Comprehensive Analysis of the Use of Web-GIS for Natural Hazard Management: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comprehensive Analysis of the Use of Web-GIS for Natural Hazard Management: A Systematic Review

This paper presents a review of the use of Web-GIS for Natural Hazards management, in which different aspects are considered (Geographic Distribution and Processes, Spatial Analysis and Modelling, Technologies, Visualisation, Decision Support Systems, Monitoring and Early Warning, Recovery and Resilience, Citizen and Social Media, and Cross-border Collaboration).  

The paper structure is correct and the sections are well organized in general. The references, that are the main aspect of this paper review are also correct, justified, described and up-to-date. However, in the following sections, some minor suggestions are made for the improvement of the paper.

Title

In my opinion, the title is correct and informative of the systematic review made.

Abstract

The abstract presents quite faithfully the methodology and contents of the review.

 Introduction

This section is correct in general. However, a mention to the global inventories and databases on natural hazards such as Desiventar (https://www.desinventar.net/), EM-DAT (https://www.emdat.be/) and other ones should be made. Moreover United Nations reports should be also referenced such as those related to Sendai Framework (https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/what-sendai-framework) and especially the global assessment reports (https://www.undrr.org/gar).

Review methodology

This section is also OK, both the text and the figures (although may the figure 5 is not so clear and could be enlarged or simplified).

Results

This section is also well organized and described but a single consideration should be taken into account, in my opinion. This consists in that the first aspect considered, the Geographic and Hazard Application (Processes) Distribution, is not a subtopic like the other ones, but a different aspect. I see it as an introductory aspect, but not a subtopic or sub-theme. In fact, the authors did not considered it in the figure 6 (contribution literature over subtopics). Please, consider this suggestion in order to clarify the text and the figure.

Another question is the confluence between some subtopics analyzed in the corresponding subsections. Especially, some topics such as real time monitoring and early warning systems with decision support systems, or technologies and infrastructures with visualization-UID have many common aspects that should be mentioned in the introduction to results section (3.1) and in the conclusions. In fact, the figure 6 shows these confluences. Moreover, in the specific subsections appear some of these confluences.

 

 

Conclusions and Limitation

These sections seem also to be correct. Perhaps, the mention to the confluences of topics and the consideration of research projects not published in future works.     

References

References citations in text and the reference list seems to be correct in formal aspects (according the journal format) and up-to-date. 

Author Response

We thank Review 1 for the interest shown in our contribution. The comments provided allowed us to improve the structure of the paper by making it more fluid and highlighting the relationships between different subtopics.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Comprehensive Analysis of the Use of Web-GIS for Natural Hazard Management: A Systematic Review" presents a thorough investigation into the integration of Web-GIS technologies in the management of natural hazards. The authors delve into various facets of hazard management, encompassing hazard distribution, spatial analysis and modelling, technological infrastructure, visualization, user interface design, and decision support systems.

Strengths:

1. Comprehensive Literature Review: The paper demonstrates a profound understanding of the diverse realms within natural hazard management, covering landslides, floods, seismic events, wildfires, coastal hazards, and heat waves.
2. Innovative Methodologies: It introduces innovative methodologies like machine learning algorithms, remote sensing integration, and advanced spatial data analysis, highlighting their significance in managing hazards effectively.
3. Emphasis on Visualization and User Interface Design: The significance of intuitive interfaces and effective data visualization techniques for enhancing stakeholder engagement and decision-making is underscored.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Methodological Discussion: The manuscript lacks a detailed discussion on the methodological approaches employed in the selected literature, including the strengths and limitations of different methodologies in Web-GIS for hazard management.
2. Stakeholder Perspectives: Incorporating perspectives from stakeholders such as government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and local communities would enrich the discussion by providing real-world applications and challenges faced in implementing Web-GIS technologies.
3. Addressing Implementation Challenges: Identifying and addressing challenges and barriers to the effective implementation of Web-GIS technologies in hazard management, including technical constraints, data accessibility issues, and institutional barriers, is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the field.
4. Evaluation of Effectiveness: Evaluating the effectiveness and impact of Web-GIS technologies in natural hazard mitigation through impact assessments or case studies would strengthen the empirical foundation of the paper.
5. Comparative Analysis: A comparative analysis of Web-GIS technologies with alternative approaches to hazard management could provide valuable insights into their relative strengths and weaknesses.

Addressing Specific Questions:

1. Decision Support Systems and Early Warning Systems: Concrete examples of the deployment and outcomes of these systems in real-world scenarios are needed to enhance credibility and understand practical implications.
2. Data Interoperability and Compatibility: Exploration of challenges related to data interoperability, system compatibility, and scalability of solutions could shed light on potential obstacles and opportunities in integrating Web-GIS platforms with decision support and early warning systems.
3. Methodological Analysis: A deeper analysis of methodologies used within each subtopic, including efficacy and limitations of specific techniques, would enhance understanding of practical applications and areas for improvement.
4. Stakeholder Integration: Addressing the integration of stakeholder perspectives in the development and implementation of Web-GIS solutions for natural hazard management is essential for fostering inclusive and effective solutions.

Author Response

We thank Review 2 for the interest shown in our contribution. The comments provided allowed us to highlight the topic's strategic relevance and better frame the advantages and limitations of the existing approaches.   

Author Response File: Author Response.docx