The article discusses the outcomes of developing GIS-platforms for seismic risk assessment in Uzbekistan. The significance of this publication is unquestionable. Nevertheless, in the reviewer's view, the authors have not effectively organized the information pertaining to the initial data used for risk assessments, nor have they adequately described the process for determining the final risk values. The text of the article is poorly structured, containing many introductory sentences, while there are no descriptions of specific stages of development of new maps. The article does not reveal the novelty of taking into account the ground conditions indicated in the title. The described changes in ground conditions accounting (135) are not used further and are not described. Furthermore, there are numerous inaccuracies within the article's text, tables and figures provided do not adhere to the standards expected in scientific publications.

As submitted, the article cannot be published. I recommend that the authors resubmit it after significant revision.

Here are some comments, though they not encompass all the deficiencies in the submitted text.

- Table 1 is redundant. The text suggests that it includes events with magnitudes greater than or equal to 7, which does not align with the table's actual content. Additionally, there is no information regarding the type of magnitude used, and inconsistencies exist in the spelling of the same names. The date of the event 1924 is not provided.

• The title of the second section should be changed to “Data and methods”
• 101-102 - missing references;
• 102 – The principle of division of the territory into 12 districts is not described. There is also no description of the division into sub-regions and sections;
• Figure 1 should be modified. Only the demonstration areas and the legend should be shown. All information about the map should be given in the figure caption;
• Figure 2 - see comments on Figure 1;
• Figure 3 is not referenced in the text, and the panels within the figure remain undescribed. The panels essentially replicate maps found in other figures.
• Figure 4 - see comments on Figure 1. Figure 4 may be shown in conjunction with Figure 2. In this case it will be convenient for the reader to compare them
• The color code of intensity in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 must be the same.
• Сhanges in the definition of intensity should be described in more detail. For example, by presenting a table of area for one and the other seismic hazard maps.
• GESI_Program - missing references
• 215 “Damage characteristics of buildings” - table it;
• 240 - The vulnerability functions used should be cited. If they are presented in Fig. 5, this should be indicated.

The article does not specify (except for Fig. 5) the ratio of peak acceleration and macroseismic intensity used. A correspondence table or conversion formula (with references) is needed

• 252 “GESI_Program and experimental data of Sh. Khakimov” - missing references
• Figure 7 - see comments on Figure 1
• 305, Figure 9 - PGA need to be in m/s2 as on Figure 5. The grading of the PGA in Fig. 8 is not clear. It would seem that it should coincide with the one in Fig. 5 and, accordingly, with the intervals corresponding to the seismic intensity values.; EMS-98 - missing references

-     Figure 10 -  - see comments on Figure 1, Figure 9;

            Figure 11 Since administrative divisions are difficult to present to the general reader, the information in Figure 11 should either be presented in the form of a map or population numbers should be given instead of/along with the names of administrative divisions. see comments on Figure 9

-           335-340 - Technical information is redundant. If the database is open, a link to it should be provided. If it is closed for public access, this should also be indicated;

-           Figures 12 and 13 should be redrawn. as well as described in the text;

-            360-390 The section provides a map of seismic risk. It is not clear what the authors meant by "Probable seismic damage" in the title of the paragraph. Since the title of the article contains new seismic hazard estimates, seismic risk estimates based on the previous seismic hazard map should be given for comparison.

Dear Editors,

Dear Authors,

The topics related to seismic risk assessments, specially those performed on national levels, are very much important, not only because of their significance on national but also on global scale as contribution to globally accepted targets towards building the resilient world/societies. Because of this reason, despite the low scientific significance and low scientific and presentation quality presented in this paper, I suggest to the Editor to reconsider this paper but only after major revisions. 

Bellow are some comments:

General comment: English is very week and must be improved. Specially in terminological sense (maps of seismic intensity increment – seismic intensity maps; seismic characteristics of soils – soil properties in relation to seismic response, life support systems – lifeline systems… etc…)

Other comments:

Line 25-26. As of January 1, 2022, the permanent population of Uzbekistan reached 35,271,276 people. Currently, approximately half of all Uzbekistan citizens (17.9 million people) live in urban areas and 17.4 million people live in rural areas (Please add reference).

Line 27. … earthquakes with a magnitude of M ≥ 7 (Please indicate the type of magnitude)

Line 27. … earthquakes with a magnitude of M ≥ 7 (Please indicate the type of magnitude)

Line 28. … have been recorded (Table 1) (Are all of those earthquakes stated in Table 1 are really instrumentally recorded? Even the historical ones? Please clarify.)

Line 29-35. The geological structure of Uzbekistan is very diverse, but the territory basically consists of two tectonic structures of the Tien Shan orogenic region and Turan plate. The current state of relief in the territory of Uzbekistan was preceded by long difficult stages. In the territory of Uzbekistan, tectonic movements are actively continuing nearly everywhere. In the geological history of Uzbekistan, roughout all stages of development, in particular, in the formation of the modern structural plan, faults, especially zones of deep faults, played an important role. These faults transect the entire Earth's crust, often penetrate into the mantle and are the natural boundaries of large structural elements. (Please add reference/s in relation to statements about contemporary geology and tectonic of territory of Uzbekistan).

Line 32. The current state of relief in the territory of Uzbekistan was preceded by long difficult stages. (What does that mean? Please revise the sentence and explain better).

Line 35. These faults influence disaster preparedness and risk reduction activities. (Please rewrite as faults cannot influence any activities. Maybe seismic conditions is better term…).

Line 35-39. One of the challenges in assessing seismic risk is considering the determination of soil conditions in the modification of seismic effects on the Earth's surface. Therefore, one of the tasks of this study is to investigate the geological environment and the patterns of seismic wave propagation through it. This is because this effect is directly dependent on the structure and depth of the geological and lithological differences of the rock formations comprising it. (Please revise, improve English)

Line 40. Table 1.

• Date format to be extracted year, day, month in separate columns
• Name? What that means? Name of the closest site to the epicenter or maybe region? Please explain and include the explanation in the text.
• For M please indicate type of magnitude (ML, Mw… or other)
• In the Lines 27-29 the sentence : At the territory of Uzbekistan and adjacent regions, both during the historical period and recent years, earthquakes with a magnitude of M ≥ 7 and an intensity at the epicentre I0 reaching 9–10 according to the MSK-64 scale have been recorded (Table 1). It is confusing since the data constitute Table 1 are with also smaller magnitudes than 7 even 5… Please explain. I guess this is not even the full earthquake catalog of Uzbekistan but some extract…

Line 44-61. Repetitions of sentences noted. Mistakes in some references (ex. Trendafiloski and Milutin (2004)… should be Milutinovic…). Missing new and state of the art refences and worldwide initiatives in the domain of seismic risk (ex. GEM initiative or similar). In this part it is necessary to include references focused on the Central Asia Region and on national level with proper comments from the authors.

Line 66. Is the risk assessment comprising only residential building portfolio? Please clarify and explain.

Line 70-73 The developed seismic risk analysis algorithm used the capabilities of GIS, combining data on the spatial distribution of seismic hazards, vulnerability of buildings, geographical location of residential buildings, and values, i.e., cadastral value of buildings at risk of damage and loss , in a layer-by-layer manner. (Need revision and better explanation)

Line 73. GESI_Program (https://iisee.kenken.go.jp/net/saito/gesi_program/index.html). What was the idea of using this „quite old“ nearly 25 years old tool despite existence of other state-of-the-art tools and softwares for seismic risk calculations (ex. Open Quake, HAZUS, Selena, CAPRA, ELER, and others…)? Please explain.

Line 87-93. Please include the web site links to the mentioned institutions in the footnote.

Line 101-101. Please refer the mentioned works of G.A. Mavlyanov, A.I. Islamov, P.M. Karpov, S.M. Kasymov, R.F. Kirsanova, A.M. Khudaibergenov, M.Sh. Shermatov, K.P. Pulatov in correct manner and include them in reference list.

Line 105 Figure 1. Please add reference related to this figure/map

Line 107-120. Please support with the references.

Line 132. Please explain term “average soil” and relate it so soil category.

Chapter 2.2. Is very confusing. Must be rewritten as a whole, better explained and accordingly referenced.

Line 173 - 175. Vulnerability functions for the identified structural building types within the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan were developed using the "GESI_Program", which is a computer program based on the assessment of structural damage under 175 specified seismic events (see Fig. 5). (Please explain how they are developed?)

Line 182. The vulnerability index for the city of Tashkent in the experiment did not exceed 10% of the total (Probably this is result of RADIUS project. Please add reference for this statement)

Line 191-193. As of February 1, 2021, at the republican level, 7,135,881 residential buildings were analyzed and systematized with a total area of 4.4 billion square meters. These buildings were categorized by their structural types and aggregated by administrative regions (By whom? By this research or?)

Line 195, Table 2. It is stated that the buildings are classified according to structural types, which is not true but according to material of structural system (Please explain and clarify).

Chapter 3.1. Title should be revised and reflect the content.

Line 286. … individual houses (80.1%) and multi-story residential buildings (19.9%). What means individual houses…  only ground floor or? Accordingly, that means multy-story (G+1 up to … ) Please clarify.

Chapter 3. Data and statistics presented is better also to be shown in spatial (GIS) manner.

Chapter 3.2. The whole section needs to be seriously rewritten and better explained.

Chapter 3.3. Title… Probable… ? You mean probabilistic? Probabilistic seismic damage and risk assessment?

Chapter 3.3. The content should also be seriously rewritten . It is a summary of previous sections. Why only one return period is considered in the study (475 y)?

In summary: Poor referencing; Old methodology and software used; No justification on selected approaches; No any open data sets presented; No relation to the contemporary science and ongoing efforts in this field.