This paper describes very important research results that clarify the current state of differences in awareness of tsunami risks among residents in coastal areas of central and southern Italy, as well as issues for future disaster prevention.　Coastal residents will benefit from the continuation and expansion of this research, as disaster prevention education has progressed as a result of the previous research.

Technical corrections request:

1. I cannot understand "capillary information"(Line 694, 789). If you intend "evacuation information", that makes sense.
2. UNESCO-IOC-ITIC have recommended such tsunami education technical words "evacuation" routes, not "escape" routes (Line 789). It is better for you to follow the tsunami technical words in this paper (see following URL: http://itic.ioc-unesco.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=1406&Itemid=2280). 

Future issues:

1. Several future issues pointed out, such as the impact of this paper on scientific sources is low, should be addressed.
2. Moreover, there was no description of this research on residents' tsunami evacuation behavior. Almost all Japanese know about tsunamis risk and evacuation places, but the big problem is that even in the 2011 Tohoku tsunami divested areas, many people do not evacuate even when tsunami warnings are issued. Knowing the risk of a tsunami and evacuating are two different issues in Japan. At first step it is necessary to education of tsunami risk in nationwide Italy.
3. This paper pointed put the word tsunami is less familiar to people over 65 years old. An additional survey is also needed to formulate a concrete plan as to who will assist the evacuation of elderlies in Italy, an aging society. Disaster vulnerable poeple like disability is also too.
4. Since Italy is a volcanic country, it is necessary to provide disaster education for the 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption and meteo-tsunami as a viewpoint too.

General comment:

The manuscript aims in adding new data to an earlier work based on a tsunami perception survey. This paper utilizes the result of a lot more responses, in order to understand the level of perception and Knowledge about the tsunami risk in the areas of central and southern Italy.

The technical approach and the methodology applied are based on approved interviewing procedures, which are validated through statistical tests. The overall presentation is well structured, clear and easy to understand by a wide and general audience, while the content is concise and the English language is of good quality, fluent, simple and easy to read and understand by a wide and diversified audience. The authors also give proper credit to previous and related work.

Specific comments:

• How far inland you assume a coastal belt? This could also give an idea of the population density. In the Rome case, the importance of this distance looks important.
• Have you considered interviewing people inland to know their perspective, but also since they could be, most probably, possible coastal visitors?
• A clear distinction of hazard and risk should be made. I think in lines 113-114 there is some confusion.
• How did you unsure and homogenize the results of three different surveys in time and the national survey as well, which I understood that is was a separate survey form CATI, only to the very end (lines 706-708), where it makes clear that the national survey is not included In the CATI sample. The use of the national sample is not clear enough (section 4.1.3).
• Socio-demographic criteria were also applied to all the surveys or only to the national survey. Please clarify somewhere in the text. I understood that age was applied, but I am not sure about education level for example.
• In the paper Q16 is extensively discussed. The reasons for the outcomes of this question were only speculated and assumed (for example: “The percentage of tsunami risk perception in Catania, is probably associated with the presence of easily recognized hazards” or “The high tsunami risk perception is likely related to the 1908 tsunami"). Were there any other questions included in the survey, which could help identifying the levels of risk perception that were reported based on Q16?
• “the tsunami hazard (Basili et al., 2021)" is mentioned for every region analyzed in section 4.1.2, but in a very brief (one sentence) way. A few more words would be very useful to link the risk to the hazard.

Technical corrections:

Please refer to the uploaded annotated pdf document for line by line comments.