Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The article is interesting and aligned with the WATER (MDPI) readers' interests.

Additionally, it has a good citation potential due to the importance of the topic and its relationship towards the evaluation of damage costs induced by storms and extreme events. It seems that the title is not perfectly aligned with the papers exact content, it looks like you present a wind-wave modelling for further predictions, whereas from the abstract there is a presentation of a damage cost model. Please make this more clear, by either adapting the title or at least the abstract.

In any case, I believe the article has good quality and very minor adjustments should be introduced (see my comments below). These include the refs. at intro section to broaden the view of further applicability and importance of this work to other fields of research, namely in marine and coastal assets design and preservation. The novelty of the paper should be made a bit more clear from the beginning of the manuscript for example at the intro.

Below some minor comments. Congratulations on the good work.

MINOR REVISIONS

L22 the word In is repeated

Section 1 - how do these works influence the work that you are about to present further? This section needs a bit of elaboration on that. Additionally, I believe it would be important for you to cite works which are dedicated on wave, wind, and other extreme predictions and their importance on social/economical assets such as offshore renewable energy, structures, breakwaters and other similar examples, for example a very good review on statistical extreme wave data and their influence on offshore assets is given by Prof. Vanem's and others, for example cite these two:

DOI: 10.1680/jmaen.2019.20

DOI: 10.1177/0309524X18777323

Also you may want to cite works which include climate change effects in safety and structures design, particularly in marine assets and coastal related assets, for example:

DOI: 10.5894/RGCI-N213

DOI: 10.5894/RGCI-N390

DOI: 10.3390/JMSE8060417

Figure 1 is a bit blurry can it be improved?

L61 to 68: what is the implication of considering these variables independent? Is this a reasonable assumption?

L75 why is there a "(2011)" what is it supposed to mean?

L86-87: if the variables are considered as independent why is there a correlation analysis? It seems that the text is not clear, please clarify this in order to avoid further confusion.


L156: "Si" and "Gun" are these place names? If so correct it.

Table 1: I think it should be written "Number of Wind Wave Damage Events" - but perhaps I misinterpretated it, please check.

Figure 3 needs to have its image quality improved

Figure 4 needs to be increased in size. It is hard to read, also the grey numbers are difficult to read, please consider putting them in red

L 290: no need to indicate such a large amount of decimal places in the RMSE, round it up.  also % sign is missing in the first number.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is suitable to a content of Water journal but some revisions are necessary before publication.

Revision points;

• The paper mainly discusses on the damage prediction due to storm waves and wind. Meanwhile, the title of the paper indicates only “Wind Wave Prediction”, so the title should include the part of prediction of disaster cost necessary for recovery.
• Line 221(Table 2); “M” in unit should be “m”
• Line 148; NMRSE >>>  NRMSE
• Line 254; Table 3, shows >>> Table 3, which shows
• Line 22; In In >>>  In
• Line 30; 10 million people seems too small as the population in the coastal areas. Please check the number.
• Line 271(Table 4); Please indicate unit. The average wind data W are not so large as the level for the damage in coasts. How did the economical damages occur under the present level?
• What is the maximum wave height in the East sea in the original data-set?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well revised. I hope that new maritime observation station 

will be installed by KMI and more storm data will be available. 

Author Response

General comment: The manuscript is well revised. I hope that new maritime observation station will be installed by KMI and more storm data will be available. 

Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's positive evaluation and comment. We are looking forward to start on a follow-up study regarding with observation station. We hope to find some new information on newly installed maritime observation station.