CO Editor

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Editor, Dear authors,

The authors of the paper made a great effort in answering all the reviewers comments in a clear way. I also appreciated the consideration of including the earthquake vulnerability, in addition to the tsunami vulnerability, which makes their methodology more appropriate for an effective planning of tsunami evacuation in Indonesia.
For these reasons, I encourage the publication of this paper in NHESS journal.
Here are some suggestions of few technical corrections:

P2, l37-38:
Please consider the following re-writing of your sentence:
“The 2004 Aceh-Andaman tsunami did not significantly affect this region since the earthquake source was >1,200 km far away (Natawidjaja et al., 2006; Meltzner et al., 2006; Briggs et al., 2006).”

P2, l48-49-50:
Please consider the following re-writing of your sentence:
“On the other hand, the probabilistic approach requires the proper consideration of regional earthquake characteristics, including uncertainties in the earthquake rupture size, its focal mechanism, depth and spatial heterogeneity of earthquake slip”
P2, l51-52:
Please add references at the end of this sentence
“In the previous investigations, those regional earthquake characteristics have not been taken into account properly.”
P4, l125-126:
Please consider the following re-writing of your sentence:
“…..geodetic, and paleo-tsunami studies (Zachariasen et al., 1999; Natawidjaja et al., 2006; Sieh et al., 2008) indicating that the accumulated co-seismic slip….”
P11, l331:
Please consider the following re-writing of your sentence:
“In current literature, most of tsunami fragility models …..”

Best Regards.

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion