Review article: Design and Evaluation of Weather Index Insurance for Multi-Hazard Resilience and Food Insecurity

Benso, Marcos Roberto; Gesualdo, Gabriela Chiquito; Silva, Greicelene Jesus; Rápalo, Luis Miguel Castillo; Navarro, Fabrício Alonso Richmond; Silva, Roberto Fray; Mendiondo, Eduardo Mario

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498

Preprints

07 Jul 2022

| 07 Jul 2022

Review article: Design and Evaluation of Weather Index Insurance for Multi-Hazard Resilience and Food Insecurity

Marcos Roberto Benso, Gabriela Chiquito Gesualdo, Greicelene Jesus Silva, Luis Miguel Castillo Rápalo, Fabrício Alonso Richmond Navarro, Roberto Fray Silva, and Eduardo Mario Mendiondo

Abstract. The urgency of accelerating disaster risk resilience also promotes preferred systematic reviews of the methods for design and evaluation of risk transfer tools. This paper aims to provide a state-of-art weather index insurance design, thereby including methods for natural hazards’ indices calculation, vulnerability assessment and risk pricing. We applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) using the Scopus database. First, 364 peer-reviewed articles from 2010 to present were screened for a bibliometric analysis and then, the 34 most cited articles from the past five years were systematically analyzed. Our results demonstrate that despite a great research effort on index insurance, the majority of them focused on food insecurity through agricultural and crop insurance. Also, climate change and basis risks were found highly relevant for weather index insurance, but weakly developed, suggesting challenges around food insecurity. Special focus was given to drought hazards, while other hazards such as temperature variation, excessive rainfall and wildfires were slightly covered. Emerging areas, namely agricultural, hydrological, and sustainable index insurance found promissory for insurance. Also, current state-of-the-art lacks methods for incorporating multi-hazard risk evaluation in vulnerability assessment and risk pricing. Most studies considered only single-hazard risk, and the multi-hazard risk studies assumed independence between hazards. Thus, we summarized the most common methods for calculating indices, estimating losses using indices, pricing risks, and evaluating insurance index policies. This review promotes a starting point in weather index insurance design towards a multi-hazard resilient society.

Received: 15 Jun 2022 – Discussion started: 07 Jul 2022

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 989 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (989 KB)

Supplement (267 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

06 Apr 2023

Review article: Design and evaluation of weather index insurance for multi-hazard resilience and food insecurity

Marcos Roberto Benso, Gabriela Chiquito Gesualdo, Roberto Fray Silva, Greicelene Jesus Silva, Luis Miguel Castillo Rápalo, Fabricio Alonso Richmond Navarro, Patricia Angélica Alves Marques, José Antônio Marengo, and Eduardo Mario Mendiondo

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1335–1354, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1335-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1335-2023, 2023

Short summary

Marcos Roberto Benso et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-498', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jul 2022

General comments

The subject of the article ‘Review article: Design and Evaluation of Weather Index Insurance for Multi-Hazard Resilience and Food Insecurity’ is interesting. The review methodology is generally transparent. However, many issues need to be addressed. The overall presentation of results, discussion, and conclusions are very rough and often confusing. English is poor, with many grammatical and conceptual errors. The article requires professional editing to improve both language and readability. A major revision is needed before it can be accepted for publication in this Journal.

Specific comments

Terminology is an issue. E.g. ‘sustainable insurance’ is used all over the article and implies insurance for sustainable energy production. However, the expression is not correct, as it actually means insurance that is sustainable. Or, the abstract’s phrase ‘preferred systematic reviews’ probably refers to a specific review method (I assume PRISMA), but it is not evident at all the way it is used, i.e., as a common adjective.

The title promises a ‘Design and Evaluation of Weather Index Insurance for Multi-Hazard Resilience and Food Insecurity’. However, we learn that the studied papers lack a multi-hazard approach, while the authors only refer to some examples that need to be studied. They do not propose any specific method to address this issue.

As in the title, the abstract also states that ‘This paper aims to provide a state-of-art weather index insurance design.’This sounds quite promising. However, there is only 1 line dedicated to the design of Weather Index Insurance, in 3.2.3, L383-384: ‘Finally, we present a conceptual framework derived from the literature review representing the weather index insurance design process (Figure 4).’ Are this figure and the enclosed proposed design/process given as a result of the most used methods within the reviewed literature? Is this proposed design a synthesis that presents something new? How is multi-hazard resilience addressed in particular through this design? Finally, I would suggest a separate sub-section to present and discuss the proposed design, to support its effectiveness based on a case study, to highlight its effectiveness on multi-hazard index insurance, and, further, on resilience and food insecurity. Otherwise, the title and the abstract are not well connected to the results.

3.2.2: the entire section requires thorough English editing and better development. It seems very draft, full of sentences without verbs, confusing the reader. Also, the sub-sections 3.2.1-3.2.2 include some same comments and results. Several consecutive paragraphs should be merged as they deal with the same subject (see for example, L346-356, and many others…)

L313: Table S3 presents loss models. Vulnerability as a title is not mentioned. Either it is a misconception, or it needs clarification. Actually, the models are called vulnerability models; however, their objective seems to be to estimate the loss and not the vulnerability.

Conclusions

The conclusions summarize the results but are written in a very rough form. L420: which gaps were observed? This should be highlighted in conclusions and complemented by suggestions.

Technical comments

Abstract

L1: what do you mean by ‘preferred’ systematic reviews? PRISMA is not implied here; thus, it sounds like an awkward adjective.

L5: please correct: to ‘the’ present

L10: This sentence needs grammar correction.

Introduction

L18. References should be put in parenthesis

L27: please delete the second ‘the’

L29: consider specifying that these are amounts for premiums per capita

L34: please rewrite the sentence as a verb seems missing

L58: please correct the reference presentation inside the sentence

Methodology

L100. Please correct: 1192 studies were selected

Figure 2: (a) please include a legend for series

Results

L161: Please consider rewriting the sentence to make sense

L163-165: these sentences have to be corrected for grammar and language. The parenthesis is awkward. Which study are the authors referring to??

L170: please delete ‘and’ before ‘wind…’

Figure 3. Please use consistent fonts/colors…I don’t understand the meaning of the box sizes and positions.

L198-199: please rewrite. The authors ‘concluded’ or just ‘suggested’?

L201: please put space before the parenthesis

L218-219: please rewrite as the indices are not grammatically connected to the rest of the sentence.

L257: please consider rewriting; the sentence is not clear in what concerns the extreme of the distribution. May a verb be missing?

L260: A conjunction is missing (and or while…??)

L263: please correct: ‘evaluated’

L264: please correct: ‘by the increase in..’

L271: please rephrase. ‘We observed an emerging topic affecting sustainability with a focus on sustainable energy generation’ does not make sense.

L266-270: this has been already said in previous sections

L271-276: I don't understand the difference between this paragraph and the last one in 3.2.1.

L277-280: This paragraph is not well written. E.g., moral hazards cannot be neglected, but rather the opposite. They seem to be considered. Also, ‘Basis risk, and it implies…’ is grammatically incorrect and the sentence makes no sense.

L283-284: Another sentence that is grammatically incorrect…Please rephrase.

L293: what is meant by ‘..and its interaction’? interaction with what?

L299: I am not sure I understand well this sentence. What method/tool was used and how were the hazards included as independent?

L305-307: please clarify: ‘this variable should be considered to improve the model’s ability…’ Which variable? Why ‘should’ it be considered’? based on which evidence?

L311: consider putting a comma before ‘giving’. Oherwise it does not make sense.

L320: streamflow ‘is’ low

L321: which ‘extreme condition’?

L322: ‘sustainable insurance’ sounds not appropriate. Do the authors mean ‘sustainable energy production’??

L341: what is meant by ‘full information’?

L342: please correct ‘They are calculated historical data…’

L341-345: this paragraph is confusing. Mixing non-index and index insurance as if this is the first time index insurance is mentioned, while this is the main subject of this review paper.

L347-348: grammatically incorrect sentence.

Fig4: please correct : (c) amount. Also correct the figure caption: ‘fnancial risk pricing (e) and (e) and (f)’

L386: note that Table 2 should be in parenthesis, or included correctly in the sentence.

L398: WTP, what does it mean? Please clarify

Paragraph L397-409: the entire paragraph has grammar mistakes, verbs missing, language issues. It requires careful editing

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Marcos Roberto Benso, 01 Aug 2022
  
  We thank the Reviewer #1 for his/her thorough revision of our paper and great attention to details. The answer for each comment is found attached.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-AC2
CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-498', Qianjin Dong, 28 Jul 2022

This manuscript is very interesting and using economical methods like insurance to mitigate the hazard is necessary under climate change context. I think this manuscript need to focus and strengthen the main point through analysis of current research, and answer the five questions mentioned in the manuscript strictly, thus the manuscript may be more interesting.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Marcos Roberto Benso, 01 Aug 2022
  
  Dear Dr. Qianjin Dong,
  Thank you so much for dedicating your time for reading our manuscript.
  We will consider your suggestions with the focus on improving the discussion so we better answer the research questions.
  Regards
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-498', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Aug 2022

With the recent emergence of index insurance papers and the myriad approaches and hazards available, a review paper is warranted. The title indicates a focus on multi-hazards and food insecurity, however the manuscript moves far beyond these topics. Significant amounts of information spanning hazard type, variables, approaches, etc., are presented, which turns out to be overwhelming instead of comprehensive. Arguably the manuscript would benefit from a greater focus; presently it has too much breadth and lacks depth. In its current form, it is unclear how readers can benefit from this contribution. A reformatting of the presentation with a clearer emphasis and concrete take-aways could lead to a valuable contribution. Additional suggestions are presented below:

Questions at the end of the Introduction section are very relevant, but also very broad. Perhaps focusing specifically on multi-hazards and food insecurity can help to focus the questions further (and presumably the manuscript as a whole.) Related, it's not well motivated why other sectors (e.g. energy) are included here. Unless they specifically relate to energy used in food production? Or tradeoffs between hydropower and allocations to agriculture? More specificity is strongly suggested to tighten the analysis and findings.

Table 1: Are these Themes developed by authors or follow a commonly accepted methodology? More description is required on what centrality and density really mean and how best to be interpreted. Also, what is the reference for the numerical scale? 0-10? Finally, some clusters are described in numerous Themes. For example, Basic includes four clusters in the text, but only two in the figure.

The Hazard Identification section feels like a really long list, and it's unclear what the goal is in this section. Is it to essentially list the papers that go with each hazard? That could be doable in a large Table (perhaps appendix.) The descriptions of the hazards are basic enough that most readers should be familiar (and arguably aren't learning new information), perhaps with the exception of SPI or similar, but even then, most are likely to already know. It's of course necessary to identify the top hazards (e.g. Fig 3), but the text in its current form does not add much. The authors are encouraged to consider either simplifying (e.g. a Table as suggested) or taking a deeper dive into the details of hazard aspects identified and targeted in each paper.

The Vulnerability Analysis section appears to be a mix of discussing assets, variables, and modeling approaches. Perhaps the authors could consider an alternative presentation approach such as combining parts with the Hazard Identification section (e.g. have subheadings by hazard type that also includes assets at risk and relevant variables.) This could partially address the comment above. The description of modeling approaches does not appear to fit in this section, and is probably a stand-alone section.

While the Financial Methods section relays the large number of design approaches, target outcomes, etc. It is unclear what the reader is supposed to take away from this section. Simply that there are many types? Or if a particular type sounds most appealing or relevant to their needs, then they can refer to the papers cited? Certainly some aspects are appealing, such as those that describe the pros and cons of a particular approach. The authors are encouraged to include more pros and cons to give the reader a more firm understanding and perhaps guidance for their own work.

For the Conclusions, it may be a stretch to claim that a large number of papers (ag and crop insurance) leads to a 'high impact on index insurance'. It does mean the topic is perhaps more well studied than others, but I believe the impact is still very small. Also, I'm not sure this manuscript really points to the 'gaps in the field', and if it does, then this needs to come across much more strongly. Conclusions that point directly to multi-hazard and food insecurity should be front and center in this section. I suggest expanding this section.

The Reviewer acknowledges that review papers are challenging to write. The authors are encouraged to highlight their motivation for assembling the manuscript, more clearly focus the topics, and articulate precisely what they want readers to glean from this contribution.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Marcos Roberto Benso, 17 Aug 2022
  
  We thank the Referee #1 for his/her comments. We send attached the full response to the comments made to this manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-AC3

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-498', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jul 2022

General comments

The subject of the article ‘Review article: Design and Evaluation of Weather Index Insurance for Multi-Hazard Resilience and Food Insecurity’ is interesting. The review methodology is generally transparent. However, many issues need to be addressed. The overall presentation of results, discussion, and conclusions are very rough and often confusing. English is poor, with many grammatical and conceptual errors. The article requires professional editing to improve both language and readability. A major revision is needed before it can be accepted for publication in this Journal.

Specific comments

Terminology is an issue. E.g. ‘sustainable insurance’ is used all over the article and implies insurance for sustainable energy production. However, the expression is not correct, as it actually means insurance that is sustainable. Or, the abstract’s phrase ‘preferred systematic reviews’ probably refers to a specific review method (I assume PRISMA), but it is not evident at all the way it is used, i.e., as a common adjective.

The title promises a ‘Design and Evaluation of Weather Index Insurance for Multi-Hazard Resilience and Food Insecurity’. However, we learn that the studied papers lack a multi-hazard approach, while the authors only refer to some examples that need to be studied. They do not propose any specific method to address this issue.

As in the title, the abstract also states that ‘This paper aims to provide a state-of-art weather index insurance design.’This sounds quite promising. However, there is only 1 line dedicated to the design of Weather Index Insurance, in 3.2.3, L383-384: ‘Finally, we present a conceptual framework derived from the literature review representing the weather index insurance design process (Figure 4).’ Are this figure and the enclosed proposed design/process given as a result of the most used methods within the reviewed literature? Is this proposed design a synthesis that presents something new? How is multi-hazard resilience addressed in particular through this design? Finally, I would suggest a separate sub-section to present and discuss the proposed design, to support its effectiveness based on a case study, to highlight its effectiveness on multi-hazard index insurance, and, further, on resilience and food insecurity. Otherwise, the title and the abstract are not well connected to the results.

3.2.2: the entire section requires thorough English editing and better development. It seems very draft, full of sentences without verbs, confusing the reader. Also, the sub-sections 3.2.1-3.2.2 include some same comments and results. Several consecutive paragraphs should be merged as they deal with the same subject (see for example, L346-356, and many others…)

L313: Table S3 presents loss models. Vulnerability as a title is not mentioned. Either it is a misconception, or it needs clarification. Actually, the models are called vulnerability models; however, their objective seems to be to estimate the loss and not the vulnerability.

Conclusions

The conclusions summarize the results but are written in a very rough form. L420: which gaps were observed? This should be highlighted in conclusions and complemented by suggestions.

Technical comments

Abstract

L1: what do you mean by ‘preferred’ systematic reviews? PRISMA is not implied here; thus, it sounds like an awkward adjective.

L5: please correct: to ‘the’ present

L10: This sentence needs grammar correction.

Introduction

L18. References should be put in parenthesis

L27: please delete the second ‘the’

L29: consider specifying that these are amounts for premiums per capita

L34: please rewrite the sentence as a verb seems missing

L58: please correct the reference presentation inside the sentence

Methodology

L100. Please correct: 1192 studies were selected

Figure 2: (a) please include a legend for series

Results

L161: Please consider rewriting the sentence to make sense

L163-165: these sentences have to be corrected for grammar and language. The parenthesis is awkward. Which study are the authors referring to??

L170: please delete ‘and’ before ‘wind…’

Figure 3. Please use consistent fonts/colors…I don’t understand the meaning of the box sizes and positions.

L198-199: please rewrite. The authors ‘concluded’ or just ‘suggested’?

L201: please put space before the parenthesis

L218-219: please rewrite as the indices are not grammatically connected to the rest of the sentence.

L257: please consider rewriting; the sentence is not clear in what concerns the extreme of the distribution. May a verb be missing?

L260: A conjunction is missing (and or while…??)

L263: please correct: ‘evaluated’

L264: please correct: ‘by the increase in..’

L271: please rephrase. ‘We observed an emerging topic affecting sustainability with a focus on sustainable energy generation’ does not make sense.

L266-270: this has been already said in previous sections

L271-276: I don't understand the difference between this paragraph and the last one in 3.2.1.

L277-280: This paragraph is not well written. E.g., moral hazards cannot be neglected, but rather the opposite. They seem to be considered. Also, ‘Basis risk, and it implies…’ is grammatically incorrect and the sentence makes no sense.

L283-284: Another sentence that is grammatically incorrect…Please rephrase.

L293: what is meant by ‘..and its interaction’? interaction with what?

L299: I am not sure I understand well this sentence. What method/tool was used and how were the hazards included as independent?

L305-307: please clarify: ‘this variable should be considered to improve the model’s ability…’ Which variable? Why ‘should’ it be considered’? based on which evidence?

L311: consider putting a comma before ‘giving’. Oherwise it does not make sense.

L320: streamflow ‘is’ low

L321: which ‘extreme condition’?

L322: ‘sustainable insurance’ sounds not appropriate. Do the authors mean ‘sustainable energy production’??

L341: what is meant by ‘full information’?

L342: please correct ‘They are calculated historical data…’

L341-345: this paragraph is confusing. Mixing non-index and index insurance as if this is the first time index insurance is mentioned, while this is the main subject of this review paper.

L347-348: grammatically incorrect sentence.

Fig4: please correct : (c) amount. Also correct the figure caption: ‘fnancial risk pricing (e) and (e) and (f)’

L386: note that Table 2 should be in parenthesis, or included correctly in the sentence.

L398: WTP, what does it mean? Please clarify

Paragraph L397-409: the entire paragraph has grammar mistakes, verbs missing, language issues. It requires careful editing

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-RC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Marcos Roberto Benso, 01 Aug 2022
  
  We thank the Reviewer #1 for his/her thorough revision of our paper and great attention to details. The answer for each comment is found attached.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-AC2
CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-498', Qianjin Dong, 28 Jul 2022

This manuscript is very interesting and using economical methods like insurance to mitigate the hazard is necessary under climate change context. I think this manuscript need to focus and strengthen the main point through analysis of current research, and answer the five questions mentioned in the manuscript strictly, thus the manuscript may be more interesting.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-CC1
- AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Marcos Roberto Benso, 01 Aug 2022
  
  Dear Dr. Qianjin Dong,
  Thank you so much for dedicating your time for reading our manuscript.
  We will consider your suggestions with the focus on improving the discussion so we better answer the research questions.
  Regards
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-498', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Aug 2022

With the recent emergence of index insurance papers and the myriad approaches and hazards available, a review paper is warranted. The title indicates a focus on multi-hazards and food insecurity, however the manuscript moves far beyond these topics. Significant amounts of information spanning hazard type, variables, approaches, etc., are presented, which turns out to be overwhelming instead of comprehensive. Arguably the manuscript would benefit from a greater focus; presently it has too much breadth and lacks depth. In its current form, it is unclear how readers can benefit from this contribution. A reformatting of the presentation with a clearer emphasis and concrete take-aways could lead to a valuable contribution. Additional suggestions are presented below:

Questions at the end of the Introduction section are very relevant, but also very broad. Perhaps focusing specifically on multi-hazards and food insecurity can help to focus the questions further (and presumably the manuscript as a whole.) Related, it's not well motivated why other sectors (e.g. energy) are included here. Unless they specifically relate to energy used in food production? Or tradeoffs between hydropower and allocations to agriculture? More specificity is strongly suggested to tighten the analysis and findings.

Table 1: Are these Themes developed by authors or follow a commonly accepted methodology? More description is required on what centrality and density really mean and how best to be interpreted. Also, what is the reference for the numerical scale? 0-10? Finally, some clusters are described in numerous Themes. For example, Basic includes four clusters in the text, but only two in the figure.

The Hazard Identification section feels like a really long list, and it's unclear what the goal is in this section. Is it to essentially list the papers that go with each hazard? That could be doable in a large Table (perhaps appendix.) The descriptions of the hazards are basic enough that most readers should be familiar (and arguably aren't learning new information), perhaps with the exception of SPI or similar, but even then, most are likely to already know. It's of course necessary to identify the top hazards (e.g. Fig 3), but the text in its current form does not add much. The authors are encouraged to consider either simplifying (e.g. a Table as suggested) or taking a deeper dive into the details of hazard aspects identified and targeted in each paper.

The Vulnerability Analysis section appears to be a mix of discussing assets, variables, and modeling approaches. Perhaps the authors could consider an alternative presentation approach such as combining parts with the Hazard Identification section (e.g. have subheadings by hazard type that also includes assets at risk and relevant variables.) This could partially address the comment above. The description of modeling approaches does not appear to fit in this section, and is probably a stand-alone section.

While the Financial Methods section relays the large number of design approaches, target outcomes, etc. It is unclear what the reader is supposed to take away from this section. Simply that there are many types? Or if a particular type sounds most appealing or relevant to their needs, then they can refer to the papers cited? Certainly some aspects are appealing, such as those that describe the pros and cons of a particular approach. The authors are encouraged to include more pros and cons to give the reader a more firm understanding and perhaps guidance for their own work.

For the Conclusions, it may be a stretch to claim that a large number of papers (ag and crop insurance) leads to a 'high impact on index insurance'. It does mean the topic is perhaps more well studied than others, but I believe the impact is still very small. Also, I'm not sure this manuscript really points to the 'gaps in the field', and if it does, then this needs to come across much more strongly. Conclusions that point directly to multi-hazard and food insecurity should be front and center in this section. I suggest expanding this section.

The Reviewer acknowledges that review papers are challenging to write. The authors are encouraged to highlight their motivation for assembling the manuscript, more clearly focus the topics, and articulate precisely what they want readers to glean from this contribution.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-RC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Marcos Roberto Benso, 17 Aug 2022
  
  We thank the Referee #1 for his/her comments. We send attached the full response to the comments made to this manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-AC3

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (06 Sep 2022) by Vassiliki Kotroni

AR by Marcos Roberto Benso on behalf of the Authors (25 Oct 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (01 Nov 2022) by Vassiliki Kotroni

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (11 Nov 2022)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comments
The revised article ‘Review article: Design and Evaluation of Weather Index Insurance for Multi-Hazard Resilience and Food Insecurity’ still needs improvement. The authors did a lot of work, especially with the case study, but the presentation is still a problem. A basic issue is grammar. There are still many mistakes, grammar issues, incomplete sentences, confusing meanings, wrong figure legends, wrong numbering when citing a figure. The article requires actual professional editing to improve both language and readability. Overall, the result does not reflect the work that has been done.
Specific comments
In Methods: 2.2 Case study methodology: includes findings/results that are not appropriate for the methodology section. These should be included in Results. Specifically, as each step obviously builds on the results of the previous one, the authors describe the findings of the previous methodological step to support the next. Or, they rely on the results from the next section 3. This is not appropriate for the Methodology section. It creates confusion in the flow of reading and understanding the methodological steps.
In Results: The results around the case study are not very clear. I could not follow the methodological steps easily. I had to turn back many times to the Methods section. For example, the 2 models should also be explained in the results, to follow the predictors of each one better. Otherwise, the reader must go back to methods to remember which predictors were included in each model. Then, in Discussion (L497), the M1 and M2 models (‘M1 for drought and excessive temperature and M2 for heavy rainfall’) are not as described in Methods (L159-160: (i) M1: using SPI and TX90p as inputs; and (ii) M2: using SPI, TX090p, and pmax as inputs).
Technical comments
Abstract
L6-7, grammar
Intro
‘Re’ for Swiss Re citations and references seem awkward. The entire name Swiss Re should be used.
The use of /hab for per capita is awkward. Personally I have not seen this before. Please use per cap
Method
L87, there is a duplicated phrase ‘to analyse the data’
L99: the second step?? Not again the first. Screening looks as the second step in Fig.1
L125: please correct ‘as a reducer of solely the economic sphere of a issue that permeates social, politic and environmental dimensions, this is ultimately a practical approach of widespread use’
L129: Nations? Do you refer to UN? Please correct.
Figure 1. corrections are required (eg identified instead of dentified). There is no numbering of the 4 steps in the image. Consequently, in the text below (L135), the reader cannot understand which are the ‘steps 2-4’.
Correct as Case study instead of study case
L166-169: please correct and complete the phrases
Table 2: the correct name for the 3rd topic is ‘Sustainable energy’.
L299-301: the phrase : ‘Temperature variation….hazard’ is mentioned 3 times..
L310: chose forest fires or wildfires
L358: needs correction. Mean loss is not the method but the parameter used
L366-367: needs grammar correction
L406: not Figure 6
L414, evaluated
The legend of Figure 6 must be wrong.
L441: (v) I assume that spi exhibited the highest, not the lowest, number of occurrences.
L444: this increase is not clear, perhaps it should not be mentioned
L500, the phrase ‘The study case we presented helped to assess the and model the impact of different multi-hazard risks. ‘ is incomplete.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (27 Nov 2022)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (06 Dec 2022) by Vassiliki Kotroni

AR by Marcos Roberto Benso on behalf of the Authors (24 Jan 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

EF by Polina Shvedko (26 Jan 2023) Supplement

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Jan 2023) by Vassiliki Kotroni

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (01 Feb 2023)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have improved the article. But there are still some weaknesses and syntax/grammar errors that must be addressed before publication.
Specific comments
L564: A further explanation is required about the sum of models. The method must be clear to the readers. Please explain that all 3 weather indices are examined as predictors of the losses associated with data from clusters 2,4,6….or something like that!
L107: fifth step?? Inconsistent text compared to Figure 1 and previous text (L91). Overall many different numbering of steps is mentioned. E.g., again in L112…
L551-557 is very important but very difficult to follow. At least, the beginning should be corrected. The illustrative example does not suggest that….I assume it ‘highlights’ the following…Otherwise, this phrase is not connected well with the next, from a grammar point of view.
Figures
Figure 2: state the exact period reviewed to show that 2022 was not fully covered
Figure 5: Please correct TX090p. Also, the entire caption should be improved. The Latin numbering (i)(ii) is not shown in the Figure, and the other lines (observed, sum) are not included in the caption.
Technical comments
L77, correct: ‘out’
Figure 1: Correct the legend of the 4th step
L86: inconsistent writing (‘by’ is missing or parenthesis for the reference)
L312: …interaction with what?
L354: both K & k are used for strike value? Please select between uppercase or lowercase
L374: correct ‘were’. Is it ‘when’?
Figure 3. Correct ‘communatary contract’ in E2. I suppose the correct is ‘community’?
L536: correct the sentence
L527: correct ‘clusters 2 adn 4’
L559: correct the sentence
L567: please change the ‘study case’ to ‘illustrative example’
L573-578: this paragraph is repeated…please delete
L588: Please rewrite. This sentence is not clear to me, including grammar errors: The vulnerability in the insurance design was characterized by selecting a loss models and defining threshold values that characterized loss events
L605: the sentence is not well-written. Please rephrase: Both excessive rainfall and high temperature and droughts and high temperatures were detected by the clustering analysis.
L606: put ‘: ‘ before ‘the first was…’, and correct for grammar
L610: Please rephrase. Grammar mistakes: … but also on analyzing the right data for right the hazard or multi-hazard selection
L614: correct ‘Testing’ with ‘testing’. And ‘specially’ with ‘especially’
L615: add ‘and’ before ‘analyzing…’

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (02 Feb 2023)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Feb 2023) by Vassiliki Kotroni

AR by Marcos Roberto Benso on behalf of the Authors (14 Feb 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (22 Feb 2023) by Vassiliki Kotroni

AR by Marcos Roberto Benso on behalf of the Authors (09 Mar 2023) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

06 Apr 2023

Review article: Design and evaluation of weather index insurance for multi-hazard resilience and food insecurity

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1335–1354, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1335-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-1335-2023, 2023

Short summary

Marcos Roberto Benso et al.

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-498-supplement

Marcos Roberto Benso et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 896 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
620	254	22	896	55	9	5

HTML: 620
PDF: 254
XML: 22
Total: 896
Supplement: 55
BibTeX: 9
EndNote: 5

Views and downloads (calculated since 07 Jul 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2022	273	77	10	360
Aug 2022	138	59	8	205
Sep 2022	33	14	1	48
Oct 2022	32	6	1	39
Nov 2022	25	15	0	40
Dec 2022	19	11	1	31
Jan 2023	27	4	1	32
Feb 2023	32	46	0	78
Mar 2023	36	20	0	56
Apr 2023	5	2	0	7

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 07 Jul 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2022	273	77	10	360
Aug 2022	138	59	8	205
Sep 2022	33	14	1	48
Oct 2022	32	6	1	39
Nov 2022	25	15	0	40
Dec 2022	19	11	1	31
Jan 2023	27	4	1	32
Feb 2023	32	46	0	78
Mar 2023	36	20	0	56
Apr 2023	5	2	0	7

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 851 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 851 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 06 Apr 2023

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (989 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Lately we have been exposed to news demonstrating the vulnerability of our society to a variety of natural disasters and they usually are not isolated. To improve the financial stability, we need to provide insurance contracts that allow coverage for multiple sources of threats, such as droughts, extreme temperatures and floods. We conducted a review of the literature for answering very simple questions regarding weather index insurance design and how to cope with multiple hazard risks.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0