The authors have experienced a very interesting DRRE in seven Chinese schools and one Japanese. The use of Web GIS technology to interrogate Hazard maps resulted in a good learning of web hazard maps. The students first answered a pretest, then they were introduced to DRR concepts using the explanatory web pages and the web hazard maps, throughout different procedures. Importantly, each student had one electronic device to use the learning materials. After that they answered a posttest and to a questionnaire. Cumulatively they obtained 526 valid test results and questionnaires which were statistically analyzed.

To improve the quality of the manuscript the authors should better explain how and why systematic educational work by using WebGIS technology with students could improve hazard understanding. Does it depend on the novelty of using digital geographic maps more interesting than school books? Starting from their DRRE experience the authors can discuss if and how it can also use to increase risk awareness and risk prevention among young people and teachers and as second hands information among parents.

Here are some comments I would like to share:

 - 10 tables are really a lot, the authors should aggregate the outputs of the analyzes differently,

 - boxplot figure captions should contain information about reported outlier values,

The description of the results should be better highlighted:

   - the type of test that the authors have performed to define statistically significant scores,

   - the role of gender and whether it affects student learning, especially in the post-test,

  - the role of school proximity (inside or outside) in relation to hazard maps.

Finally, more details should be provided explaining the differences, if any, between the two countries.

The issue addressed by the manuscript is interesting, relevant and has the potential to contribute to the improvement of DRRE. However, the manuscript needs a deep review to clarify some points, fill some gaps and follow a better scientific rigor.

I present some key points (general and specific) that should be considered.

- Lines 46-47: I do not agree that DRR must be prioritized in education, but instead DRR must be really and seriously integrated in education.

- Line 51: Petal 2008

- Lines 57-63: Some comments should be made regarding the limitation of usage of digital technologies by poorer populations, at least in poor countries.

- Lines 81: Recent scientific works have proposed to abolish the term "natural disaster", as disasters are understood to be result of social construction. I suggest using only disaster or disaster related to natural hazards.

- Section 1. Introduction: The manuscript is about DRRE. Then, the authors should present a short review, based on the literature, about the content/materials and methods adopted in projects of DRRE carried out in schools in different countries. It is important to contextualize the methods/materials and after that to talk about the use of maps.

- Page 6: fig. 2 must be shown after being cited.

- Section 3. Implementations:

Which kind of disaster exists in the regions of the schools? They must be mentioned.

Which kind of material and quizzes were used in the teaching process?

The pretest, the posttest, and, also, the questionnaire, which are the main studied objects in the work, need to be presented.

- Lines 178-179: The contents must be explained.

- Line 183: The problems and questions solved by the students must be described.

- Lines 199-204: The experiment assessment should be based not only on the tests but also on observations of the student´s behavior and interactions. The lasting effects on the learning process must be evaluated.

- Lines 204-205: This statement is very qualitative and deficient. More data is lacking.

- Lines 224-226: Explain the purpose of the use of computers and smartphones. General purposes or DRR learning? The section is about "DRR learning".

- Fig. 4: The figure legend is lacking.

- About Fig. 5: Some comment on the difference of information they have from the different sources is needed.

- About Fig. 6: What does "pay great attention to DRR-related information in their daily lives" mean? This kind of response is very subjective and qualitative. I believe the correlation is almost obvious because people who pay little attention to DRR are not interested in DRR materials, regardless they are electronic or not.

- Table 2: not necessary

- Some figures and tables should be grouped.

-  The meaning of the statistics parameters must be shown and explained.

- Lines 362-364: Mention where and when this research was carried out.

- Lines 364-366: The effect of covid-19 could be the cause of this difference?

- Line 366: You say that "school education still plays a certain role". I believe this role is high (67%), compared to computer/smartphone (87%).

- Lines 368-369: There is a long and complex distance between scientific knowledge and awareness. You must be more specific about how media can aid to reduce this gap. And, also, mention the limitations of this aid.

- Lines 410-425: The work should address if there are inequalities related to the quality of internet connections and the technological devices among the groups of students.

- Section 6. Conclusions: Based on the research findings, the authors should present an objective proposal for the integration of these technologies and content in education to improve the DRRE. The limitations of the research must be added.

General:

- The format of some references cited in the middle of the text is wrong. Revise them.

- There are a few grammar and typing mistakes and awkward sentences. Please, the writing must be carefully revised.

-