| 02 Sep 2025
Organizing an Earthquake Learning Exhibition for transferring geoscience knowledge to the public: the example from Nepal
Abstract. Nepal is located in one of the most seismically active regions on the globe, where a major earthquake is long overdue, yet much of the existing building stock remains highly vulnerable to collapse during intense ground shaking. Public engagement in earthquake preparedness is a vital aspect of reducing casualties and limiting structural damage, with education playing a significant role in shaping both individual and collective protective behaviours. In honour of the 10th anniversary of the devastating, magnitude 7.9 2015 Gorkha earthquake, an Earthquake Learning Exhibition was organized in Pokhara, Nepal, to improve students' knowledge of earthquakes, risk perception, and preparedness. The event showcased fourteen interactive modules that explored earthquake science, causes, and safety measures, engaging nearly 2,000 participants at age 11 to 17. Pre and post-event surveys indicated notable advancements in scientific understanding, with 93 % of students identifying plate tectonics as the primary cause of earthquakes, and 95 % recognizing their vulnerability to events exceeding a magnitude of 8. Students exhibited increased awareness of structural vulnerabilities, local seismic risks, and the likelihood of experiencing a major earthquake in their lifetime. A significant 85 % of those surveyed rated the exhibition positively, with 98 % reporting enhanced preparedness, and many indicated plans to share knowledge within their communities, suggesting a ripple effect in disaster preparedness. The exhibition has proven to be an effective and replicable model for integrating interactive learning with community-based preparedness. Recommendations include long-term follow-up and the expansion of teacher training to ensure the sustainability and amplification of its impact.
This is an excellent manuscript, and I want to begin by congratulating you on the organisation of such an impactful event. The Pokhara Earthquake Learning Exhibition is a remarkable achievement — reaching nearly 2,000 students with 14 carefully designed, interactive modules is no small task. The manuscript communicates both the scientific content and the community value of this initiative very effectively. The scale of engagement, the thoughtful adaptation of global earthquake education methods to the Nepali context, and the integration of science, art, and practice are all commendable. I particularly appreciated the creative modules (e.g., the BOSS model, liquefaction demonstration, earthquake game) and how these were connected to local realities such as non-engineered buildings, sedimentary basins, and context-specific safety advice. This paper highlights a model that has the potential to inspire similar initiatives worldwide.
That said, there are a few areas where the paper could be strengthened. the study already makes a significant contribution, and clarifying some methodological and interpretative aspects will make it even stronger.
Key suggestions
The pre- and post-exhibition surveys were not matched at the individual level, yet the Results are sometimes written in a way that implies causality (e.g., “the exhibition improved awareness” or “students gained knowledge”). In reality, the analysis compares two partially overlapping groups, and differences may partly reflect sampling bias (e.g., more motivated students remaining for the post-survey) rather than direct learning effects. It may be helpful to soften causal language and add a clear note in the Methods and Discussion to acknowledge this limitation.
From ~2,000 attendees, 495 pre and 309 post responses were collected. It would strengthen the paper to discuss whether those who completed the post-survey may have been more motivated or engaged, and how this might affect interpretation.
In Module 3 the statement “predicting a magnitude 6 earthquake every 10 years” could be misread as a realistic claim. Please clarify that this is a hypothetical illustration only.
Line-by-line comments
L15: “on the globe” → “of the globe”
L19: “magnitude 7.9 2015 Gorkha earthquake” → “the 2015 Mw 7.9 Gorkha earthquake”
L27: Please use “pasta sticks” or “uncooked pasta strands” for clarity
L41: “further stressed” seems like a leftover phrase and interrupts the flow.
L91: The Introduction ends with details on survey numbers (500 pre, 309 post). These figures fit better in Methods. Keep a short mention that impact was assessed with pre/post surveys, but move the numbers.
L239: “preparedness concepts in an enjoyable and memorable way” — add “in an” before “enjoyable.”
L250–253: Clarify how the 50 schools were chosen — was it random, or based on proximity to Pokhara? Were private and public schools proportionally represented?
L267: “The first survey contained 15 questions, and the second 31” → Please explain why the second survey was longer, and whether this influenced completion rates.
Consistently use “post-exhibition survey” rather than “post survey.”
“Model 13” should be corrected to “Module 13.”