Drought Risk Assessment and Estimation in Vulnerable Eco-Regions of China: Under the Background of Climate Change
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting article and research process. Please note that ob Figure 1, the colours need to be explained.
The only other point is that the paragraph between lines 213 and 251 is far too long. It should be divided into 2 or preferably 3 paragraphs.
There are a few improvements in the English which can presumably be undertaken by a member of the Editorial staff.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.
Point 1: An interesting article and research process. Please note that ob Figure 1, the colours need to be explained.
Response 1: As the Reviewer's good advice, we have explained the colours in Figure 1 at Line 197.
Point 2: The only other point is that the paragraph between lines 213 and 251 is far too long. It should be divided into 2 or preferably 3 paragraphs.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The paragraph has been divided into two paragraphs at Line 263.
Point 3: There are a few improvements in the English which can presumably be undertaken by a member of the Editorial staff.
Response 3: In order to increase the readability of the manuscript, we have sent the manuscript to MDPI for English editing.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper evaluates disaster risk considering the interaction between hazard, exposure and vulnerability for China.
The papers addresses an important issue but I have the following concerns:
Each step of the method needs to be clearly justified and explained (i.e. estimates of NPP). The paper is clearly written and the conclusions are supported by the results.
The authors refer that they used climate data from MRI-CGCM3 model. Please, justify the choice of this model and also, why other model (MPI-ESM-LR) is used to estimate NPP.
Paragraph starting in line 169. The authors say that they ‘…selected the NPP data from the MPI-ESM-LR model…’. Please include reference and explain how NPP is calculated from climate data.
The paper should refer the uncertainty associated to the estimates obtained. For example, the use of only one climate model may generate biased results.
The English language must be thoroughly revised.
Text in figures should have larger font size (i.e. Figure 1 lat/lon labels)
Based on what is said above, the paper may be considered for publication after major revisions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.
Point 1: Each step of the method needs to be clearly justified and explained (i.e. estimates of NPP). The paper is clearly written and the conclusions are supported by the results.
Response 1: We are sorry that our statement in the manuscript is incomplete. The calculation method for NPP has been added at Line 176.
Point 2: The authors refer that they used climate data from MRI-CGCM3 model. Please, justify the choice of this model and also, why other model (MPI-ESM-LR) is used to estimate NPP.
Response 2: As the Reviewer's good advice, the reason we chose the model MPI-ESM-LR and MRI-CGCM3 are given in 183 and 288 lines of the manuscript respectively. For the MPI-ESM-LR, we mainly considered this model to include detailed human activities and good simulation of carbon flux; and MRI-CGCM3 can capture regional differences over subtropical China. What's more, they also have a relatively high resolution spatial resolution.
Point 3: Paragraph starting in line 169. The authors say that they ‘…selected the NPP data from the MPI-ESM-LR model…’. Please include reference and explain how NPP is calculated from climate data.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The reference and explain how NPP is calculated from climate data are added at line 176-180.
Point 4: The paper should refer the uncertainty associated to the estimates obtained. For example, the use of only one climate model may generate biased results.
Response 4: As the Reviewer's good advice, we have calculated the uncertainty of the model based on the observed data and added it in Appendix A (at Line 292).
Point 5: The English language must be thoroughly revised.
Response 5: We are sorry that because of our language problems, the manuscript is not very readable. In order to increase the readability of the manuscript, we have sent the manuscript to MDPI for English editing.
Point 6:Text in figures should have larger font size (i.e. Figure 1 lat/lon labels)
Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestion. The text in the picture has been modified to a larger size for a clearer reading.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper evaluates disaster risk considering the interaction between hazard, exposure and vulnerability for China.
The authors have satisfactorily addressed most issues but I still have the following concerns:
The uncertainty estimation included in the appendix must refer the observations dataset used and how is the RMSE calculated. Please note that the RMSE cannot be calculated using model and observations simultaneous data since climate simulations start from arbitrary initial conditions. Only statistics derived from model and observations can be compared.
The English language must be thoroughly revised.
Based on what is said above, the paper may be considered for publication after revisions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.
Point 1: The uncertainty estimation included in the appendix must refer the observations dataset used and how is the RMSE calculated. Please note that the RMSE cannot be calculated using model and observations simultaneous data since climate simulations start from arbitrary initial conditions. Only statistics derived from model and observations can be compared.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your prompt reminding us to avoid similar mistakes. After our careful thinking, we put the statistics of model and observations and the error between them in Appendix A. Here, we consider the error between model and observation as uncertainty.
Thanks for the reviewer's suggestion, we made a mistake when calculating the original RMSE, which we have corrected in this modification. We used the model and observation data to calculate RMSE at the same time.But now we use their statistics for comparison, and the relevant order is line 275.
Point 2: The English language must be thoroughly revised.
Response 2: We sent the manuscript to professional English journal editors twice for careful modification and polishing, and tried to avoid any grammatical or syntactic errors. However, due to limited English proficiency, please help us to consider the manuscript.
