Development of an Early Warning and Incident Response System for the Protection of Visitors from Natural Hazards in Important Outdoor Sites in Greece
, Antonios Barnias 4, Vassiliki Varela 5, Ilias Gkotsis 6, Anna Karvouniari 7, Spyridon Agorgianitis 7, Ioannis Chasiotis 6, Diamando Vlachogiannis 5, Athanasios Sfetsos 5, Konstantinos Kaoukis 2, Aikaterini Christopoulou 2, Petros Antakis 1 and Ioannis Z. Gitas 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present very interesting and important issue for the cultural heritage management.
In my opinion when it comes to external threats to sites Authors should also refer to the Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage, ICCROM and UNESCO activities and programmes. There are several documents drafted under auspices or with cooperation of UNESCO worth mentioning and relevant, (for example about World Heritage Sites).
The article is over 30 pages long and therefore does not meet the journals requirements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction: The introduction is too long and imprecise regarding the subject of the article. It is confused with a review of the literature that does not exist. It should be more focused relatively, for example, to the methodology used.
Literature review: The literature review does not exist, as does the conceptual scheme that is also non-existent.
Methodology: It would be more interesting to separate the methodology used to carry out the article of the data - the materials under analysis – obtained and/or under study. The structure of this part of the text should be improved as its understanding is difficult and confusing.
Results, Discussion and Conclusions: These items are much clearer and well organized, allowing readers an insight into what was possible to achieve with the research carried out and the breadth of application of the Xenios alert and protection system.
This is an interesting work to indicate possibilities for early warning and incident response for the protection of visitors from natural hazards, but the structure makes it confusing.
In short, the topic is interesting, but the article must be reviewed, reorganized and English should be reviewed
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The title of the paper is: Development of an early warning and incident response system for the protection of visitors from natural hazards in important outdoor sites in Greece
The authors write about Xenios, a system under development in Greece that provides early warning and risk communication services via web-based and mobile phone applications. The Business Process Model (BPM) has been described.
Abstract: There is not clear what was the main aim of the research and what scientific methods, models, algorithms were used. An abstract should contains such elements. Some of the sentences are too long and should be more clear.
The order of the chapters is correct but the second section is quite large compared to the overall article.
- The introduction highlight why the study is important. It contains the current state of the topic and research field about this problem only in general terms.
- Materials and Methods
2.1. Test Sites
figures 2a-c should be at the line 179 as Figures 1a,b,c. Furthermore, Figures1a-c should be numered as the second one.
There should be the references in the text to the figure 1a i 1b.
In general the paper presents valuable system Xenios. However, in my opinion, the article is too long. Furthermore, the authors write: line 1034 – “Rather, its novelty lies in the consolidation of the different users’ needs, providing a comprehensive risk management decision support tool to the site managers on the one hand and attracting the site visitors to use it on the other hand.” - How and why the author's solution of the problem is useful for science and for the reader? What was the scientific aim of the research? What do we learn from the scientific perspective about it? How does the article contribute to the state of our knowledge? All that elements exist but authors should highlight a scientific side of this project.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
