Dear Authors,

Based on the two reviews and your responses, your manuscript may be reconsidered for publication after major revisions. When resubmitting, please make sure you incorporate your responses to the reviews into a revised version of your text. For this, particular attention to the comments on presentation and result discussion by Reviewer 1 has to be made.

From my side, I furthermore ask you to include a comprehensive summary of your manually derived event catalog. This could be done in form of a table or diagram, which shows how many events for each class you found. Ideally, such a summary should also include information on detection times, perhaps in form of a time line. As suggested by Reviewer 2, the reader needs some objective way to assess your classification scheme, at least qualitatively. I agree that an automatic classification is beyond the scope of your work. However, a set of histograms, scatter plots or something equivalent is indispensable for this study, because as pointed out by Reviewer 2 this illustrates how clear your suggested grouping is or if your classes represent end members.

Based on your Figure 14 you make the case that there is a correlation between landslide-related seismic events and landslide displacement. As noted in the reviews, this is not at all clear, so please make sure that your revised manuscript better supports this correlation by either walking the reader through the figure or modifying it.

For your attenuation-based locations you may want to consider previous studies (Yamasato, 1997; Kumagai et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2016; Jolly et al., 2002; Aki and Ferrazzini, 2000; Jones et al., 2013; Röösli et al., 2014; Ogiso and Yomogida, 2015; Walter et al., 2017; Battaglia and Aki, 2003), which help explain why a strong attenuation indicates a nearby microseismic source. For the beamforming, have you considered non-planar wave fronts (as mentioned by Reviewer 2)? This would allow you to incorporate more stations than for the planar case and hence may improve location results.

As far as units, please make sure that you are consistent when deviating from SI, i.e. one unit for landslide displacement, one unit for seismic ground velocity, one unit for seismic velocities used for your ground model, and so on.

Best,
Fabian Walter.

Dear authors,

thank you for your revisions, which substantially improved the quality of your submission. Based on the additional round of external reviews, your manuscript can be published after minor revisions.

Please read the reviews carefully and respond to them in the next iteration. They are mostly minor aimed at improving the readability and clarity of your work. However, I fully agree with Reviewer 1 who specifically asks for scatter plots of continuous parameters. This will be a concise way to illustrate and support some of your major points. Please pay particular attention to this suggestion.

Best,
Fabian Walter.

Dear Naomi,
Thank you for your submission to ESurf. I am delighted to inform you that your paper has now been accepted for final publication. Thank you for the time and effort spent in modifying the manuscript.
All the best,
Tom Coulthard