Two Referees have provided critical and major comments to this manuscript, and the Author has carefully considered them in the open discussion. I suggest reviewing the paper has outlined in the rebuttal letter, and re-submit to HESS along with a point-by-point response to Reviewer's comments. Given the major nature of many Referees' comments, the revised paper will undergo a second round of external review.

Dear Author,

The paper can be accepted after some technical corrections (see Report of Referee #2). Both Referees have highly appreciated the revision work that has improved the description of the case study and provided a more balanced description of other approaches. Socio-hydrological models, for example, are by definition a simplified description of the real world. Thus, they are unavoidably much more abstract than specific case studies. Models in fact do not even aim to capture all that complexity. They are built to formalise what can (or cannot) be generalised within certain social and hydrological conditions. Thus, they are complementary to the case study approach proposed here.

Kind regards,
Giuliano Di Baldassarre