Adapting Disaster Preparedness Strategies to Changing Climate Patterns in Saudi Arabia: A Rapid Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer Report

Title: Adapting Disaster Preparedness Strategies to Changing Climate Patterns in Saudi Arabia: A Rapid Review

Authors: Zakaria A. Mani and Krzysztof Goniewicz

General Comments:

The paper titled "Adapting Disaster Preparedness Strategies to Changing Climate Patterns in Saudi Arabia: A Rapid Review" provides valuable insights into the multifaceted impacts of climate change on Saudi Arabia and highlights the country's adaptive strategies. The topic is relevant and timely, considering the increasing importance of climate change adaptation worldwide. The authors have done a commendable job in exploring the challenges faced by Saudi Arabia, particularly in water scarcity and infrastructure resilience, and have provided a comprehensive overview of the country's efforts in addressing these issues. The paper is well-structured, and the writing is clear and concise.

Specific Comments:

Abstract: The abstract provides a concise summary of the paper's content, highlighting the key aspects discussed. However, it would be beneficial to include a sentence or two about the methodology employed in conducting the rapid review.

Introduction: The introduction effectively sets the stage for the paper by providing background information on Saudi Arabia's historical resilience and its current challenges in the face of climate change. The introduction could be further strengthened by explicitly stating the objective of the study.

Methodology: The paper briefly mentions that a structured framework was followed for the rapid review, but it lacks details regarding the specific methods employed for data collection and synthesis. It is recommended to provide more information about the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the process of study selection.

Results and Discussion: The paper successfully explores the various aspects of climate change impact on Saudi Arabia, including water scarcity, infrastructure resilience, and geopolitical intricacies. The discussion provides valuable insights into the country's adaptive governance and sustainable growth initiatives. However, it would be beneficial to include more specific examples or case studies to support the arguments made in the paper.

Conclusion: The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings of the paper. It would be helpful to include a discussion on the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research in the field of climate change adaptation in Saudi Arabia.

References: The reference list appears to be comprehensive and includes relevant sources. However, it would be beneficial to ensure consistent formatting throughout the reference list according to the journal's guidelines.

Minor Revisions:

Clarify the objective of the study in the introduction section.

Provide more details about the methodology employed for the rapid review.

Include specific examples or case studies to support the arguments made in the results and discussion section.

Discuss the limitations of the study and suggest avenues for future research in the conclusion section.

Ensure consistent formatting in the reference list according to the journal's guidelines.

Overall, this paper provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of climate change adaptation in Saudi Arabia. With the suggested minor revisions, the paper will be further improved and ready for publication.

Yes, the English in this paper is generally good. The authors have employed clear and concise language to convey their ideas effectively. The writing style is appropriate for a scientific paper, and the sentences are well-structured. minor English editing is needed

Author Response

Response to Reviewer's Comments

General Comments:

We sincerely appreciate the positive feedback regarding the relevance, timeliness, structure, and clarity of our paper, "Adapting Disaster Preparedness Strategies to Changing Climate Patterns in Saudi Arabia: A Rapid Review." It is encouraging to know that the core content and the presentation resonate well with the reader.

Abstract: Reviewer's Comment: The abstract provides a concise summary of the paper's content, highlighting the key aspects discussed. However, it would be beneficial to include a sentence or two about the methodology employed in conducting the rapid review.

Our Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have incorporated a brief mention of our methodology within the abstract to provide a more holistic overview of our approach.

Introduction: Reviewer's Comment: The introduction effectively sets the stage for the paper. The introduction could be further strengthened by explicitly stating the objective of the study.

Our Response: We concur with your observation. To address this, we have now added a specific statement detailing the objective of our study, ensuring that readers clearly understand our aim from the outset.

Methodology: Reviewer's Comment: The paper briefly mentions that a structured framework was followed, but it lacks details. It is recommended to provide more information about the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the process of study selection.

Our Response: We appreciate the feedback. We have expanded the methodology section, detailing our search strategy, defining our inclusion and exclusion criteria, and elucidating the process we employed for study selection. This should offer readers a clearer understanding of our systematic approach.

Results and Discussion: Reviewer's Comment: The discussion provides valuable insights. However, it would be beneficial to include more specific examples or case studies to support the arguments made in the paper.

Our Response: Your suggestion is well-received. We have enriched the Results and Discussion section by incorporating additional specific examples and case studies from Saudi Arabia to further substantiate our arguments, making our insights more concrete and relatable.

Conclusion: Reviewer's Comment: The conclusion summarizes the main findings effectively. It would be helpful to include a discussion on the study's limitations and suggestions for future research in the field.

Our Response: We concur with your feedback. To make our conclusion more robust, we have incorporated a brief discussion on the limitations of our study, drawing from the "Limitations" section. Moreover, we've also included suggestions for future research in the realm of climate change adaptation in Saudi Arabia.

Once again, we are grateful for the comprehensive feedback. These insights were instrumental in refining our paper, and we believe that the adjustments made have enhanced its quality and readability. We hope the revised manuscript will meet the standards of the journal.

Warm regards,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

In line with the proofreading criteria of the publisher, I prepared a review  report, which would be as follows:

According my evaluation, the content of the proposed review paper mostly meets the objectives set out in the authors guide of the journal.

In addition to acknowledging the high-quality research work, I propose the following corrections:

The authors several times use non-scientific and non-specific terms ( for example “paints a vivid portrait of Saudi Arabia's journey through the climate labyrinth”), therefore the text of the paper should be reviewed again.

Abstract: I recommend authors to revise the abstract, because - in its present form - it is too general. Specify the applied work methodology and add results and conclusions more punctually related to the scientific problem of the study. It is also recommended to make concrete the benefits of the submitted article.

1. Introduction.

- I recommend shortly introducing in this section the role of international and regional disaster management cooperation activities and basic legal documents, such as for example the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction.

- After the introduction of the main objectives of this study the vital conclusions should be highlighted at the end of this section.

2. Materials and Methods. Figure 1 is recommended to move into Chapter 2.

3. Results. There are limited illustrations in the section to help the reader understand better the intended content .

4. Discussion. This section is too brief and should be detailed. In this section, the experimental results should be clearly presented and in detail discussed. It is also recommended to divide this section into several subsections according to the main directions of the research work.

5. Conclusions. It should be recommended to add some subsections (or paragraphs), which contains the following information:

- contributions to theory,

- contributions to practitioners (proposals for national governments, institutes, local government administrations responsible for the disaster preparedness, relationship of research results with national and international disaster preparedness legislation, strategies and policies).

- suggestions for future research areas.

It is also recommended that the authors make suggestions based on national experiences that could be applied by other governments with similar problems in the international scale.

The references used in the review are relevant and assist the reader to understand the authors objectives.

 Based on the above, after revision, I suggest publishing the reviewed article.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our manuscript. Your insights are invaluable and have guided us to make necessary revisions to enhance the paper's quality. Here's our detailed response to each of the points you've raised:

1. Non-scientific and Non-specific Terms:

   • We acknowledge the instances where our language might have seemed non-scientific. We have revisited the manuscript and have made amendments to ensure the language aligns with the scientific rigor expected by the journal.

2. Abstract:

   • Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the abstract to be more specific, detailing the applied methodology and emphasizing the results and conclusions directly related to the study's scientific problem. Furthermore, we've underscored the unique contributions of our article.

3. Introduction:

   • We have now briefly introduced the role of international and regional disaster management cooperation activities and incorporated references to significant legal documents like the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction.
   • Based on your suggestion, we have highlighted the vital conclusions of our study at the end of this section.

4. Materials and Methods:

   • As for the recommendation to move Figure 1 into Chapter 2, we feel that it fits best in the "Materials and Methods" section as it visually represents the methodological approach we adopted. Relocating it to Chapter 2 might make it seem out of context and potentially confuse the readers. 

5. Results:

   • We understand the importance of visual aids in making content comprehensible. While we tried to maintain a balance between textual and visual content, we believe that additional illustrations might overcrowd the section. Our goal was to maintain clarity without overwhelming readers with excess visuals. 

6. Discussion:

   • We have expanded upon the discussion section, presenting and detailing the experimental results. However, to maintain the flow of the narrative and to avoid compartmentalizing interconnected ideas, we chose not to divide the section into multiple subsections.

7. Conclusions:

   • While we understand the utility of subsections in organizing content, we believe that for our paper, a cohesive and uninterrupted narrative in the conclusions section better conveys our message. However, we have incorporated your suggestions on emphasizing contributions to theory, practitioners, and proposing areas for future research.
   • We've also included suggestions rooted in national experiences that other governments with analogous challenges might find beneficial.

8. References:

   • We're glad to hear that the references provided were deemed appropriate and supportive of our objectives.

In conclusion, we are confident that the revisions we've made, guided by your insightful feedback, have improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript will meet the standards of the journal.

Thank you once again for your invaluable feedback.

Warm regards,

Authors