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

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.