The article Factors contributing to disaster evacuation: The case of South Korea (article ID 368791) presents the results regarding population behaviour evacuation during natural disasters in South Korea. The study is based on telephone surveys, t-tests and logit regression models.

At this stage, I would recommend a major revision; the manuscript tackles an issue that is highly important in the case of countries/areas located in areas where natural disasters become more and more often. The article is well written, so is the English of the manuscript. However, I have some concerns that are addressed below:

Introduction section This section is rather short; I think it would be better if you move the entire Section 2 (literature review) in the Introduction section. Then include the paragraph from 44-53 towards the end of the Introduction section. Usually, the aims of the study are mentioned at the end of the Introduction section. L33: emergencies? Please correct Section 3.1. The study area should be Section 2. A section named Study area is not part of the Methodology section. L108: how come the author(s) do not refer also to landslides? As far as I know, landslide susceptibility studies are very common in South Korea; why this natural disaster is not approached in this study? Figure 1: must be improved. Please include a grid for the map with geographic coordinates. What does the square from the upper right part in the map mean? Section 3.3. Are the respondents also from urban and rural areas? Maybe in this way, you could explain why you did not approach landslides in this study. L149: replace “uncover” with “show” or “highlight” L201: should be “is in accordance with Cutter….” L204: what kind of behaviour is this fact indicating? You should continue here with some explanations. Are old people less important than children? L223: maybe replace “letting” with “encouraging” Please, adhere to the journal reference style!! Journal name and issue number is in italic, while the year of publication is in bold

Good luck with the revision!

The revised version of the article Factors contributing to disaster evacuation: The case of South Korea (article ID 368791) has been received for the second round of peer review. I am curious why there has been added another author to the paper; you have to have a really plausible reason, otherwise, this is not possible (as far as I know). You should ask the academic editor of your paper. Minor revisions are needed and some of my comments are addressed below:

L36: should be “as it can be seen…” L115: should be “is located on…” L122: 509 pop – pop comes from?? Should be inhabitants/km2 L122: Korean Statistical Information Service, 2015: this should be included in the references; in text you should refer to this reference in [ ] L123: same goes with the US Census Bureau World Population Clock, 2018. L126-130: here you should include a reference. From where did you came up with those numbers? L131, 132: after each natural disaster, you should add the corresponding reference; for example, landslides: Althuwaynee et al. (2016) A novel integrated model for assessing landslide susceptibility mapping using CHAID and AHP pair-wise comparison. International Journal of Remote Sensing 37(5): 1190-1209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2016.1148282. Do the same for each natural disaster you have listed: typhoons, heavy snow, flooding. L180: delete “below” L412: correct is “Does your family…”

Good luck with the revision!