Drought Dynamics in Sub-Saharan Africa: Impacts and Adaptation Strategies

Editor comment

Response

Part 1: As this is a review article, it is essential not only to highlight the importance of analyzing drought and its impacts and adaptations in Sub-Saharan Africa but also to clarify whether there exists any prior reviews in this field. Furthermore, it should delineate how this review contributes incrementally or innovatively compared to previous works within the same domain.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the introduction to clarify the prior reviews drought in Sub-Saharan Africa. Our review differentiates itself by offering a more extensive analysis, bringing together multi-country perspectives and covering various sectors such as agriculture, health, conflicts and social issues, along with integrating drought projections. This helps address gaps left by previous studies that have typically focused on narrower regions or specific themes

Part 2:

The layout of Figure 1 appears somewhat unconventional and could benefit from further refinement. Additionally, the literature search does not specify the publication date range for the selected articles.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. In response to your comment regarding Figure 1, we have refined the layout to ensure it follows a more conventional and clear structure. Additionally, we have now specified that the literature search includes studies published between 2010 and 2024.

Part 3:

This section tends to read as a mere listing of literature without providing a clear synthesis regarding the frequency or severity of droughts in Sub-Saharan Africa. A more quantitative or systematic analysis would enhance clarity for readers.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. In response, we have revisited this section and made changes to provide a more structured synthesis of the literature, incorporating a more robust quantitative data analysis.

For instance, we now emphasize that droughts are responsible for over 88% of all disaster-related impacts in Africa. We have also included specific regional data, such as the fluctuations in drought-affected areas in East Africa from 1900 to 2020. Additionally, in the Greater Horn of Africa, drought severity has increased over the past 52 years, with extreme droughts recorded in 1973–1974, 1984–1985, and 2010–2011.

In Southern Africa, we referenced the extensive impacts of droughts during the 1981–2005 period, particularly in regions like South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana, where drought frequency is notably high. For Central Africa, we included data showing that the Congo Basin experienced prolonged and severe multi-year droughts, affecting over 50% of the basin from 1901 to 1930 and around 40% between 1994 and 2006. Furthermore, in recent decades (1991–2014), the Congo Basin has demonstrated a persistent drying trend.

These changes provide a more comprehensive quantitative analysis, highlighting the frequency of drought cycles and the expansion of drought-affected areas.

Part 4:

It is advisable to include brief summaries for each subsection within Part 4 that explicitly articulate how drought affects agriculture, conflict, health, and society based on existing literature. Currently, these subsections convey an impression of merely cataloging sources.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. Upon reviewing the sections you highlighted, we recognize the importance of presenting the impacts of drought across key sectors such as agriculture, conflict, health, and social issues in a clear and concise manner. To avoid redundancy, we have utilized Figure 3 to provide a visual summary that captures the key drought impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa.

While we appreciate the suggestion for additional summaries within each section, we feel that the current structure, combined with the figure 3, effectively conveys the multifaceted nature of drought impacts. Further elaboration could risk repetition.

Part 5:

A more logical organization is recommended; presently, there exists an element of verbosity.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We agree that the previous version of Part 5 (now Part 6) could benefit from clearer organization and reduced verbosity. In response, we have made adjustments to improve the logical flow and conciseness of the text.

We reorganized the introduction to focus more directly on the strategies employed to mitigate the effects of drought. This revision presents the strategies such as crop variety adjustments, irrigation expansion, and household coping mechanisms in a more concise and logical manner. Additionally, we consolidated repetitive information about institutional support into a more focused paragraph. Instead of repeating details about the roles of NGOs and governments in different sections, we combined them to state: "Institutional support, including emergency aid, veterinary services, credit access, and weather forecasting, remains critical.

Furthermore, we simplified the description of the Angola water management project by removing excessive technical details. This adjustment maintains the key information while improving readability.

Part 6:

It may be prudent to remove this section altogether as it does not align with the primary focus of the paper and adds little value; rather, it renders the manuscript unnecessarily cumbersome.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We believe the inclusion of drought projections offers readers crucial insight into future trends, aiding the understanding of how adaptation strategies must evolve to address emerging challenges. This section highlights the urgency of improving mitigation measures and aligns the paper with contemporary climate research. For these reasons, we kindly request to retain this section.

It may be prudent to remove this section altogether as it does not align with the primary focus of the paper and adds little value; rather, it renders the manuscript unnecessarily cumbersome.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We believe the inclusion of drought projections offers readers crucial insight into future trends, aiding the understanding of how adaptation strategies must evolve to address emerging challenges. This section highlights the urgency of improving mitigation measures and aligns the paper with contemporary climate research. For these reasons, we kindly request to retain this section.

Part 7:

The discussion should ideally be structured into several tiers. The current format resembles that of a research report rather than conforming to academic journal standards.

Response: Thank you for your observation. In response to your suggestion, we have restructured the discussion section into multiple subsections. This revised structure improves clarity and allows for a more detailed and focused analysis of the implications of drought dynamics and the strategies for drought adaptation. Specifically, we have added the following subsections:

7.1 Implications of Drought Dynamics

7.2. Drought Intensity and Trends

7.3. Drought Adaptation

Part 8:

A rewrite is suggested here; this section should primarily encapsulate the key findings presented in this study.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have carefully revised the section to ensure it now encapsulates the key findings presented in this study. The updated version highlights the most important insights, focusing on the impacts of drought in SSA across critical sectors, including agriculture, conflict, and health, while also emphasizing the future projections and necessary mitigation strategies. By streamlining the content, the section now presents a clear synthesis of the study’s findings, aligning with the overarching goals and ensuring better clarity for the readers.

Reviewer comment

Response

Line 85: In the “Introduction of Study Area”, please add the precipitation and temperature of study area.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. Following your suggestion, we have included additional information about the climate of the study area, specifically addressing precipitation and temperature patterns to provide a more complete characterization. We now highlight that rainfall and temperature patterns vary significantly across this diverse region. Countries within the 10°N–10°S latitude, such as those in Central Africa and the Ethiopian Highlands, receive over 1500 mm of annual rainfall, while other parts of SSA receive less than 500 mm. Temperature variation is largely influenced by elevation, with higher altitude regions like the Great Rift Valley and southern Africa experiencing cooler average temperatures around 15°C, while equatorial regions average 25°C, and areas near the Sahara can reach up to 30°C.

Line 99: Please revise Fig.1 and make it more readable.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised Figure 1 to improve its readability by simplifying the layout and ensuring better visual clarity.

Line 100: How many literature were reviewed in this study?

Response: Thank you for your observation. A total of 93 studies were included in the review. We have now clarified this in the manuscript, specifically in Section 2.1.

Line 139: Based the data in the literature, please add 1 or 2 figures depicting the drought dynamics, and make readers feel more intuitive.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have now included a figure (Figure 3) that visually represents the drought dynamics in Sub-Saharan Africa. This figure illustrates both the impacts of drought on agriculture, health, and social sectors, as well as the adaptation strategies being employed, such as agricultural diversification, access to credit, and the use of technology to monitor and forecast drought. We believe this visual aid will help make the discussion more intuitive and accessible for the readers.

Line 505: In the “Discussion”, suggest that divide into several aspects.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have restructured the "Discussion" section into distinct subsections to address various aspects of drought dynamics more comprehensively. The revised structure now includes:

7.1 Implications of Drought Dynamics

7.2. Drought Intensity and Trends

7.3. Drought Adaptation

I suggest that swap the order of “5. Drought management strategies” and “6. Drought projections in Sub-Saharan Africa” . In addition, in the “Drought projections in Sub-Saharan Africa”, please add a figure indicating the dynamic of drought in the future.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have swapped the order of the sections Drought management strategies and Drought projections in Sub-Saharan Africa as suggested. Additionally, we have included a figure (Figure 5) that visually represents the drought dynamics in Sub-Saharan Africa. This figure illustrates both the impacts of drought and the projected future changes in drought intensity under different climate scenarios.

Reviewer comment

Response

 1. Fig. 1: The SSA (upper) is not consistent with that in Africa (lower).

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised Figure 1 to ensure consistency between the representation of SSA.

2. Line 114-115: The design of inclusion criteria for drought phenomena should indicate different types of droughts, such as meteorological drought, agricultural drought, hydrological drought, and socio-economic drought should have been considered.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. We agree that incorporating different types of droughts has enhanced the inclusivity and specificity of our inclusion criteria.

3. Line 151-154: The increasing trend in drought-affected areas should not be directly interpreted as an increase in drought frequency. Factors such as uneven precipitation distribution due to climate change, changes in land use patterns, or intensified evaporation caused by rising temperatures may result in more areas being affected by drought, but this does not necessarily indicate a higher frequency of drought events. This issue requires careful consideration!

Response: Thank you for your feedback. After reviewing the paragraph, we agree that the increasing trend in drought-affected areas should not be directly interpreted as an increase in drought frequency. We have revised the paragraph to improve clarity and to ensure that the distinction between drought severity, extent, and frequency is better understood. Now it reads as: That paragraph now read: “he Equatorial East Africa (EEA) region located in East Africa, encompassing countries like Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi, has experienced widespread drought events throughout history. From 1900 to 2020, drought affected areas fluctuated significantly, with magnitudes ranging from 0% to 95%, across the EEA [18]

4. Line 473-475: This sentence mentions a 2–3 month lag between the drought index and runoff. Please explain the practical significance of this lag for drought prediction and management.

Response: After careful review, we have decided to remove the reference to the 2–3 month lag in lines 473–475, as it does not have practical significance for drought prediction and management in this context.

Additionally, we revised the paragraph to provide more detailed information about the drought projections. We included the use of Global Climate Models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and the scenarios applied under the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). The findings reveal an increase in drought area by 9%, 17%, and 16% in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s, respectively, under the RCP 2.6 scenario. More significant increases are projected under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5, with changes in drought areas of up to 36% and 39% by the 2080s, highlighting the expected increase in drought severity by the mid and late 21st century. 

5. Line 245-255: Conduct a comprehensive review of the entire manuscript. Every citation must explicitly mention the author or study. Using [number] as the subject is a serious breach of academic writing standards and compromises the professionalism and logical coherence of the paper. Check throughout the manuscript!

Response: Thank you for your feedback. Please note that the standard way o citing documents in this journal uses [numbers]. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and we agree that citations should be handled more explicitly, with clear mentions of the author or study in each reference.

The updated manuscript now consistently reflects this approach, as seen in sections such as "Drought and Conflicts," where each reference explicitly mentions the relevant author or study, ensuring proper attribution and clarity throughout. We have ensured that these changes are applied consistently across the entire document.

Here some specific comments. Especially, there are a lot of errors in this paper as follows. I will try to catch the errors, but I will likely miss some. Please conduct a careful edit to catch what I do not.

1. There are many sentences are missing a period at the end! For example, Line 38, Line 56, Line 77, ...

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and corrected the missing periods, including those in Line 38, Line 56, and Line 77. We have also ensured that no other punctuation errors remain in the text.

2. Fig 3: “agriculture in SAA”?

Response: Thank you for your observation. We have corrected the label in Fig. 3 to “Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa to ensure clarity and consistency with the rest of the manuscript.

3. Line 283: “2014-2016”? or “2014–2016”.

Response: Thank you for your observation. We have standardised the use of date ranges throughout the manuscript to "2014–2016" to ensure consistency and accuracy.

5. Line 511: “[72]; [73]”, Please revise according to the journal’s formatting requirements.

Response: We have revised the references in Line 511 and throughout the manuscript to align with the journal's formatting guidelines. The references are now consistent with the required style.

4. Line 400: “Tab. 2 .”?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the formatting of "Tab. 2" and ensured that there are no extra spaces or punctuation issues in the table captions.

6. Please change the table form to a three-line table. (Tab. 4)

Response: We have reformatted Table 4 and all other tables to follow the three-line format as per the journal’s requirements. This change enhances the readability and presentation of the tables.

7. Line 544: Check “([9] [8].”?

Response: We have corrected the reference formatting error in Line 544. The references now follow the correct citation order and style, and any misplaced punctuation has been removed.

8. Line 566: “([82]; [83].”?

Response: We have reviewed the references in Line 566 and made the necessary corrections to ensure the formatting is consistent with the journal's guidelines. We also conducted a thorough review to catch similar issues in other parts of the manuscript.

Additionally, in Table 1, we revised references from [32] (Detges, 2017) and [33] (Bell and Keys, 2016) to Detges [32] and Bell and Keys [33]. We also renamed Table 2 to Table 3 and moved Table 3 from Line 375 to Line 521 to align it with the paragraph on drought management strategies.