Dear Scott and coauthors,

Thank you for engaging so thoroughly in the review process. Based on the reviewers' comments and on your responses I suggest minor revisions. Please revise your manuscript based on your responses to the reviewers.

A few additional comments:

While I recognize that splitting your manuscript in two is not possible due to lack of enough content, I agree with both reviewers that the volcano portal section and the results based on the small subset of feedback (10 responses and only from developing nations) is not a good fit for this manuscript. Please consider removing it from the main text.

I also suggest combining table 1 and figure 2 (as suggested by one of the reviewers) as it will improve its readability. For the revised figure, you may consider choosing, coherence, warped and unwrapped versions of the same interferogram as opposed to using different examples to drive your points and eliminate unnecessary details from the images you used in figure 2.

And finally, the work of Gill et al. (2021) on recommended actions for integration of natural hazard data into DRR work might be a useful read to include in your section 4 or 5: https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/187/2021/

I look forward to reviewing your revised manuscript.

All the best,
Solmaz Mohadjer

Thank you for choosing Geoscience Communication for your research and for engaging so thoroughly in the peer review process. I am delighted to be able to accept your manuscript for publication.

Many Thanks,
John Hillier
(Executive Editor of Geoscience Communication)