The study provides a comprehensive overview of the vulnerability of green economy assets to natural hazards, identifying key gaps in the literature and proposing a structured taxonomy for future research. The methodology is well-defined, and the use of a systematic literature review to construct a vulnerability matrix is robust. However, there are areas where the paper could be improved to enhance its clarity, depth, and utility.

The introduction effectively sets the context for the study. However, it could benefit from a clearer explanation of the significance of the green economy in the context of climate change and insurance (lines 24-35). Including more recent statistics or projections could provide a stronger foundation.



While the paper identifies gaps in the literature (lines 50-55), it would be useful to elaborate on why these gaps exist. Are they due to the novelty of the technologies, lack of historical data, or other reasons? This could help guide future research more effectively.



The proposed taxonomy is central to the study (lines 75-120). It would be beneficial to provide more justification for the selection of specific assets and hazards. For instance, why were certain assets or hazards prioritized over others? This could help readers understand the choices made and the potential limitations.



The systematic review process is well-outlined (lines 130-155). However, providing more detail on the search strategy, databases used, and inclusion/exclusion criteria could enhance transparency and replicability.

The presentation of the vulnerability matrix (lines 190-210) is comprehensive. However, it might be helpful to include a few illustrative examples or case studies to demonstrate how the matrix can be applied in real-world scenarios. This could make the findings more tangible for practitioners.



The literature heat map (lines 220-250) is a valuable addition. However, it could be enhanced by a more detailed discussion of the trends observed. For instance, why are certain asset-hazard intersections more researched than others? Are there specific barriers to research in certain areas?



The discussion provides a good overview of the key findings (lines 285-390). However, it could benefit from a more detailed analysis of the implications for different stakeholders, such as policymakers, insurers, and researchers. What specific actions should they take based on these findings?



While the paper outlines future research needs (lines 380-400), it could be more specific. For example, identifying specific technologies or methodologies that could be used to address the identified gaps would be helpful.



The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings (lines 420-430). However, it could be strengthened by reiterating the practical implications and the urgency of addressing the identified research gaps in light of climate change and increasing natural hazards.