Analyzing Important Disaster Risk Factors for Enhanced Policy Responses in Perceived at-Most-Risk African Countries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

why do you use this random forest machine learning model and what is it? The explanation in terms of tees was not clear to me

the number of conflicts in Africa has increased in 2023 in the Sahel and Sudan for example, could your data predict this?

it did explain 86% of the variables, but 86% of the variance in these variables

Author Response

why do you use this random forest machine learning model and what is it? The explanation in terms of tees was not clear to me

Authors’ response: Thank you for your feedback. In the revised manuscript, we've provided a more detailed explanation of the random forest machine learning model, including its functionality and application in our study (Lines 156 – 167).

the number of conflicts in Africa has increased in 2023 in the Sahel and Sudan for example, could your data predict this?

Authors’ response: Thank you for highlighting this potential application. However, our study primarily focused on assessing the disaster risk index for 2022 to evaluate the incorporation of risk drivers within core policies. While extrapolating conflicts for future predictions was beyond our study's scope, we've acknowledged this insightful idea for future research (Lines 494 – 496).

it did explain 86% of the variables, but 86% of the variance in these variables

Authors’ response: We appreciate your point. In the revised manuscript, we've rephrased the statement to accurately convey that our model explains 86% of the variance in the variables under consideration (Line 240).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses factors determining risk factors in African countries. The topic is relevant and the factors considered are of interest. However some aspects limit the validity of this study. 

Only ten African countries were included which may not  not fully representative of the continent diversity. 

The authors made use of a machine learning classifier to gain understanding of the importance of variable son predicting risk, nevertheless how the variables are related causally related to other variables in explaining risk is not addressed. I particularly encourage the authors to perform a path modeling analysis that complements the reported results.

 

 

Author Response

This paper addresses factors determining risk factors in African countries. The topic is relevant and the factors considered are of interest. However some aspects limit the validity of this study. 

Authors’ response: Dear reviewer thank you for your efforts in reviewing our paper. The concerns you raised are valid and we have ensured to address them within the revised manuscript.

Only ten African countries were included which may not fully representative of the continent diversity. 

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. We aimed to focus on the top countries with very high disaster risk indexes as a case study, rather than presenting a comprehensive representation of African countries. We've emphasized this scope and its limitations in our revised manuscript for clarity (Lines 88 – 92; 184 – 186; 481 – 485).

The authors made use of a machine learning classifier to gain understanding of the importance of variable son predicting risk, nevertheless how the variables are related causally related to other variables in explaining risk is not addressed. I particularly encourage the authors to perform a path modeling analysis that complements the reported results.

We appreciate your suggestion. Our primary focus was evaluating the current disaster risk index's incorporation of risk drivers within policies (Lines 86 – 89). Exploring causal relationships between variables was beyond the study's scope. However, we've referred readers to additional research by Eze and Siegmund (2024), offering a more in-depth analysis in this aspect (Lines 65 – 67).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a valuable addition to the literature on an important topic. I have no issues with the paper. The final section outlines the limitations in a comprehensive way and points towards avenues of further research. This paper is fine within its defined objectives and scope. The approach taken is appropriate and the policy documents selected for analysis make sense.

I may only offer some further references that may be of use, especially with regard to the discussion on climate change as conflict risk multiplier. In particular, Marshall Burke and Solomon Hsiang, jointly and separately, have made efforts to quantify the impact of climate on conflict likelihood. Similarly, Hendrix et al. (2023; DOI: 10.1038/s43017-022-00382-w) could provide some further updated evidence.

There is a significant overlap between the geographical area covered in this paper and the independent evaluation of GEF's work in the Sahel-Sudan-Guinea savanna biomes (https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/scce-biomes), which identifies the close linkages between environmental sustainability and socioeconomic development.

One question: There seems to be a bit of a contradiction between the sentence starting on line 286 and 378. The former seems to suggest that Somalia, South Sudan and DRC "displayed limited mentions of conflict-related aspects", while according to the latter, these same countries have "demonstrated comparably higher levels of inclusion of the violent conflict concept."

Otherwise, I think the paper reads very well.

Author Response

This is a valuable addition to the literature on an important topic. I have no issues with the paper. The final section outlines the limitations in a comprehensive way and points towards avenues of further research. This paper is fine within its defined objectives and scope. The approach taken is appropriate and the policy documents selected for analysis make sense.

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for your thoughtful review and valuable feedback on our paper. We appreciate your positive comments on the paper's contribution to the literature, clarity of objectives and scope, as well as the comprehensive exploration of limitations and avenues for further research.

I may only offer some further references that may be of use, especially with regard to the discussion on climate change as conflict risk multiplier. In particular, Marshall Burke and Solomon Hsiang, jointly and separately, have made efforts to quantify the impact of climate on conflict likelihood. Similarly, Hendrix et al. (2023; DOI: 10.1038/s43017-022-00382-w) could provide some further updated evidence.

Authors’ response: We have integrated key insights from Marshall Burke and Solomon Hsiang's work to enhance our discussions on the climate-conflict relationship (Lines 391 – 394). Unfortunately, despite multiple attempts, access to Hendrix et al.'s paper (2023) was restricted due to subscription limitations.

There is a significant overlap between the geographical area covered in this paper and the independent evaluation of GEF's work in the Sahel-Sudan-Guinea savanna biomes (https://www.gefieo.org/evaluations/scce-biomes), which identifies the close linkages between environmental sustainability and socioeconomic development.

Authors’ response: Thank you for this information. We have incorporated the overlapping finding to enrich our discussion of disaster risk drivers (Lines 359 – 361).

One question: There seems to be a bit of a contradiction between the sentence starting on line 286 and 378. The former seems to suggest that Somalia, South Sudan and DRC "displayed limited mentions of conflict-related aspects", while according to the latter, these same countries have "demonstrated comparably higher levels of inclusion of the violent conflict concept."

Authors’ response: Thank you very much for this observation. The sentences are both correct. Whereas the first sentence refers to the rate of inclusion conflict-related content in the policies of countries like Somalia, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo; the second sentence ought to compare the inclusion rate of these three countries with other countries facing very high disaster risks. The second sentence is now modified in revised manuscript for improved clarity (Lines 414 – 420).

Otherwise, I think the paper reads very well.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your time in helping to improve the current version of our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Here is just one missing point that I thin needs to be addressed. That is the study was conducted in 10 African countries with the highest risk of disaster and no all the African countries. Please change the title to reflect this fact. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer's Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Dear authors,

Here is just one missing point that I think needs to be addressed. That is, the study was conducted in 10 African countries with the highest risk of disaster and not all the African countries. Please change the title to reflect this fact. 

***

Authors’ response:

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your efforts in reviewing our paper. We have now modified the title to reflect the specific countries of focus within our study.

The updated title is now “Analyzing important disaster risk factors for enhanced policy responses in perceived at-most-risk African countries”.

Thank you very much.