Dear authors

Thank you for your revised manuscript. I am happy that you have addressed all the comments from both reviewers. I have identified the following minor points that I would like you to address (following line numbers refer to the annotated change version of the corrected original manuscript):

1)
L90
“In this context, this paper discusses some of emerging,” 

change to

“In this context, this paper discusses some of the emerging,”

2)
L209
“The causal chains of environmental change (or more mechanistically ‘dose‐response functions’)”

This definition needs to appear before, or reworked into following text at L200.

“There is a critical need for new integrative research to underpin the boundaries, by identifying the ‘dose‐response’”


3)
L219
“.The key”
Missing space.

4)
L563
“A better cooperation across the different disciplines is needed to help informing policy makes about the four key question categories.”

This sentence needs to be reworded. I am not sure of the intended meaning. It could be thus:

“Better cooperation across the different disciplines is needed to help inform policy makers about the four key question categories.”

Finally, you may find a 2015 publication that covered some similar ground (particularly Section 4 which discusses the planetary boundaries concept) relevant to some of your discussion and perhaps model typology:
Verburg, P. H., Dearing, J. A., Dyke, J. G., van der Leeuw, S., Seitzinger, S., Steffen, W., & Syvitski, J. (2015). Methods and approaches to modelling the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.007

Thank you for your revised manuscript. This responds to all review comments and I am happy to recommend immediate publication.