We sincerely thank the commenter for this very positive and thoughtful evaluation of our study. We greatly appreciate the recognition of the risk-oriented perspective and of the emphasis placed on human systems in shaping earthquake outcomes.

Our aim was to move beyond a purely hazard-based interpretation and to provide system-level evidence that disaster impacts emerge from the interaction between seismic activity and societal conditions. We are grateful for the acknowledgement of the multi-method framework, which was designed to integrate temporal trends, spatial patterns, and explanatory factors in a coherent way.

We believe that this type of integrative perspective is essential for advancing both scientific understanding and practical approaches to disaster risk reduction. Thank you again for engaging with our work and for contributing to this open and constructive scientific discussion.

We sincerely thank the commenter for the positive evaluation of our study and for the encouraging remarks regarding its potential contribution.

Regarding the question on the “strong strain belt”, in this study the term is used in a broad, global-scale sense to describe regions characterized by concentrated tectonic deformation and high seismic activity. It primarily corresponds to active plate boundaries, including both convergent margins (such as subduction zones and continental collision zones) and major transform fault systems. Passive margins, which are generally characterized by low tectonic strain and limited seismicity, are not included in what we refer to as strong strain belts in this analysis.

We appreciate this opportunity to clarify the terminology and will consider further improving the description in the manuscript to avoid potential ambiguity.

Thank you again for your interest in and support of our work.

We sincerely thank the anonymous referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the detailed and constructive comments. We appreciate the positive evaluation of the relevance of the topic and of the coupled human–Earth system perspective adopted in this study.

The issues raised regarding data completeness, temporal representativeness, and the influence of extreme events are highly relevant for global-scale analyses of earthquake impacts. We acknowledge that EM-DAT, while currently the most comprehensive global disaster database available, is affected by spatial and temporal heterogeneities in reporting, particularly in the earlier part of the study period. These aspects require careful consideration when interpreting long-term trends and deserve explicit discussion.

We also agree that some of the metrics considered may be sensitive to a small number of high-impact earthquake events. The potential influence of individual events on aggregated temporal patterns needs to be carefully considered in the interpretation of results and appropriately addressed in the analysis and discussion.

With respect to the geometric centroid analysis, we appreciate the comment on the use of equal weights. In this study, the centroid migration was intended to illustrate the spatial reorganization of reported earthquake impacts at the global scale. At the same time, we agree that alternative weighting schemes based on impact-related metrics can provide a useful complementary perspective, and this point will be more clearly discussed.

We further thank the referee for the specific suggestions regarding temporal binning, normalization of economic losses, figure readability, documentation of data sources, and the treatment of driving factors. These comments are very helpful and will be carefully considered to improve the clarity, robustness, and transparency of the manuscript.

Overall, we are grateful for these insightful remarks, which will help us strengthen both the analysis and the interpretation in the revision stage.

We sincerely thank the anonymous referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the detailed and constructive comments. We appreciate the positive evaluation of the relevance of the topic and of the coupled human–Earth system perspective adopted in this study.

The issues raised regarding data completeness, temporal representativeness, and the influence of extreme events are highly relevant for global-scale analyses of earthquake impacts. We acknowledge that EM-DAT, while currently the most comprehensive global disaster database available, is affected by spatial and temporal heterogeneities in reporting, particularly in the earlier part of the study period. These aspects require careful consideration when interpreting long-term trends and deserve explicit discussion.

We also agree that some of the metrics considered may be sensitive to a small number of high-impact earthquake events. The potential influence of individual events on aggregated temporal patterns needs to be carefully considered in the interpretation of results and appropriately addressed in the analysis and discussion.

With respect to the geometric centroid analysis, we appreciate the comment on the use of equal weights. In this study, the centroid migration was intended to illustrate the spatial reorganization of reported earthquake impacts at the global scale. At the same time, we agree that alternative weighting schemes based on impact-related metrics can provide a useful complementary perspective, and this point will be more clearly discussed.

We further thank the referee for the specific suggestions regarding temporal binning, normalization of economic losses, figure readability, documentation of data sources, and the treatment of driving factors. These comments are very helpful and will be carefully considered to improve the clarity, robustness, and transparency of the manuscript.

Overall, we are grateful for these insightful remarks, which will help us strengthen both the analysis and the interpretation in the revision stage.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and encouraging comments. We have considered all comments carefully and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are provided below.

Comment 1:

Line 184: please comment on any reasons for the increase of events (e.g. increase of monitoring networks with time and therefore higher availability of records), and whether the period 1980-2024 is statistically representative.

Response:

Thank you for raising this important point. We agree that the increase in recorded earthquake events may partly reflect improvements in global monitoring networks and reporting practices over time, rather than a purely physical increase in seismic activity. We will clarify this explicitly in the revised manuscript.

As for the choice of the 1980–2024 period, this interval was selected because EM-DAT records become more consistent and globally comparable from around 1980 onward. This choice is also consistent with previous studies that rely on post-1980 disaster data due to improvements in reporting standards and global data coverage (e.g., Peduzzi and Herold, 2005; Gall et al., 2011; Rosvold and Buhaug, 2021).

At the same time, we acknowledge that this time span may not fully capture the recurrence of large earthquakes in some tectonic regions. We will expand the discussion to better reflect this limitation and its potential influence on the interpretation of long-term trends.

Comment 2:

Figure 1: it would be interesting to comment whether some peaks in the graphs are related to specific events.

Response:

We agree with this suggestion. Several peaks in Figure 1 are indeed associated with major earthquakes, such as the 2004 Sumatra event, the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, and the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake. We will make this clearer in the revised manuscript, as these events strongly influence short-term fluctuations in the time series.

Comment 3:

Section 4.2.3 and Figure 5: please reconsider the use of the term disaster; event or earthquake seems a more neutral and appropriate term.

Response:

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that the terminology can be refined. In the revised manuscript, we will use more neutral expressions such as “earthquake events” or “earthquake impacts” where appropriate, and retain the term “disaster” only when referring specifically to societal consequences.

Comment 4:

Please comment on how the observations on tectonics (section 5.2.1), exposure and vulnerability (section 5.2.2), losses (section 5.2.3) are supported by the data and analysis presented in the previous sections of the paper.

Response:

This is a very helpful comment. In the revision, we will make the link between the discussion and the results more explicit. The interpretation of tectonic controls will be more directly connected to the spatial patterns and centroid migration results. The discussion of exposure and vulnerability will be more clearly tied to the Geographical Detector results, particularly the roles of population density, development level, and governance-related factors. In addition, the discussion of loss patterns will be more explicitly supported by the temporal trends and the national-scale heterogeneity shown in the earlier sections. These revisions will help ensure that the discussion is more clearly grounded in the results.

Comment 5:

Line 387: please explain better the interaction of earthquakes and landslides, based on the analysis presented in other sections of the paper.

Response:

Thank you for this comment. We will clarify this point in the revised manuscript. Earthquake shaking can destabilize slopes and trigger landslides, especially in areas with high precipitation, high soil moisture, and complex terrain.

In our analysis, this interaction is not modeled explicitly, but it is partly reflected through the inclusion of hydro-climatic variables such as precipitation and soil moisture in the Geographical Detector. These factors show a certain level of explanatory power, suggesting that environmental conditions play a role in shaping earthquake impacts, including potential cascading effects. We will clarify this connection in the revised version.

Comment 6:

Line 401: please comment on the feasibility of incorporating near–real-time seismic and socio-environmental data in dynamic models, and what benefit this would bring over medium- or long-term mitigation strategies, considering the low rate of change of seismic data and of the assets of the built environment.

Response:

Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. We agree that incorporating near–real-time seismic and socio-environmental data into dynamic models is feasible and represents an important direction for future research. Although seismic processes and the built environment generally change slowly, near–real-time data can still play a valuable role in improving rapid loss estimation, situational awareness, and emergency response.

We will revise this part to clarify that such approaches are not intended to replace medium- or long-term mitigation strategies, but rather to complement them by supporting short-term decision-making and response.

We thank the reviewer again for the constructive comments, which will help improve the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript.