Trend Analysis and Spatial Distribution of Meteorological Disaster Losses in China, 2004–2015
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are several issues in the reviewed manuscript that should be clarified, including:
- in the introduction (point 1), the authors gave the total number of meteorological disasters in the world, in the years 1970-2009 (page 1 line 33). I suggest giving the frequency of catastrophes on continents, and also indicate the types of these disasters included in the total number of cases.
- It is also required to explain why the data for the years 2005-2016 were compiled (page 2 line 92), and in the further part of the manuscript the data for the years 2004-2015 were taken into account (page3 line 108, 109 - point 3.1, point 3.1.1, Figure 1, Table 1i other) - where did the 2004 data come from?
- On the basis of what criteria was the period 2005-2016 or maybe 2004-2015 selected for the analysis? What about the data after 2015 (2016)?
- The statement placed in (Page 11 line 315): "The major limitation of this study is insufficient the data acquired for analysis" is not clear and requires detailed commentary
- in the manuscript (1) all the meteorological disasters are termed as "all" - it is necessary to indicate which catastrophes are included in the "all" group - whether, for example droughts about which information is provided in the manuscript (e.g. page 11 line 305) were included to the "all" group?
Detailed Comments for Authors
Page 2 line 95
"... Taiwan province, Hong Kong, and Macao (with no record data) ..." I suggest all provinces included in the manuscript marked in Figure;
Page 2 line 84-85
"Categorization was done as follows: (1) all the meteorological disasters are termed as" all "- I suggest to define, what kind of meteorological disasters are contained in the group" all "
Page 3 line 112
"Among these, floods were the most serious meteorological disasters with associated cumulative deaths accounting" – If floods in this region are the most serious meteorological catastrophes, I suggest to enrich the manuscript with content on the frequency and spatial extent of floods that occured in the research area during the research period
Page 3 line 118
"… Showing an increasing trend." It requires complementing how the significance of the trend was verified. Is it a statistically significant trend, at what significance level,
Page 5 figure 2
Why was "heat wave" distinguished, if this information was omitted in Figure 2?
Which meteorological disasters were included in the category "others"
Page 6 figure 3
The Figure 3 shows 2 graphic images - the larger one is a Map of China labeled with provinces names, and the smaller one is not known what it shows? It needs to be changed
Page 5 line 144
The distribution and clusters of different meteorological disasters was presented in the maps – I suggest giving numbers of the cited figures
Page 6 figure 4
I suggest quoting Fig.4B, Fig4C… F in the text
Page 8 figure 5
I suggest citing Fig.5B, Fig5C ... F in the text
Page 8 line 188
“As indicated from the map…” - a map number or maybe a drawing number is required
Page 9 line 206
"We have found a statistically significant decreasing trend ..." - a significance level is required
Page 11 line 298
“This was finding is consistent other studies…” - the appropriate references (literature) should be added
Page 11 line 303
“In addition to these five disasters, the death toll rate of the other types of meteorological disasters…” - other meteorological disasters should be indicated
Page 11 line 305
The authors in the manuscript take into account drought, but it is not known whether the information provided is related to the meteorological (atmospheric), soil, hydrological drought occurring in the research area, for example?
Page 11 line 315
The major limitation of this study is insufficient the data acquired for analysis – the notation is not clear, more details are required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The publication of the paper is very useful but several revisions are necessary to make the better understanding.
- Line 111 : The unit is “person”? If possible, please indicate the unit of “14.82”
- Figure 1 : What is the main cause to make the peak in 2010? A huge typhoon?
- Figure 2 : For X-axis, the unit may be “/100,000,000”
- Figure 6 : What do you mention by the lower-left bar?
- Figure 6 : Which corresponds to GDP, the color map or column graph?
- Line 314 : Conclusions is too short.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article intends to study the economic loss and the life loss from disasters. From the beginning, one may see that the article must be checked for English mistakes. Abstract starts with an incomplete phrase.
- The abstract does not provide information about the method used and the novelty of the approach, so it must be reformulated.
- The references to the bibliography in the text is not done according to the template.
- The introduction does not emphasize why the research is new.
- The section Material and Methods is very short and does not provide significant information on the methodology utilized.
- Line 120 -122. What test did you apply to sustain the assertion? It is not mentioned in Methodology.
- Line 134 - You are mentioning an increasing trend. What test did you use?
- line 165 - It is clear that ... You also use It is obvious that... Without statistical validation nothing is clear or obvious.
- lines 167-179. You are mentioning many times increasing or decreasing trends. Based on what?
- I am sorry to see that there is no serious statistical analysis or modeling, even if you mentioned that you build some regression models. I did not find any mathematical expression showing the regression model and the validation.
Overall, the paper is not well written, there is no novelty in the approach and, for sure, it is a long way until deserving to be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank Authors of the manuscript for their answers;
The article has been substantially improved according to the comments.
The authors generally did a good job answering and accounting for my concerns about the originally submitted manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is revised very well. I wish that you will continue your research on the mitigation-system for natural hazards.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
ear authors,
Thank you for taking the time to revise the manuscript version.
I checked the new version and I remarked that you used many time the linear regression as test. This is not a statistical test but a modeling methods. The existence of an increasing/decreasing test should be assessed by a proper statistical test, like, for example, the Mann-Kendall with Sens's slope.
Concerning your regression model, it must be validated using F test for the significance in its whole and t-test (already done) for the significance of the coefficients. Then, the residual is the model must be validated to be i.i.d N(0,1). I didn't see this in your article, the fact that is essential FOR A CORRECT STATISTICAL LINEAR REGRESSION.
And what about a different kind of increasing/decreasing trend?
I am sorry, but your study is not complete without this kind of evaluation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
