A Component-Based Approach to Early Warning Systems: A Theoretical Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a comprehensive overview of early warning systems (EWS) for natural hazards, demonstrating extensive knowledge on the subject. However, while it is presented as a research article, its content aligns more closely with a review paper. This is particularly evident in the discussion section, where it is stated that the primary contribution of the article is the consolidation of information on EWS and their functionality. Based on this, I recommend restructuring the paper to follow the typical format of a state-of-the-art review.

The title could be more specific by explicitly referencing natural hazards, as this is the focal point of the study. Additionally, I suggest incorporating more keywords to enhance the paper’s discoverability, given that it may function as a literature review.

Regarding terminology, please use the acronym "EWS" consistently instead of repeating the extended form throughout the text. The same is valid for "MHEWS". 
Please note that on line 127, it is written "MHEWS je definovaný ako" - translate it to English. 

There are several typographical errors in the manuscript that should be corrected. Furthermore, please ensure consistency in the referencing style; for example, [37] and [38] should be formatted as [37,38].

Table 2 is well-structured, but the meaning of the "X" marks is not explicitly defined. If "X" indicates unavailability, this should be clarified in a legend, or the symbol should be adjusted for better understanding.

Finally, a concluding section should be included, as it is an essential component of a well-structured paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and great feedback that helped to improve this article. We have made major revisions to the article. As the paper itself includes more results, such as component selection, a flow-chart, and addresses several topics related to EWS, after careful consideration, we have decided to retain its format as an article, rather than a review.

After careful consideration, we believe the current title accurately reflects the scope of the paper. However, based on your suggestion, we have added the following keywords to better reflect the content: Causes of Natural Hazards; Manifestations of Hazards; Data Collection.

Thank you for identifying the inconsistency in our use of the abbreviation EWS. We have corrected this and now use EWS consistently throughout the manuscript, except in direct quotations or titles.

We have corrected several typos and also revised the referencing style to ensure consistency.

We have replaced "X" with "Not applicable" in the table, as you suggested.

A Conclusion section has been added to the article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on important and pertinent topics if one has a look at disasters that occur today. Thus, since the Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004, there has been a surge of interest in developing early warning systems, which is recommended by the Sendai Framework.

In the present piece of work, we learn about the author’s investigations that proposed an approach to an early warning system based on satellite monitoring only in European countries. Nothing about Asia, Africa, or Latin America. In the literature review, the authors’ only focused on disasters that happened in Europe. So I think the title of the paper should clearly express it. But it is not the case.

The authors make a broad review of the texts and published documents on the topics. They succeeded in giving the factors influencing the occurence and effects of the natural hazards, and they emphasize the satellite monitoring contribution. Satellite monitoring is already taken into account. They proposed a flow chart model.

Problems raised up.

1. What I should like to see is to compare such a model with others proposed within the world in many countries and regions, i.e. Asia, Latin America (Carribean), etc.

2. The second thing is that I was expecting to see an application in Slovakia territory because EWS is a practical and not only a theoretical field. So the authors should have tested the model in Slovakia instead of only making a proposal.

3. In the model provided, I have not seen any entity related to stakeholder consultation because the early warning system is centered on people for rescue and saving lives.

 Some mistakes.

Line 10 : Summarize instead of summerize

Line 127 : je definovaný ako ( in Slovak?

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback, which helped to improve the quality of this article. Major revision has been done. We have incorporated your suggestions by adding reflections on EWS implementation in diverse contexts, including examples from countries outside of Europe. Additionally, to ensure a broad perspective, we have included sources from a variety of authors and regions. While we acknowledge the focus on European legislation, the framework for the components is derived from the globally applicable Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction or UN agencies.  To address your point about practical applications, we have included a discussion of some systems in other countries, that could be an example of effective low cost systems. In future research, we plan to focus on a case study in the Slovak Republic to demonstrate the practical implementation of this framework.

Theoretical knowledge is the base for practical applications. In future research, we plan to focus on practical applications and creating a case study that will be verified in the Slovak Republic. In this paper, we take a general approach, meaning fostering theoretical knowledge and needs and best practices that can lead to practical applications.

The model included in the article is general, and stakeholder consultation is integrated into the human data analysis component, where communication and evaluation of the current state are essential. This broader perspective aims to reflect the diverse needs encountered in different contexts.

Thank you for identifying the errors and mistakes. We have corrected these mistakes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research concerns the analysis of the scientific landscape on early warning systems. The topic is certainly current and deserves a scientific reflection. However, the manuscript requires significant revisions. Firstly, I find the work rather difficult to read and follow in its logical thread. It presents a lot of information that are not well organized and made easily understandable by the reader. Therefore, I suggest to include graphs, tables and diagrams that summarize and clarify the concepts presented. Furthermore, the methodology is discussed in a completely insufficient way. Finally, it is necessary to include a "Conclusions" section where to summarize the main results, the suggestions for stakeholders and policymakers and the limitations of the study conducted.

My detailed hints are included in the attached file.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor improvements

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you so much for your insightful comments and valuable feedback. We truly appreciate you taking the time to provide such constructive suggestions. Based on your input, we have made significant revisions to enhance the quality of the article. Based on your input, we have made major revisions to the article, including adding more figures, conclusion, adjusted methods and improving general text. We have also  added more sources to strengthen the justification of the text.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents an Emergency Warning System description considering different possibilities for sensors and natural disasters. The idea seems good but there is a long introduction with many references and different things to finish with a quite basic flow chart that seems to be the original contribution. 

The paper may have some potential but I would suggest the authors to put the attention on the real contribution avoiding the long descriptions of all the natural hazards and the sensors used to detect them.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback. Based on your comments, we have undertaken a major revision of the article. These revisions include improving the methodology by clarifying certain aspects and providing more detail, adding several new figures to enhance visualization and understanding, and revising the text and discussion to improve clarity and strengthen the arguments. Additionally, a Conclusion section has been added to summarize the key findings and contributions of the research. We believe that these revisions have significantly enhanced the quality of the paper and addressed your concerns effectively.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate your efforts in revising the paper based on my suggestions.

Figure 1 appears blurred; please provide a higher-quality version. I also recommend removing the title, as the caption already provides context. Additionally, there is a typo in the current title, and the surrounding frame could be omitted for clarity.

Regarding the newly added keywords, I am not convinced that they will significantly improve discoverability in major literature databases, as the term "hazard" is already repeated multiple times. If your goal is to reach a broader audience, I suggest reconsidering the selection of keywords.

Could you clarify why Scopus and Web of Science were chosen as databases instead of others?

In line 493, where you cite the SDGs, please include a reference.

Table 2 remains somewhat difficult to interpret. Adding intermediate lines to separate the different hazards may enhance clarity.

In Section 4.1, it may be relevant to refer to the IPCC’s definition of risk for further accuracy.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

 

The quality of the figure has been improved, and all suggested changes have been implemented.

We have reconsidered the selection of keywords.

The chosen databases are recognized for their high academic credibility, broad disciplinary coverage, and inclusion of peer-reviewed literature. Additionally, most academic institutions provide access to these databases for students and researchers.

A reference to the SDGs has been added.

The table design has been modified.

The IPCC’s definition has been included.

 

Kind Regards

 

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I personally think that the authors make efforts to improve their manuscript by providing few examples in the Asian region (Himalaya & Pakistan).

I also saw the improvement in the conclusion and the references added.

I read carefully their response and explanation on why the practical EWS in Slovakia have not been taken into account

Based on this fact and logically, it would be of great benefit to slightly modify the title  in order to make it suitable and fit the content: So I propose the following: A Component-Based Approach to Early Warning Systems: A Theoretical Model. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you for your feedback. We have agreed to change the title of the article to your proposed version.

 

Kind Regards

 

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors performed the required revisions. In my opinion, the manuscript is ready to be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor improvements

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you for your approval. We appreciate your positive evaluation.

 

Kind Regards

 

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the revised version of the paper I find better than the previous version. There are some minor issues that should be considered. For example the sentence "Definition is a result of studied materials in the article and the expertise of the authors over the years of academic research in disaster management." is not properly written.

Figure 1 is a good improvement as the several paragraphs added along the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

thank you for your feedback. We have rephrased the sentence as suggested and made additional minor revisions.

 

Kind Regards

 

Authors