General Comments

The manuscript and dataset describe and provide a multi-hazard database for Tenerife. A range of geological and hydro-meteorological hazards are considered, and importantly, cascading interactions between these hazards. The methodology is presented along with an analysis of the database to support disaster risk management and reduction on Tenerife. This is an important contribution as it highlights the need for robust multi-hazard analysis based on historical records and geological data to feed into future DRM planning.

The manuscript is very well-written, clearly outlining the context and problem, detailing the dataset development and discussing the hazard interactions and providing risk mitigation recommendations. While the case study is on Tenerife, it has application elsewhere (especially for other small volcanic islands), either as a reference for potential multi-hazard scenarios, or a model that can be replicated and applied to analyse and understand multi-hazards for risk assessment.

The dataset is presented as a downloadable excel document with subheadings for each event type, and columns describing the event. There is a lot of useful additional information for example, on risk management where available.

I have suggested minor revisions, but these are very minor and can be addressed very easily. I don't think this needs another round of reviews.

Specific Comments

Dataset: This is described as a database; however, I would argue it is a dataset as it is a standalone excel file containing event data, whereas a database is dynamic, usually containing multiple datasets and is used for storing and managing data.

In the dataset, the data is provided in a nicely structured format. I found it quite hard to follow the sequence of events for each entry. I wonder if having a ‘Narrative of event’ column would help with this. It could just be a few sentences describing in simple terms how the multi-hazard event unfolded. This can be particularly useful where aspects can’t be quantified, but can still be included in DRM planning.

Article: Please see the uploaded annotated PDF for specific comments. A summary is:

1. Line 62: “enhances the capacity to manage uncertainties associated with future risk scenarios”. I agree with this, but robust exposure, vulnerability (physical, social, economic) and resilience data are also needed.
2. Line 63-64: “full spectrum… and impacts”. The full spectrum of impacts will depend heavily on exposure and vulnerability, which is dynamic and therefore very complex to quantify and measure. Past multi-hazard events will only give so much information and should be complemented with impacts studies, vulnerability, exposure etc. data.
3. Line 154: I would add 'The PEIN' before 'Risk assessment' here, as risk assessments usually include all components of risk not just the two parameters used here. I would argue that what they do is not a comprehensive risk assessment as, given what is described here, they do not include exposure, vulnerability or resilience.
4. Line 234: Just wondering why drought isn't specifically included? This hazard has been a serious problem for Tenerife in recent years, and will surely worsen with the changing climate. Also, it is important in terms of multi-hazard cascades with resulting forest fires.
5. Line 252: It would be nice to see more consideration of simultaneous hazard events occurring – were these identified? Should they be included in future scenarios?
6. Line 379: Not all possible multi-hazard scenarios. This would be assuming that the record you have is 100% complete and that what happened in the past is what will happen in the future. There are other events that can happen in the future that may have never happened before here. You talk to this further down, so I suggest just rewording this.
7. Line 384: “allowed us to identify both successful strategies and areas for improvement”. I was looking forward to reading your analysis of these and was disappointed to find you haven’t included anything on DRM strategies / responses to events. It would be nice to see something on this in the discussion.
8. Line 386: “we determined common vulnerabilities” Where is this presented and discussed? Vulnerability is key and inherently difficult to assess, so any insights on vulnerabilities is valuable for DRM.
9. Line 401: hazard not risk
10. Line 483: It feels a little bit out of place to go into so much detail on citizen science here. Why are you focusing on this in particular? Do you have examples where this has really helped? I would prefer to see more focus on community engagement to raise awareness of natural hazard events, potential multi-hazard events that could impact them, and shared learning on how individuals, communities, organisations could increase their own resilience to such events. Also, an important aspect of learning from past events is local wisdom - learning from people through the stories they share and pass down through generation. Knowledge co-production is key when focusing on past events and impacts.

Technical corrections

Minimal. Please see the annotated PDF for any technical corrections.