Crisis Communication after Earthquakes in Greece and Japan: Effects on Seismic Disaster Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It's interesting that this manuscript focuses on crisis communication after earthquakes in Greece and Japan and its effects on seismic disaster management.But, in general, there is a lack of explanation of statistical methods used in the study. And it lacks analytical methodologies to support author's discoveries. Some of the research addressing these issues should be acknowledged, some recommended references, among many others are, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.002, and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.089. The 4th chapter "4. Discussion and conlusion " needs to be clearer.Once the above concerns are fully addressed, I would be very glad to re-review the manuscript in greater depth because the subject is interesting.

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors (Reviewer 1)

 

Authors’ Reply:

 

The authors would like to thank Reviewer #1 for the careful review of the manuscript. Reviewer #1 pointed out the lack of reference in statistical methods and analytical approaches to support the research discoveries. Moreover, he/she suggested to separate Discussion from Conclusions.

The authors addressed all the constructive suggestions and comments and significant improvement in the initial manuscript has been achieved especially in the theoretical part of the paper, the determination of its scope and in the Discussion and Conclusions.

In particular:

• Comment:” … in general, there is a lack of explanation of statistical methods used in the study”.

Response: The authors introduced a new Section, “Section 2: Research Queries, Scientific Background and Methodology” including Subsection 2.2 (page 3) where the basic methodologies of handling aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in hazard assessment are mentioned briefly. Some examples from literature regarding the application of these methodologies in real case studies are also mentioned in the same Subsection. However, the article focuses on crisis communication research in order to explore all types of uncertainty (not only scientific) involved in the emergency communication after earthquakes. In depth analysis of the uncertainty in hazard assessment and structural vulnerability is beyond the scope of this research. The new Section 2 includes also the presentation of the structure of the paper and the other analytical methods that have been employed in the empirical part (see next comment).

 

• Comment: “…it lacks analytical methodologies to support author's discoveries. Some of the research addressing these issues should be acknowledged”

Response: The authors made clear reference of the analytical methodologies used to identify uncertainty in emergency communication (Subsction 2.3, page 7): “The analytical methods employed (apart from the reference to the statistical methods used for the determination of scientific seismic uncertainty) are a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches pertinent to political science and communication research: Content Analysis of seismic information messages, (Institutional) Process Tracing of seismic information transmission, semi-structured Interviews, Questionnaire Surveys and test Case Studies of crisis experiences (in Greece and Japan)”.

 

• Comment: “Some of the research addressing these issues should be acknowledged, some recommended references, among many others are, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.002, and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.089”. 

Response: The suggested articles provide significant support to the new Subsection 2.2 about uncertainty handling in scientific seismic information and the authors were happy to reconsider including both of them (Subsection 2.2. page 5):

 

• Comment: “The 4th chapter "4. Discussion and conclusion" needs to be clearer”.

Response: The authors separated the Discussion Section (5) from the Conclusions and Recommendations Section (6) (page 22). Section 5 concentrated on the factors influencing uncertainty in communication (types of messages, sources, content, and means of communication etc). Section 6 points to the conclusions regarding the impact of communication strategies on crisis management and recommendations to reduce or handle uncertainty.

In addition, adjustments in the abstract have been elaborated according to the modification in the main text.

Reviewer 2 Report

A very interesting and useful paper. 

• Complete literature references
• Thorough analysis
• Not a very straightforward structure but OK it serves its purpose.

Only a few minor comments / suggestions:

• The quality of figures must be improved (I am recommending "minor revisions" only for this).
• Think if separating Discussion from Conclusion sections will be helpful for readers

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors (Reviewer 2)

 

Authors’ Reply:

The authors would like to thank Reviewer #2 for the careful review of the manuscript. In general, Reviewer #2 was concerned about the structure of the manuscript and pointed out the need to improve the quality of the figures. Finally it is suggested to separate Discussion from Conclusions.

The authors addressed all the constructive suggestions and comments and significant improvement has been made in the initial manuscript.

In particular:

• Comment: “Not a very straightforward structure but OK it serves its purpose”.

Response: In order to provide a straightforward structure of the document, the authors introduced a new Section 2 (page 3) “Research Queries, Scientific Background and Methodology”. In this Section, and more specifically in Subsection 2.3 the structure of the empirical part of the paper is presented and explained. The new Section 2 enhances significantly the theoretical part of the manuscript.

• Comment: “The quality of figures must be improved (I am recommending "minor revisions" only for this)”.

Response: The authors have improved the quality of two figures in the initial manuscript:

• Figure: “Flow chart of emergency seismic and tsunami information in Greece” (Figure 4, page 12)
• Figure: “Important similarities and differences in crisis communication systems in Japan and Greece categorized by the type of messages and message content”. The authors included the figure in a Table format (Table 1, page 16). Improvements and changes made in the table’s title and content were realized in order to achieve better understanding.

 

• Comment: “Think if separating Discussion from Conclusion sections will be helpful for readers”.
• Response: The authors separated the Discussion Section (5) from the Conclusions and Recommendations Section (6) (page 22). Section 5 concentrated on the factors influencing uncertainty in communication (types of messages, sources, content, and means of communication etc). Section 6 points to the conclusions regarding the impact of communication strategies on crisis management and recommendations to reduce or handle uncertainty.

 

In addition, adjustments in the abstract have been elaborated according to the modification in the main text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed most of the comments raised by the reviewers satisfactorily. Now, the manuscript is well written and the topic interesting and worth of investigation.I think it can be accepted as it is.