Geo-Hydrological Hazard Impacts, Vulnerability and Perception in Bujumbura (Burundi): A High-Resolution Field-Based Assessment in a Sprawling City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Editor-in-Chief

# land-2620983

Manuscript Title: Geo-hydrological hazard impacts, vulnerabilities and perception in Bujumbura (Burundi): high-resolution field-based assessment in a sprawling city

 

Having carefully evaluated the manuscript, I would like to commend the authors for their thoughtful and rigorous work. I would like to offer some feedback for the authors' consideration during the revision process, which may improve the strength of the paper. Therefore, a MAJOR revision is recommended for the manuscript. Details of the comments are as follows:

Introduction:

- Provide some literature around the world focusing on main cities approached to natural hazards as research background to show the evolution of the studies and state of the art.

- Please provide further elaboration on the various approaches to explore the perception of the community towards natural disasters.

- Prior to stating the objective, a summary of previous research should be provided, and the significant aspects of the research conversation should be highlighted for better emphasis.

Study area:

- It is better to provide some description on the amount of precipitation, the overall type of climate, causes on disaster producing events, … in the study area section.

- Discuss more about the elements at risk in the study area section.

Research Methodology:

- In interviews with individuals, how were the interviewees selected? Does the chosen sample size suffice to achieve the goal? Use the term "high-resolution field survey" with caution, as there is no evidence of it in the text.

- What specific questions were asked during the conducted interviews? Please provide details.

- What was the discharge volume of the occurred floods (in cubic meters per second)?

- The average age of the interviewees is low. Considering the relationship between age and perception, wouldn't it be better to select older individuals with long-term memory regarding the natural hazards which has been occurred in the past over the study area?

Results:

- Numerical and statistical analysis has not been performed on the data. Can the results be supported by statistical tests?

Conclusions:

- It is advisable to provide additional explanations regarding the study of adaptation solutions to geohazards in the Conclusions section.

- What proportion of the studied geohazards are of natural origin, and what percentage of them have been intensified by human activities and urban development? An elaboration needed

- What were the risk reduction strategies based on the perspectives of the interviewees? Please provide more details.

The level of English language is good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is very well written and answered almost perfectly all the questions I had before reading it. There is no doubt that this is a manuscript that can be published almost immediately. However, I think the author should add the following before publication:

1 Introduction

L72_L76, the author's review of previous research appears too general and lacks a specific description of the problems caused by previous work. For example, at L72_L73, the authors should detail what problems would specifically result from previous scholars investigating a type of harm in isolation. L74_L76, the authors should likewise provide a detailed description of the problems resulting from the deficiencies in previous research. For these are the very research gaps that the authors seek to address, i.e., the scientific questions that the manuscript addresses.

L77_L79, the authors were asked to add implications arising from addressing research gaps.

2 Discussion

The authors were asked to add to the shortcomings of the study as well as future research directions.

Overall, this work is very well done and of great relevance. Congratulations to the authors!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

very useful information/data was collected and analysis produced in tables and figures. the research methodology was mixed and produced both qualitative and quantitative results. The discussion was rather length and could have been made smaller with explanation of the results and little citations from other sources.

in conclusion useful information was gathered to assist plan better for Bunjumbura city and mitigate against flooding, flashfloods and rising lake vulnerabilities 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved well according to the previous comments. Therefore it can be accepted for publication. 

Reviewer 3 Report

 you  did research on a very important topic in our days dealing with vulnerability of humans from environmental disasters. keep it up