Integrating Geoscience, Ethics, and Community Resilience: Lessons from the Etna 2018 Earthquake

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript 3749615  is a re-submission of manuscript 3658862. I do not find an answer letter from the authors (that is reasonable, in the case of a new submission, authors are not required to answer to previous comments), but I find in the available material a supplementary file tracking the changes done with respect to the previous manuscript, as usually done during a revision process. This sounds somehow strange to me.

In 3749615 manuscript, the authors declare the paper is focussed in the procedural scheme of the reconstruction process (lines 79-82), after a damaging earthquake that affected the Mt.Etna flank in 2018. Material and Methods describe the admin/technical structure appointed by the Italian Government, and includes some results obtained by the Commissioner's Office. Then, the Results chapter starts with a long description of the 2018 earthquake: this part, in my opinion is not a result of the previous "material and methods", it is more pertinent to the introduction, and it can be strongly reduced, referring to the already published references. The comparison with the previous event of 1984 is interesting, but it lacks key information and related references (e.g. 70% residential buildings uninhabitable on how many buildings existing at that time? was the building stock similar in 2018? total costs are present values? consider to locate the 1984 earthquake - in Fig.1? -, add a reference magnitude value). AeDES surveys are mentioned in Results section too, while a short presentation probably deserves to be anticipated in the Material and Methods chapter, and then results commented in Results. The Discussion chapter needs an harmonisation between the psychological  aspects of the response by the population, and the final mitigation recommendation table, if this is the "lessons" mentioned in the title. 

Finally, I believe that with respect to the previous "Etna 2018 earthquake: rebuild or relocate? Applying geoethical principles to natural disaster recovery planning", published in 2025 in the Journal of Geoethics and Social Geosciences, the original contents, and additional infos given to the readers in this paper are minimal. To avoid autoplagiarism issues, that are strongly negative for the reputation of a Journal, I suggest the authors resort to AI, to check the text now submitted to Geosciences, with respect to their paper already published; it can help finalizing better a distinct target of readers for the actual manuscript (is the target now the administrative authorities? in JGSG the target was probably more towards the technical/professional audience interested in active faulting and definition of FAC zoning). 

I believe the manuscript needs major revisions fixing the above mentioned points, before being considered for publication.

 

 

Author Response

The manuscript 3749615 is a re-submission of manuscript 3658862. I do not find an answer letter from the authors (that is reasonable, in the case of a new submission, authors are not required to answer to previous comments), but I find in the available material a supplementary file tracking the changes done with respect to the previous manuscript, as usually done during a revision process. This sounds somehow strange to me. In 3749615 manuscript, the authors declare the paper is focussed in the procedural scheme of the reconstruction process (lines 79-82), after a damaging earthquake that affected the Mt.Etna flank in 2018. Material and Methods describe the admin/technical structure appointed by the Italian Government, and includes some results obtained by the Commissioner's Office. Then, the Results chapter starts with a long description of the 2018 earthquake: this part, in my opinion is not a result of the previous "material and methods", it is more pertinent to the introduction, and it can be strongly reduced, referring to the already published references. 

Response: We thank the reviewer for the observation. As noted, this manuscript reflects a new submission that incorporates all revisions previously requested during its earlier peer-review process at Geosciences. In particular, the more detailed description of the 2018 Etnean earthquake was explicitly requested and has been integrated accordingly. While we acknowledge that part of this content could also align with an extended introduction, we consider its placement within the Results section more effective in contextualizing the subsequent procedural analysis. Moreover, the revised text ensures readability and self-containment, referencing the necessary literature while allowing readers unfamiliar with the 2018 event to fully grasp its significance without resorting to external sources. For these reasons, we respectfully suggest retaining the current structure and content distribution.

 

The comparison with the previous event of 1984 is interesting, but it lacks key information and related references (e.g. 70% residential buildings uninhabitable on how many buildings existing at that time? was the building stock similar in 2018? total costs are present values? consider to locate the 1984 earthquake - in Fig.1? -, add a reference magnitude value).

Response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestions. The 1984 earthquake, attributed to the Fiandaca Fault, occurred within a substantially consistent epicentral area compared to the 2018 event. To support the comparison, we have now included the epicentral coordinates and magnitude (Mw 5.0), as referenced in the cited literature.

Regarding the impact on the built environment, the earthquake severely affected the municipality of Zafferana Etnea, rendering approximately 70% of residential buildings uninhabitable. Reconstruction procedures were subsequently undertaken for a total of 2,679 buildings. These figures have been clarified in the revised manuscript.

The reconstruction costs have been updated to present-day values, as specified in the text. However, precise data on the total number of buildings existing in 1984 or on the construction typologies prior to the event are not available. While it is reasonable to assume that masonry structures were predominant at the time, this remains speculative and is therefore not further elaborated.

Finally, we have considered the possibility of locating the 1984 epicenter in Figure 1. However, given the density of existing information in the figure, we believe that adding this detail would compromise its readability without providing significant additional value. For this reason, we respectfully suggest maintaining the current layout.

 

AeDES surveys are mentioned in Results section too, while a short presentation probably deserves to be anticipated in the Material and Methods chapter, and then results commented in Results.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestion. In response, a brief presentation of the AeDES survey methodology has been added to the Materials and Methods section, as requested. The corresponding results are now discussed in the Results chapter, ensuring a more coherent structure and alignment with standard scientific reporting practices.

 

The Discussion chapter needs an harmonisation between the psychological  aspects of the response by the population, and the final mitigation recommendation table, if this is the "lessons" mentioned in the title.

Response: These psychological dimensions—ranging from emotional responses to perceived institutional trust—are not only central to understanding the community’s behavior following the earthquake, but also inform the practical recommendations summarized in Table 1. This table integrates these insights with procedural and structural considerations, thereby offering a coherent and multi-level framework of mitigation strategies. For these reasons, we respectfully propose to retain the current format, which reflects the interdisciplinary nature of the lessons referenced in the manuscript title.

 

Finally, I believe that with respect to the previous "Etna 2018 earthquake: rebuild or relocate? Applying geoethical principles to natural disaster recovery planning", published in 2025 in the Journal of Geoethics and Social Geosciences, the original contents, and additional infos given to the readers in this paper are minimal. To avoid autoplagiarism issues, that are strongly negative for the reputation of a Journal, I suggest the authors resort to AI, to check the text now submitted to Geosciences, with respect to their paper already published; it can help finalizing better a distinct target of readers for the actual manuscript (is the target now the administrative authorities? in JGSG the target was probably more towards the technical/professional audience interested in active faulting and definition of FAC zoning).

Response: We take the allegation of self-plagiarism very seriously and wish to respectfully—but unequivocally—reject this claim. A meticulous side-by-side comparison between the current manuscript (Geosciences, 2025) and our previously published article in the Journal of Geoethics and Social Geosciences (JGSG, January 2025) reveals clear thematic distinctions and demonstrates substantial originality, analytical innovation, and interdisciplinary value.

The JGSG article addressed the ethical justification for relocating buildings damaged by the 2018 Etna earthquake, emphasizing the avoidance of reconstruction in high-risk zones. It introduced a geoethical framework specific to the Italian context and examined regulatory instruments such as seismic microzonation and buffer zoning.

In contrast, the Geosciences manuscript proposes a broader operational model incorporating geotechnical analysis, psychological insight, participatory governance, and civic engagement. It investigates how relocation was implemented, its psychological impact on affected communities, and how institutional communication strategies shaped long-term vulnerability reduction. These elements are entirely novel and supported by original data, including semi-structured interviews, psychological frameworks, AeDES assessment analytics, and citizen help desk records.

From a disciplinary standpoint, the JGSG paper is situated within geoethics and hazard zoning policy, whereas the Geosciences submission extends into the domains of disaster governance, resilience planning, and psycho-social adaptation. The manuscript also contributes fresh sections on historical precedents in Italy’s post-earthquake relocations, a critical appraisal of AeDES methodology, and a strategic mitigation matrix uniting structural and non-structural components.

Although both works investigate the same seismic event, their conceptual frameworks, methodologies, and scholarly aims diverge significantly. The Geosciences manuscript appropriately and transparently cites the earlier publication, thereby upholding academic integrity.

This thematic and methodological distinction confirms that the submitted manuscript constitutes a substantially original contribution to scientific literature and does not amount to duplicate publication.

In conclusion, the manuscript under review in Geosciences reflects a rigorously developed, thematically distinct, and interdisciplinary contribution to post-earthquake recovery studies. Our comparative analysis affirms that:

• The submission is not a duplicate of our earlier work
• The thematic, structural, and disciplinary differences are substantial and well documented
• Any overlapping content is minimal, necessary, and transparently cited

Finally, while we appreciate your engagement in the review process, we wish to respectfully observe that your final comment appears to reflect a subjective interpretation and lacks sufficient evidentiary support. While we welcome constructive critique, we believe this particular remark diverges from the collegial tone typically expected in academic peer review and may impede productive scholarly exchange.

 

I believe the manuscript needs major revisions fixing the above mentioned points, before being considered for publication.

Response: We thank the reviewer for sharing their comments. We have carefully addressed all the points raised and revised the manuscript accordingly. We trust that the changes made sufficiently meet the journal’s requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper satisy the proposed queries, I would suggest it for publication in its present form.

Author Response

The paper satisfies the proposed queries; I would suggest it for publication in its present form.

Response: We appreciate your positive feedback and recommendation for publication. Thank you for your thoughtful evaluation.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We acknowledge the significance of this research on the 2018 Etna earthquake, which effectively integrates geoscience, ethics, and community resilience. The study provides valuable insights into post-earthquake reconstruction and risk mitigation, with a well-structured framework and rich empirical data. However, there are several revisions needed to enhance clarity and rigor, such as clarifying vague descriptions, supplementing data sources, and correcting minor grammatical issues. Addressing these points will further strengthen the paper’s academic quality and readability. We recommend reconsideration after these revisions. The specific suggestions are as follows:

1. The statement "this objective was achieved by considering the hazardous nature of the affected territory" in the Abstract is rather vague. It is recommended to supplement specific measures (such as relocation, public use transformation, etc.) to enhance clarity.
2. In the description of Figure 1, some abbreviations (e.g., "PFS", "RFS") are not clearly defined with their full names when first appearing. The full names need to be supplemented for readers' understanding.
3. In the 1. Introduction section, when mentioning the impact of the "1984 earthquake" on Zafferana Etnea, it is advisable to add basic parameters of the earthquake (such as magnitude) to enhance comparability.
4. In the 2. Materials and Methods section, when referring to "15 personnel from other public administrations", a brief explanation of their professional backgrounds (such as geology, law, etc.) can be provided to demonstrate the rationality of the team.
5. When "AeDES form" first appears in the 3.1 section, it is advisable to add the Chinese translation corresponding to the English full name.
6. For the width descriptions (400m, 160m, 30m) of "three types of 'homogeneous micro-zones'" in the 3.2 section, it is recommended to indicate the data source (such as specific literature or regulations).
7. In the description of Figure 3, "buildings (a), (b), (c), (d)" do not correspond to specific location characteristics in the figure. It is suggested to add brief location descriptions (e.g., "close to the fault trace", "far from the fault").
8. There is a grammatical error in "58 buildings which comprising 122 housing units" in the 3.3 section, which should be corrected to "58 buildings comprising 122 housing units".
9. In the description of Figure 5, "Figure 5e and 5g" do not describe the core characteristics in the figures (such as the specific damage to buildings caused by faulting). It is recommended to add a brief description.
10. In the "Indicative data from the 2018 event" column of Table 1 in the 4.3 section, for ">1,000 user interactions per year (2020–2022)", it is recommended to supplement detailed data for specific years (e.g., XXX times in 2020).
11. The abbreviation "ACF" appears multiple times in the text. It is suggested to add its Chinese translation  when it first appears in the 2. Materials and Methods section.
12. When comparing the "1968 Belice earthquake" and "1980 Irpinia earthquake" in the 4. Discussion section, a summary of core differences from the 2018 Etna earthquake (such as relocation scale, response speed) can be added.

Author Response

We acknowledge the significance of this research on the 2018 Etna earthquake, which effectively integrates geoscience, ethics, and community resilience. The study provides valuable insights into post-earthquake reconstruction and risk mitigation, with a well-structured framework and rich empirical data. However, there are several revisions needed to enhance clarity and rigor, such as clarifying vague descriptions, supplementing data sources, and correcting minor grammatical issues. Addressing these points will further strengthen the paper’s academic quality and readability. We recommend reconsideration after these revisions. The specific suggestions are as follows:

1. The statement "this objective was achieved by considering the hazardous nature of the affected territory" in the Abstract is rather vague. It is recommended to supplement specific measures (such as relocation, public use transformation, etc.) to enhance clarity.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the need for greater clarity in this statement. We have revised the sentence in the Abstract to read: “This objective was achieved through measures such as relocation and public use transformation,” in order to specify the concrete actions taken and improve precision.

 

2. In the description of Figure 1, some abbreviations (e.g., "PFS", "RFS") are not clearly defined with their full names when first appearing. The full names need to be supplemented for readers' understanding.

Response: We respectfully disagree with this observation. The acronyms (e.g., “PFS”, “RFS”) appear exclusively in the caption of Figure 1, where their full forms are clearly provided upon first mention. Their use within the figure itself is essential for visual clarity, as the full names are too lengthy to include without causing confusion. These acronyms do not appear elsewhere in the manuscript.

 

3. In the 1. Introduction section, when mentioning the impact of the "1984 earthquake" on Zafferana Etnea, it is advisable to add basic parameters of the earthquake (such as magnitude) to enhance comparability.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. To improve contextual clarity and support comparability, we have included both the magnitude values and geographical coordinates of the 1894, 1907, and 1984 earthquakes that activated the same fault, as reflected in the revised Introduction section.

 

4. In the 2. Materials and Methods section, when referring to "15 personnel from other public administrations", a brief explanation of their professional backgrounds (such as geology, law, etc.) can be provided to demonstrate the rationality of the team.

Response: We have supplemented the description by specifying the professional backgrounds of the personnel involved in the expert team of the Extraordinary Commissioner.

 

5. When "AeDES form" first appears in the 3.1 section, it is advisable to add the Chinese translation corresponding to the English full name.

Response: done.

 

6. For the width descriptions (400m, 160m, 30m) of "three types of 'homogeneous micro-zones'" in the 3.2 section, it is recommended to indicate the data source (such as specific literature or regulations).

Response: Thank you for your observation. We have updated the bibliographic references at the end of the relevant sentence in Section 3.2 to include the appropriate sources supporting the width descriptions of the three types of homogeneous micro-zones.

 

7. In the description of Figure 3, "buildings (a), (b), (c), (d)" do not correspond to specific location characteristics in the figure. It is suggested to add brief location descriptions (e.g., "close to the fault trace", "far from the fault").

Response: To improve conceptual clarity, we have added the respective distances of buildings (a), (b), (c), and (d) from the fault plane in the description of Figure 3. This addition serves to illustrate their location characteristics more precisely.

 

8. There is a grammatical error in "58 buildings which comprising 122 housing units" in the 3.3 section, which should be corrected to "58 buildings comprising 122 housing units".

Response: Thank you for pointing out the grammatical error. We have corrected the sentence in Section 3.3 to read: “58 buildings comprising 122 housing units”.

 

9. In the description of Figure 5, "Figure 5e and 5g" do not describe the core characteristics in the figures (such as the specific damage to buildings caused by faulting). It is recommended to add a brief description.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation. We have refined the descriptions of photographs 5e and 5g to better highlight the core features depicted, including the specific structural damage to buildings caused by faulting. These additions aim to improve clarity and ensure the visual elements support the analysis more effectively.

 

10. In the "Indicative data from the 2018 event" column of Table 1 in the 4.3 section, for ">1,000 user interactions per year (2020–2022)", it is recommended to supplement detailed data for specific years (e.g., XXX times in 2020).

Response: The requested detail has been incorporated.

 

11. The abbreviation "ACF" appears multiple times in the text. It is suggested to add its Chinese translation when it first appears in the 2. Materials and Methods section.

Response: We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion. The full definition of the acronym “ACF” is already provided upon its first occurrence at line 109 in Chapter 2. To enhance clarity and accessibility, we have also ensured that each subsequent instance is accompanied by the full definition.

 

12. When comparing the "1968 Belice earthquake" and "1980 Irpinia earthquake" in the 4. Discussion section, a summary of core differences from the 2018 Etna earthquake (such as relocation scale, response speed) can be added.

Response: To streamline the comparative analysis of seismic events, we have consolidated key data for the 1968 Belice, 1980 Irpinia, and 2018 Etna earthquakes in the Discussion section. This synthesis emphasizes the core differences among them—particularly in terms of relocation scale, institutional response speed, and long-term recovery approaches—providing clearer insight into the evolving dynamics of post-earthquake intervention.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Author Response

We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. All comments and remarks highlighted by the reviewers have been appropriately incorporated into the latest version of the manuscript, along with the suggestions provided by the Academic Editor.

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity and quality of our work. A detailed point-by-point response to each comment is included below, outlining the changes made and our rationale where necessary.

We sincerely appreciate your time and consideration, and we remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper by Neri and Neri is the description of facts that followed a M4.9 damaging earthquake on the Mt. Etna southern flanks in 2018 driving to the restoration/relocation of some buildings in the surroundings of active and capable faults. I have difficulties in considering this manuscript a research article, especially in the topics addressed in the title, i.e. geoethics, and psycological consequences of a relocation strategy.  This manuscript is a bad copy of another paper done by the same authors and published in 2025 in the Journal of Geoethics and Social Sciences, quoted in the references. AI asked to check for formal plagiarism replied like that:

• If these manuscripts were submitted to different journals, the second one (Geosciences 2025) would likely be flagged for self-plagiarism or redundant publication.

• While self-citation and reuse of methods/data is acceptable, reusing entire blocks of narrative and argumentation without clear citation or differentiation is not.

I completely agree, to avoid duplications the authors have omitted details that clarify the work done for defining the ZS/ZR areas (that is mostly based on  predefined well known practices used by professionals), and added some details (e.g. Fig.2) of interest, perhaps, for administration offices only.  

If the authors are interested to stress more the geoethic aspects, a serious socio-economic evaluation of the actions adopted by the administrator has to be undertaken, with quantitative evaluation of the costs of alternative options (restoration of existing building vs relocation costs, for example); if they are interested more in the psycological consequences, the description of how the "consequences" are collected and analyzed is mandatory (survey/interviews/questionnaire? Q&A collected during the public meetings - how many, where, with how many people participating? - or by the website - the same, quantify and qualify them -).

In both the cases, I wonder if the journal chosen for the submission is the proper one. 

After these comments, apologise, but I do not consider the paper acceptable for publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article represents an intermediate contribution between a state-of-the-art overview and a scientific report. The authors have provided a clear and informative account of the activities carried out in response to the volcanic and seismic hazards affecting the eastern flank of Mount Etna, particularly following the 2018 Mw 4.9 earthquake. The documentation of post-earthquake recovery measures and the emphasis on community resilience are noteworthy, especially the innovative strategy of repurposing cleared areas and encouraging relocation from zones affected by active faults.

However, from a scientific perspective, the article appears underdeveloped beyond its initial descriptive part. While the introductory sections offer some context, the manuscript lacks in-depth scientific analysis or methodological rigour typically expected from a research paper. Notably, the keywords, such as "risk mitigation" and "post-earthquake relocation", suggest themes that are not sufficiently addressed or explored in the core of the article.

The work could benefit significantly from a deeper examination of the physical phenomena involved and their implications for existing structures and the affected population. Key aspects that are currently missing include:

• A quantitative or comparative assessment of the losses experienced during the 2018 event relative to past scenarios and the current risk.

• Discuss the main causes of building collapse, whether due to ground shaking, volcanic ash loads, pyroclastic flows, or combined effects of eruption and earthquake.

• Consideration of urban-scale analysis techniques, which could support a more robust understanding of the built environment's vulnerability.

• Recommendations for mitigation interventions, both structural and non-structural, that could inform future planning in similarly exposed territories.

In its current form, the article remains a valuable descriptive summary but falls short of providing the analytical depth or strategic insight that would allow it to serve as a reference for risk mitigation in disaster-prone urban settings. The authors should consider integrating multidisciplinary approaches and aligning the content more closely with the stated keywords and broader research questions to strengthen the paper. Doing so would enhance the relevance and applicability of their findings in a wider, international context.

Recommendation: Major revision required.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is coherent in both title and content, addressing a critically important topic related to geoethics in disaster management, particularly in the post-recovery phase. The focus on geoethical aspects reflects a growing awareness of the role of values ​​and responsibility in planning and reconstruction, which will directly impact raising the awareness of officials and residents about the risks of settling in threatened areas.

Suggested methodological note:

I recommend adopting a holistic approach that enhances the field dimension of research, through:

    Include the results of interviews or questionnaires conducted with affected populations or residents of risk areas.

    Analyzing this data through charts or graphs to measure the population's level of awareness of settlement risks and their understanding of how to deal with disasters.

    Assessing the degree of satisfaction with government interventions and measures taken during and after the disaster.

These data will give the study a deeper participatory and interpretive dimension, and contribute to the formulation of more effective recommendations based on the voice of the population itself.