Climate Change, Security, and the Resource Nexus: Case Study of Northern Nigeria and Lake Chad

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments This study focuses on the impacts of climate change and implications for human security for the region of Northern Nigeria and Lake Chad. The topic is very interesting and it has practical importance particularly for Nigeria. Though, this topic is quite interesting and of practical significance, the manuscript suffers from very odd presentation style, poor introduction, almost no methodology, weak results and discussion section. The author did a lot of works but due to poor presentation, it fails to convey the exact message of the research. It looks like an assignment paper, not research paper. Abstract It is not well structured. The essential points are missing. There is a little connection between the body text and abstract. The author is advised to revise the abstract by following IMRAD style by avoiding unnecessary text. The reader wants to see what is the exact findings of the study, rather than the few unnecessary texts. Introduction -The introduction is not structured. The author failed to introduce the issue, its importance, and its practical implication. -The author could not focus on the research gap and specific objective. -There is no coherence in the description. -The author mentioned “However, there is a clear gap in the literature in futures thinking based on a geographic context with outlooks on the SDGs.” Who findout this gap and what is the relationship between this statement and your study? -Need to avoid unrelated discussions. -The author mentioned “Our case is relevant because Nigeria is a large emerging economy shattered by a range of security issues recently, and Lake Chad is one of Africa’s largest freshwater bod-……….” Are you sure? This is your study area, so why this statement is necessary to mention here. -It is not understandable that why the author includes few sentences (like “The article thereby wishes to contribute to envisioning opportuni-………….”). Is it relevant to your objective? -There are a huge inconsistency in the text under introduction section. Materials and Methods -There is no methodology section. How can we consider it as a research paper without methodology? -Though the author mentioned some places about case study of Nigeria and Lake Chad, but there is no details in any section. Results -How can we find out results without proper methodology? -This section is also very poor and haphazard. -There is no planning for presenting the findings properly. -The description lacks of coherence due to procedural weakness. -The author is advised to revise the whole section by following new methodology. Discussion -How can we find out discussions without proper methodology? -This section is also very poor and haphazard. -There is no planning for presenting the findings properly. -There is a little connection between research objective and findings. -The author is advised to revise the whole section by following new methodology. Conclusion This section is not structured. It should be revised by adding key findings, recommendations and practical implications. References Need to check the whole section and follow the journal style.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the reviewer for finding our topic very interesting and of practical relevance as well as for critical comments. We did a thorough review and undertook major revisions that should address all points raised by the reviewer. The revised manuscript contains

• a rewritten abstract following IMRAD style
• a rewritten introduction being more explicit in our paper's research objectives and aims, justifying the gap in the literature that our research fills, why the perspective and nexus approach we take is suitable to address this evidence gap and the significance of your findings
• a new methods section stating and justifying the research design on a nexus and scenarios that we employ. We note this is a novel concept with practical relevance and implication for our methods.
• a revised section on results so that the presentation of our findings follow the section on methods and should more coherent. We are also more explicit about the added value and justification of our comparative use of the Kenyan case.
• the discussion section now is making stronger connections to the material used in our introduction and gives greater reference to the the wider field of nexus-based climate-conflict research, placing our findings in that wider context
• Conclusions are revised with clearer take messages related to our objectives and the nexus concept and recommendations on policy and research implications going forwards 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper considers a topic which is in line with the aims of the journal and dramatically actual in the scientific and geopolitical context.

However, it needs to be revised in order to improve its quality.

In general terms, the authors must explain better the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods which are clearly stated. The risk is that the reader will be lost in the text without any precise reference to the structure and narrative of the paper. They also must add more bibliographical references. Many sentences are included in the text without any reference to concrete and recent data or literature evidence.

In more detailed terms, the authors s*hould explain better the methods they use, and specifically the nexus perspective. This should be done in the introduction. In the abstract, they should add some sentences about the obtained results. In the first part of the introduction, 22-32, they should add some bibliographical references. I suggest considering this paper Cattivelli, V. Climate Adaptation Strategies and Associated Governance Structures in Mountain Areas. The Case of the Alpine Regions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052810 because it includes very interesting and appropriate bibliographical references which can help authors to integrate this part. When they mention SDG for the first time, please detail the acronym and specify why the linkages with SDGs are important for your paper. 45-46 are not reported in the abstract.

49-60: please, cite also Cattivelli, V. Climate Adaptation Strategies and Associated Governance Structures in Mountain Areas. The Case of the Alpine Regions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2810. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052810 as this author focuses on climate change in mountain areas, as other authors mentioned.

In the introductions, the authors must clarify better why they compare their case study with the other area.

62-63 what are the mentioned security issues? The authors should clarify also here what are these issues and why Nigeria is an interesting case study.

In the introduction, the authors should clarify the aim of the paper in more detailed terms and present the three-scenario developed in the rest of the text.

I suggest including a map of the considered areas and add more bibliographical references to the sentences in the block 104-140.

190-193: what statistics? What are the implication of climate change? Please detail sentences 193-196.

Section n.4: please, detail better what are the reasons which underline the comparative analysis between Nigeria and Kenya.

Conclusions should be strengthened.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the reviewer for finding our topic in line with the journal and dramatically actual as well as for critical comments. We did a thorough review and undertook major revisions that should address all points raised by the reviewer. The revised manuscript contains

• a rewritten introduction being more explicit in our paper's research objectives and aims, justifying the gap in the literature that our research fills, why the perspective and nexus approach we take is suitable to address this evidence gap and the significance of your findings. 
• a new methods section stating and justifying the research design on a nexus and scenarios that we employ. We note this is a novel concept with practical relevance and implication for our methods.
• We added a map as suggested (thanks)
• a revised section on results so that the presentation of our findings follow the section on methods and should more coherent. We are also more explicit about the added value and justification of our comparative use of the Kenyan case.
• the discussion section now is making stronger connections to the material used in our introduction and gives greater reference to the the wider field of nexus-based climate-conflict research, placing our findings in that wider context. The suggested reference is quoted here (thanks!)
• Conclusions are revised with clearer take messages related to our objectives and the nexus concept and recommendations on policy and research implications going forwards 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author tries to incorporate all suggestions in the revised manuscript. The quality of the manuscript has been improved. It is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing our revised manuscript and recommending it for publication. Following another review we now have done some minor modifications related to the style of the abstract and the presentation of our results, and made an effort to increase overall coherence. Finally we have done an editing via a native speaker with relevant skills. 

Reviewer 2 Report

In the abstract, please use the same subject. Not before, “the  paper” and the “we”.

Detail better and more in detail all subsection in the section n.5

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing our revised manuscript and considering it improved. We now address your two points below, i.e. we have amended the abstract and revised our section 5 on results. Accordingly, we also improved the discussion section and our conclusions to become more coherent and concise. Finally we have done a final editing via a native speaker with expertise in editing.