The manuscript presents a communication strategy to support the public release of the European seismic hazard and risk models to the scientific community and societal stakeholders. The authors emphasize the strength collaboration between model developers and communication experts to guarantees an effective transmission of contents. They illustrate the concepts of the adopted strategy, the used method and its target, and the extensive validation process.

This topic is relevant to NHESS, the manuscript is well written and organised. The paper can be considered for publication with minor revision after addressing the comments included below.

Specific comments

• Scope and other applications. The authors clearly identify the possibility of their proposal could support the development of future products on the same topics, however one general comment is the missing discussion about the comparison of these design criteria to other hazard and risk maps adopted out of Europe.
• The results. The use of tables and figures appears to be well balanced. Although the article is intended to illustrate the communication strategy, it could benefit from presenting some details of the final product. For example, some points in Table 3, which describes the “Practical implications for designing comprehensive, useful and well-perceived risk maps and posters”, deserve further investigation. In particular, the points regarding "the difference between the risk index of the risk map and the components of the overall risk model" and "the house next door" should be explored in greater detail. How did you solve the problem of communicating such complex points? (Images in Table S8 do not provide a clear answer due to resolution. Consider the possibility to insert a more detailed figure)
  
  The final choice of color scales "based on the correct interpretation and perception of the risk of the map" also deserves clarification.

Technical comments

• Line 95 and 97: please, consider the possibility to substitute the verbs “elaborated” with “illustrated” or “shown”.
• Line 147: The sentence is not clear, please specify whether “well educated and trained people” stand for “non-technical audiences”
• Figure 5: specify the parameter plotted in the seismic hazard map (Fig. 5b), in legend too
• Table 1, pag 11, fourth central box: “The video last about 5 minutes” (not 3)
• Figure 7: on the map, the Pavia locality must be replaced with the more well-known reference locality Milan
• Line 250: Add “in Supplement” when Fig. S1 is cited
• Line 260-261: the information is given also in line 274, please choose one
• Line 267: In general Table 2 is too hermetic. Please consider if the manuscript could benefit from less detailed tables, referring to a more extensive and in-depth version in the Supplement. In particular:
  
  Table 2, pag 15: some symbols need to be clarified.
  
       Line 8, 9 and 17: what is the meaning of symbol “>”?
  
       Symbol “/” can be changed with “and” (4 times)
  
       Please, specify that “NUTS19” is administrative unit
  
  Line 273: please, specify the “participants’ characteristics” (shown in line 284)
• Line 304: Table 3 is too specific. It is suggested to present a more concise table in the paper, after having extrapolated some important concepts to be explored in greater depth (see above).

The paper presents the communication strategy, for supporting the public release of the European seismic hazard and risk models, which was co-defined and implemented by the communication experts and the model developers. The models are shortly introduced and the framework of the adapted strategy consisting of the preparation phase, the public release and the re-work processes are illustrated. For each component, the methods used, the inputs and outputs are explained in detail. The authors suggest that the chosen approach and the developed strategy could be applicable in any domain in order to make complex scientific findings accessible to different target audiences. This point deserves some more discussion where comparisons with the available similar work in Europe and around the world are first provided and then in what regards the presented strategy might contribute to/improve them are illustrated.

The MS is well written and well organized, the use of figures and tables and their contents are adequate. It can be considered for publication in NHESS after minor revisions.

Specific comments:

Lines 41-44: The authors start by posing a question and say that ‘the long answer is this paper’. Does it imply that there is no other answer/example available?

Figure 5: (a) It would be useful to provide the definition of the mapped risk metric. (b) Please specify the ground motion parameter with its unit and explain what the map presents (i.e. the hazard level).

Table 1: In description section, specific URLs might be provided for the following products: EFEHR website, Detailed (technical) report, Fact sheets, Interactive map viewers for professionals and for the general public.

Figure 7: It would be more consistent to have all the city names in English and to illustrate only capital cities.