## 4 Discussion
It is worth noting that, as depicted in Figure 5e, the earthquake epicenters located on both sides of Vistonida Lake provide evidence supporting the presence of secondary faults in these areas. Furthermore, the liquefaction susceptibility map presented in Figure 5d indicates that a significant part of the examined area located south of the main seismic fault zone (i.e., on flat terrain) is prone to earthquake-related geohazards of soil liquefaction. This is mainly attributed to the presence of a large number of rivers and streams, which are related to the transportation and deposition of loose and potentially liquefiable sediments. The current study focused on two zones of potentially liquefiable areas, as shown in Figure 6b, namely, potentially liquefiable areas 1 and 2. The former covers a wider area of the northern part of Vistonida Lake, while the latter includes a wider area of the southern part of Vistonida Lake, as well as a significant part of the regions near the coastline of the examined area. At this point, it is important to mention that the reliability of the geodata sources, in conjunction with the complex nature of the examined problem (i.e., the large extent of the area under consideration, as well as the uncertainties related to earthquake-related geohazards), make their validation process challenging. Accordingly, there are some limitations regarding the employed geodata. For instance, seismic faults are represented within the GIS environment in a simplified manner as linear entities with starting and ending points and specific dimensions. An accurate mapping of critical factors, such as slip potential, path propagation, and secondary faults, constitutes a complex and demanding task. In parallel, the potential of soil liquefaction phenomena requires a comprehensive investigation of the mechanical and physical properties of the underlying soil layers. Hence, there is no doubt that apart from the vast amount of geodata required for such applications, conducting geophysical surveys and in-situ tests constitutes an essential factor in order to ensure the reliable and accurate assessment of all regional earthquake-related geohazards, which in turn leads to more precise hazard maps. The first CI routing analysis has been focused solely on \"geotechnical\" criteria (scenarios 1 to 4), including the standard geohazards of primary seismic faulting, soil liquefaction, and slope instability, as well as the more complex geohazard of secondary seismic faulting. Slope instability constitutes a destructive earthquake-related geohazard. Undoubtedly, the probability of slope failure is directly associated with the mechanical and physical properties of the slope. Slope mechanical properties refer to the material properties, while physical properties involve the geometry of the slope (i.e., height and inclination). It is noted that a high slope inclination does not always indicate an increased risk of slope failure. For instance, a steep rock slope can be considered safe; however, rockfalls can occur in cases where the rock is not intact, which constitutes a major threat to the structural integrity of the crossing or nearby CI. The current study focused on the geometrical characteristics of the slope, with a particular emphasis on slope inclination. Avoiding steep slopes is essential to prevent crossing via potential landslide zones, which may have an unfavorable impact on the structural integrity of CI [72; 73]. Additionally, crossing slopes with high inclinations can significantly increase the cost of the CI, either by increasing its length or by requiring expensive and even impractical measures to mitigate the impact of potentially unstable slopes on the CI.