I have now read the text, particularly noting your changes. I have two remaining substantial and one technical concerns:
1. One is about resilience. The sentences you added gives pretty short shrift to resilience, while I would agree with the reviewer 3 that the concept has become quite important in the climate change - conflict debates. I would therefore recommend to add some language similar to your comments in response to the reviewer.
In your response to the reviewer you write that you implicitly also address resilience, because of important overlaps in at least some conceptions. I would recommend to insert this (not verbally but substantially) into the text. You might consider to introduce the concept of resilience on p. 4 line. Your starting point is pretty similar to some definitions of resilience. I noted, for instance, an article by one of the co-authors, LC Stringer in Resources 2014, 3(1), 182-214, which sees adaptation as the overlap between vulnerability and resilience. These are just suggestions, but I think you need to do more to indicated that you are aware of the debate on resilience than just to mention the fact that it exists.
2. I am not happy with the second quote under the climatic determinism discourse, p. 7, line 35. There are two reasons for that. One I dont think that saying that increases increase the risk of conflict is contrary to a contextual approach. The argumentation in the O' Loughlin et al paper is statistical, and based on the assumption that other factors increasint the likelihood of conflict remain constant, not that they are not important (Hsiang et al , in fact, although the statement reads similary, are not considering other factors systematically). But I accept that this is no clear from the quoted statement (though from the publicatoin). Two, and more important, you quote the same paper as supporting the contextual vulnerability discourse (p. 11, line 33). Furthermore you quote Raleigh et al (p. 8, line 11) as being critical of the determinism approach. John O'Loughlin is one of the co-authors of this paper. Having read his work, I am convinced that he is far from climate deterministic.
3. Technical issue: You struggle with listing authors properly, who have difficult surnames. One case is John O'Loughln, who you sometimes list correctly under O, but at least in one case under L. Another are the German "von"s. Von Lucke you place under L, von Uexkuell under v. Proper German use would be to place von Lucke under v, too.