Thank you very much for you valuable comment. We are sure it will help us improve the quality of the manuscript. We provide here point-by-point answers to the points raised in your comment.

- We agree that social capital is not a usual concept in geosciences. We will therefore add the following definition in the introduction: "features of social organizations, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993, p. 35).

- A new section will be included to shed light onto how these technologies are currently being used and how they can be implemented effectively. The section will build on a quick review of some recent papers. We do aknowledge that a proper systematic review may return more accurate results but we are concerned that its results may be so large to constitute an entirely separate paper. Time constaints also limit the possibility the carry out an entire systematic review.

- The manuscript does present an analysis and a content that mainly reflect a North Global perspective. Such a condition is the result of the manuscript being constrained in its geographic scope by the scope of the Horizon2020 BuildERS project. This was mentioned in lines 61-64 where we refer to "the most vulnerable segements of the European population". We will make sure to further stress the geographical constraints of the analysis in the discussion and review the sentence in line 37.

- A deeper analysis on the correlation between the country and the scores assigned to every technology could indeed be interesting, but our data may not allow for this. Most of the participants indicated more than one geographical area as their country of operation. Several indicated entire continents or other supranational areas, making the identification of a single country of operation problematic. The possibility of such an analysis will anyway be investigated and results included if relevant and substantial.

Thank you very much for yuor insightful comment. We are confident the quality of the manuscript will benefit from it. We are provide a point-by-point reply to the points raised in the comment.

- The selection of the technologies has been done in accordance with the scope of the Horizon2020 BuildERS project this manuscript contributes to. This is mentioned in lines 76 - 78: "Previous work in the BuildERS project indicates that mobile positioning data, social media crowdsourcing, drones, and satellite imaging have the greatest innovation potential for disaster risk management (Latvakoski et al., 2022). " with a reference to: 

Latvakoski, J., Öörni, R., Lusikka, T., & Keränen, J. (2022). Evaluation of emerging technological opportunities for improving risk awareness and resilience of vulnerable people in disasterss. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 80, 103173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103173

- We welcome the suggetion to read and cite Vermiglio, C., Noto, G., Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., & Zarone, V. (2022). Disaster management and emerging technologies: a performance-based perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research for a better understanding of the importance and the different role of DG in disaster situations. Such an understanding may also benefit from the quick review of recent papers we will perform as suggested by the second comment by Reviewer #2.

- We will work as follow to solve the lack of clear explanation regarding the concepts of "social capital", "risk" and "resilience" building also the suggestions you provided: We will add two paragraphs to the introduction to define social capital, risk, and resilience and will incorporate the following of your suggested references: Aldrich and Meyer (2015), Alexander (2013), and Manyena (2006). Dufty (2012) and Jurgens and Helsloot (2018). 

The first three paragraphs in the introduction may be rephrased as follows:

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR, 2015) calls for investments in digital technologies and tools to enhance societal resilience. Recent developments in digital technologies and tools offer emerging opportunities for managing disaster risk, i.e., the potential for loss or damages determined by the function of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (UNDRR, 2009). More specifically, digital technologies and tools hold significant potential in strengthening social capital, risk awareness, disaster preparedness, and, in the end, societal resilience (Latvakoski et al., 2022).

Resilience describes the ability of a system to cope with or adapt to shocks (Zhou et al., 2010). Many scientific fields adopt the concept of resilience (Alexander, 2013), including ecology (Holling, 1973), psychology (Garmezy et al., 1984), and disaster research (Manyena, 2006). Such work identifies a plethora of factors that enable or constrain resilience (Jordan & Javernick-Will, 2012). In disaster research, social capital has emerged as a critical determinant of resilience (Kerr, 2018). Social capital refers to “features of social organizations, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993, p. 35).

Greater levels of social capital within a community are linked to higher levels of disaster preparedness and risk awareness (Brunie, 2007; Hausman et al., 2007; Morsut et al., 2021). The nexus between social capital, risk awareness, and disaster preparedness can improve and facilitate collaboration; provide social safety nets; strengthen communication and information-sharing; speed up response and recovery efforts; and in the end improve resilience among the most vulnerable segments of the population (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015).

- The criteria are selected with the aim to fit the theoretical framework that constitutes the backbone of the Horizon2020 BuildERS project. We will make sure to provide an appropriate reference to the project's outputs that describe the development of such a framework.

- The conclusions of the manuscript are meant to benefit the academic community and practitioners. For the former, we hope that the warnings we raised on the implications of the choice of the model to aggregate survey’s replies may raise awareness among researchers working with similar methods; for the latter, we hope the conclusions of the analysis will inform practitioners on the suitability of adopting one or more of the tools to achieve their goals of increasing awareness and social resilience and disaster-responsiveness. This will be further clarified in the conclusions.