I had some problems in understanding which areas where used: > 20 m2 or 20-50 m2; isolated structures?
- P. 9; L. 16: Possibly related to my earlier comment: Please be more specific what you mean by “environmental contours”.

Dear authors,
thanks a lot for the revisions and response. Reviewer #1 has looked again at the manuscript, and has a few comments. I like to ask you to check these comments, and revise the manuscript accordingly.
Best regards, Bruno Merz