Many thanks for your resubmission of the manuscript that has addressed the reviewer’s comments and suggestions.
I echo both reviewer’s opinion that the paper presents an important data base that will have wide interest for coastal geomorphologists, scientists and engineers. The collation of data from a range of sources, published and ‘grey’ literature (including non-english language) is commended.
There is still some need to proofread the text for typographic errors, spelling and sentence construction and language errors. Examples include in the abstract (L 14) ‘This database records erosion rates from publications’, should read This database reports (or collates) erosion rates from publications or ‘advice’ not ‘advices’; LiDAR, not lidar; debated not ‘dabated’; rainfall not ‘rainfalls’ avoid using the present participle e.g., ‘is evolving’. Use of terms such as ‘sea aggression’ and mean sea agitation’ need to be reworded. ‘Erosion is a stochastic event’ – should be Erosion is stochastic (as it includes extreme events). ‘Aquiferous frost’ is not widely used. Delete qualitative in ‘qualitative morphometry’ morphometry is quantitative.
Figure 1 caption needs to be rewritten. What is foreground, what is background? It appears that most of debris cone is supplied from cliff – the dominance of wave action (as expressed in the caption) is not clear.
Unclear what is intended in L4 ‘are low 8.’
I have consulted with Copernicus and they have stated that you will have an opportunity to do this during copy-editing.