Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find that the paper requires substantial revisions to improve its coherence, methodological clarity, and analytical depth.

First, I there is an emphasis on Brazil in the introduction (lines 51–75) and later in the discussion (lines 922–926). Since the study is presented as a global systematic review, I find this focus insufficiently justified. If the authors intend to highlight Brazil or South America as a key context, then both the introduction, objective and discussion should consistently reflect this scope. In that case, I would expect a more explicit regional framing, importantly, the development of a preliminary research agenda tailored to high-vulnerability contexts in South America. Otherwise, these references feel disconnected from the overall objective of the paper.

I also notice some issues in the writing and structure. For instance, in line 118 the word “review” is misspelled. Additionally, the paragraphs between lines 117 and 151 feel disconnected from the main argument. They read more like a list of existing reviews rather than a critical synthesis. I would recommend reorganizing this section to clearly highlight what conceptual or methodological gaps exist and how this study addresses them. The authors could also better justify the selection of keywords used in the search strategy.

Regarding the methodology, the restriction of the search to the period 2015–2025 should be explained more clearly. Similarly, Figure 1, the filters used during screening should be explicitly included in the figure itself. Moreover, the detailed description in lines 221–245 is somewhat tedious and could be summarized visually within Figure 1 or in an additional figure.

In the section on potential bias (after line 356), I think language bias is an important limitation that missing. Since the articles in the database are predominantly in English, relevant studies in other languages may have been excluded. Additionally, I find it unclear how the “most cited articles” filter applied in Web of Science was handled in relation to the other databases, which do not use this criterion. This raises concerns about consistency in the selection process.

In the results section, I notice some redundancy and lack of clarity. The first paragraph (lines 390–403) largely repeats information already presented in Figure 1 and the methodology. Furthermore, the section between lines 407 and 456 mixes procedural explanations with results, which weakens the analytical clarity. I would recommend focusing strictly on results and expanding the interpretation. For example, the authors mention the lack of integration between modelling and participatory approaches, but they do not sufficiently explain why this gap persists or what structural factors contribute to it. Similarly, the differences between developed and developing contexts are mentioned but not deeply analyzed.

In Table 3, I find that the classification of integration levels (high, medium, low) is not clearly justified. The authors should explicitly define the criteria used for this categorization and explain the distinguishing characteristics in the main text.

A major issue I identify concerns the structure of the results sections (3.1 to 3.6). While the authors describe multiple studies, I find that the analysis remains largely descriptive and lacks synthesis. The current categorization into six analytical domains feels static and somewhat fragmented. In my opinion, this approach obscures the evolution of the field toward socio-technical integration. I suggest reorganizing the results around a dynamic framework, such as a maturity model or evolutionary continuum, that shows the progression from isolated approaches (modelling-only or participation-only) to fully integrated socio-technical systems. This would significantly strengthen the contribution and make the synthesis more compelling.

Related to this, I believe the discussion of differences between developed and developing countries represents a missed opportunity. The authors frame developing contexts in terms of limitations (e.g., lack of data or institutional capacity), but do not sufficiently explore the strengths or adaptive capacities of participatory approaches used in these contexts. I would encourage the authors to include a dedicated comparative analysis of “simple” versus “complex” methods. For instance, participatory approaches in countries such as Ghana or Kenya could be analyzed in terms of their flexibility, contextual relevance, and potential advantages compared to more top-down, model-driven approaches in Europe. This would allow a more balanced and insightful discussion.

Finally, I notice some repetition issues. Section 3.7 reiterates information about potential bias that was already presented in the methodology, which could be streamlined. Additionally, in lines 932–934, a phrase is repeated unnecessarily (“which involves”), indicating the need for careful editing.

Author Response

I find that the paper requires substantial revisions to improve its coherence, methodological clarity, and analytical depth.

Comment:
First, I there is an emphasis on Brazil in the introduction (lines 51–75) and later in the discussion (lines 922–926). Since the study is presented as a global systematic review, I find this focus insufficiently justified. If the authors intend to highlight Brazil or South America as a key context, then both the introduction, objective and discussion should consistently reflect this scope. In that case, I would expect a more explicit regional framing, importantly, the development of a preliminary research agenda tailored to high-vulnerability contexts in South America. Otherwise, these references feel disconnected from the overall objective of the paper.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have revised the Introduction and Discussion to clarify the scope of the study. While the review adopts a global perspective, references to Brazil are now explicitly framed as illustrative examples of high-vulnerability contexts rather than as the primary focus. Additionally, we have refined the discussion to better align with the global scope of the review.

Comment:
I also notice some issues in the writing and structure. For instance, in line 118 the word “review” is misspelled. Additionally, the paragraphs between lines 117 and 151 feel disconnected from the main argument. They read more like a list of existing reviews rather than a critical synthesis. I would recommend reorganizing this section to clearly highlight what conceptual or methodological gaps exist and how this study addresses them.

Response:
We have substantially restructured the Introduction by grouping previous studies into thematic categories (technical modelling approaches and governance/participatory approaches). This allowed us to move beyond a descriptive listing and clearly identify conceptual and methodological gaps addressed by this study.

Comment:
The authors could also better justify the selection of keywords used in the search strategy. Regarding the methodology, the restriction of the search to the period 2015–2025 should be explained more clearly. Similarly, Figure 1, the filters used during screening should be explicitly included in the figure itself. Moreover, the detailed description in lines 221–245 is somewhat tedious and could be summarized visually within Figure 1 or in an additional figure.

Response:
We have added a detailed explanation of the keyword selection process, including exploratory testing and refinement. Additionally, the rationale for the 2015–2025 timeframe has been explicitly included, based on the emergence of integrated modelling-participation studies from 2015 onwards. We have clarified the filtering procedures applied in each database and incorporated this information into the description of Figure 1. We also clarified the use of the “most cited articles” filter in Web of Science and justified its application.

Comment:
In the section on potential bias (after line 356), I think language bias is an important limitation that missing. Since the articles in the database are predominantly in English, relevant studies in other languages may have been excluded. Additionally, I find it unclear how the “most cited articles” filter applied in Web of Science was handled in relation to the other databases, which do not use this criterion. This raises concerns about consistency in the selection process.

Response:
We have clarified the filtering procedures applied in each database and incorporated this information into the description of Figure 1. We also clarified the use of the “most cited articles” filter in Web of Science and justified its application.

Comment:
In the results section, I notice some redundancy and lack of clarity. The first paragraph (lines 390–403) largely repeats information already presented in Figure 1 and the methodology. Furthermore, the section between lines 407 and 456 mixes procedural explanations with results, which weakens the analytical clarity. I would recommend focusing strictly on results and expanding the interpretation. For example, the authors mention the lack of integration between modelling and participatory approaches, but they do not sufficiently explain why this gap persists or what structural factors contribute to it. Similarly, the differences between developed and developing contexts are mentioned but not deeply analyzed.

Response:
We have revised the Results section to improve analytical depth by synthesizing findings across studies rather than describing them individually. The discussion now emphasizes patterns, gaps, and explanatory factors behind the observed lack of integration.

Comment:
In Table 3, I find that the classification of integration levels (high, medium, low) is not clearly justified. The authors should explicitly define the criteria used for this categorization and explain the distinguishing characteristics in the main text.

Response:
We have clarified on the text that the classification of integration levels was defined based on the degree of interaction between modeling and participatory processes, ranging from isolated applications to fully integrated co-production approaches.

Comment:
A major issue I identify concerns the structure of the results sections (3.1 to 3.6). While the authors describe multiple studies, I find that the analysis remains largely descriptive and lacks synthesis. The current categorization into six analytical domains feels static and somewhat fragmented. In my opinion, this approach obscures the evolution of the field toward socio-technical integration. I suggest reorganizing the results around a dynamic framework, such as a maturity model or evolutionary continuum, that shows the progression from isolated approaches (modelling-only or participation-only) to fully integrated socio-technical systems. This would significantly strengthen the contribution and make the synthesis more compelling.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion and for highlighting the importance of strengthening the analytical synthesis of the Results section. While we acknowledge the value of structuring the analysis through a maturity model or evolutionary continuum, we have deliberately maintained the organization of the Results into six analytical domains. This decision is grounded in the objective of preserving the multidimensional nature of the phenomenon under investigation, rather than imposing a strictly linear progression of integration.

Specifically, the interaction between hydrological–hydraulic modelling and community participation in socio-environmental risk management does not consistently follow a sequential or evolutionary pathway across the literature. Instead, the reviewed studies reveal coexisting and context-dependent configurations, in which modelling-only approaches, participation-only approaches, and integrated strategies are often developed in parallel, shaped by institutional, socio-economic, and data-related conditions. As such, representing the field through a linear maturity model could risk oversimplifying these heterogeneous trajectories.

The adopted structure (Sections 3.1 to 3.6) was therefore designed to:

• Distinguish key analytical dimensions of the field (e.g., modelling-only approaches, participation-only approaches, integration processes, and barriers);
• Allow a comparative examination across different configurations, rather than assuming a uniform progression;
• Highlight the structural factors and contextual constraints that influence the presence or absence of integration.

Importantly, in response to the reviewer’s concern regarding descriptive analysis, we have revised the Results section to strengthen cross-study synthesis within each domain, moving beyond a “study-by-study” description toward:

• The identification of recurring patterns across studies;
• The discussion of underlying drivers and barriers to integration;
• The explicit articulation of how the different domains relate to one another.

In addition, to address the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the need for a more integrative perspective, we have reinforced the Discussion section to explicitly synthesize these domains into a broader interpretation of the field, highlighting the conditions under which socio-technical integration emerges and the pathways through which it may evolve.

We believe that this approach provides a more flexible and context-sensitive analytical framework, which is better suited to capturing the diversity and complexity of the reviewed studies, while still addressing the reviewer’s concern regarding the need for stronger synthesis.

Comment:
Related to this, I believe the discussion of differences between developed and developing countries represents a missed opportunity. The authors frame developing contexts in terms of limitations (e.g., lack of data or institutional capacity), but do not sufficiently explore the strengths or adaptive capacities of participatory approaches used in these contexts. I would encourage the authors to include a dedicated comparative analysis of “simple” versus “complex” methods. For instance, participatory approaches in countries such as Ghana or Kenya could be analyzed in terms of their flexibility, contextual relevance, and potential advantages compared to more top-down, model-driven approaches in Europe. This would allow a more balanced and insightful discussion.

Response:
We have expanded the discussion to include a more balanced comparative analysis, highlighting not only limitations but also the adaptive strengths and contextual relevance of participatory approaches.

Comment:
Finally, I notice some repetition issues. Section 3.7 reiterates information about potential bias that was already presented in the methodology, which could be streamlined. Additionally, in lines 932–934, a phrase is repeated unnecessarily (“which involves”), indicating the need for careful editing.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this careful observation. In response, we have revised the manuscript to improve conciseness and eliminate redundancy.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a systematic review of 31 scientific articles to explore the application of hydrological-hydraulic models as tools for socio-environmental risk management, with a particular focus on participatory management approaches. It examines how these models can contribute value within the context of participatory socio-environmental risk management.

The overall structure of the manuscript is well-organized, and the content is detailed and comprehensive. The description of the review methodology is particularly clear, and the synthesis of existing literature is thorough. Based on the 31 reviewed articles, the study provides an in-depth analysis of the current research status and applicability of hydrological-hydraulic models, yielding practically meaningful conclusions.

The following suggestions are offered to further improve the manuscript:

1. As a review article, this study discusses only 31 articles. Moreover, the reference list lacks foundational theoretical works or highly influential studies in the field of hydrological-hydraulic modeling. It is recommended that the authors supplement the manuscript with such essential references—these are not necessarily captured by the literature collection methods and inclusion criteria applied in this study, but should be incorporated based on a solid understanding of the theoretical background.

2. To enhance readability, it is suggested that the case studies presented in Table 3 be organized in a more logical manner. The current arrangement makes it difficult for readers to quickly grasp key information. Consider categorizing the cases by region, modeling method, or other meaningful criteria.

Author Response

Comment:
As a review article, this study discusses only 31 articles. Moreover, the reference list lacks foundational theoretical works or highly influential studies in the field of hydrological-hydraulic modeling. It is recommended that the authors supplement the manuscript with such essential references—these are not necessarily captured by the literature collection methods and inclusion criteria applied in this study, but should be incorporated based on a solid understanding of the theoretical background.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion and for highlighting the importance of situating the study within the broader theoretical landscape of hydrological–hydraulic modelling.

We would like to clarify that the primary objective of this review is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the theoretical foundations of hydrological–hydraulic modelling itself, but rather to systematically analyze how such modelling approaches have been applied in conjunction with community participation within the specific context of socio-environmental risk management. For this reason, the literature selection was intentionally guided by predefined inclusion criteria that prioritized studies addressing the intersection between modelling, participation, and risk management, rather than the full body of foundational or methodological developments in modelling.

Including foundational theoretical works would extend beyond the defined scope of this study and could potentially dilute its analytical focus. Nevertheless, we recognize the value of providing sufficient contextual grounding for readers. To address this point, we have revised the Introduction to ensure that the role and relevance of hydrological-hydraulic modelling are clearly framed, while maintaining the targeted scope of the review.

We believe that this approach preserves the methodological consistency and focus of the systematic review, while still providing adequate contextualization for the reader.

Comment:
To enhance readability, it is suggested that the case studies presented in Table 3 be organized in a more logical manner. The current arrangement makes it difficult for readers to quickly grasp key information. Consider categorizing the cases by region, modeling method, or other meaningful criteria.

Response:
Table 3 has been reorganized to improve readability, grouping studies according to region, modelling method, community participation, integration level and key findings.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses an important topic, as the integration of hydrological–hydraulic modelling with community processes offers strong potential to improve socio‑environmental risk management; however, the main issues lie in the quality of the write‑up and the way the results and discussion are presented, and the following specific comments are provided to support improvement of clarity, structure, and synthesis.

 

 

-Consider updating Table 3 title. Something like: Overview of hydrological-hydraulic modelling studies and key Finding

-It is not clear what is the main point of line 117-113. A good introduction in a review paper provides Background and Context and sets up why the review matters, what it covers, and how it is organized. Its goal is to orient readers and justify the need for the review before diving into detailed analysis. If previous studies are referenced, authors should explicitly discuss their limitations and differences and clearly state the novelty of the current study.

-line 118: rwview?

-Remove line 161-162.

-Section 3.1: The paragraphs in this section start each section with an author’s name and then explain what that author did. This creates a “who said what” list, rather than a strong discussion. The writing focuses too much on reporting what each author did and not enough on integrating those studies into a clear, coherent argument. Start with a strong topic sentence stating the overall insight. Group studies by theme.

-Section 3.3: before starting with reporting what other studies found, bring a sentence and introduce a section topic and give reader an overview/orientation about this section.

 

-Section 3.4: Similar to the comment above, put the findings in priority and center of manuscript.

Suggestion for line 617:  Some studies used hydrological-hydraulic modelling that provided important 619 results for risk analysis and management, but did not include community participation (Ntajal et al. [31], Caprario et al. (2019) [32] and Havrys et al. (2024) [33]).

Then follow the same procedure of comment above.

 

-This manuscript currently has just 1 Figure. I strongly suggest at least one more Figure in 3 and try to bring the discussion/conclusion in form of a Figure. It makes the readers more interested in the manuscript.

- I strongly suggest merging Sections 3 and 4. Combining the results and discussion would improve the overall quality of the paper and make the authors’ arguments easier for readers to understand.

-I have found some problems with references. For example, in the text, Islam et al. [9] is cited but in References section it is study number 10.

-Modeling approach should be further discussed in the review as currently the manuscript lacks explaining Modeling approach

Author Response

Comment:
Consider updating Table 3 title. Something like: Overview of hydrological-hydraulic modelling studies and key Finding

Response:
The title has been updated to “Overview of the studies and main findings”.

Comment:
It is not clear what is the main point of line 117-113. A good introduction in a review paper provides Background and Context and sets up why the review matters, what it covers, and how it is organized. Its goal is to orient readers and justify the need for the review before diving into detailed analysis. If previous studies are referenced, authors should explicitly discuss their limitations and differences and clearly state the novelty of the current study.

Response:
The Introduction has been restructured to clearly define the background, research gap, and contribution of the study.

Comment:
Remove line 161-162.

Response:
Lines 161-162 have been removed.

Comment:
Section 3.1: The paragraphs in this section start each section with an author’s name and then explain what that author did. This creates a “who said what” list, rather than a strong discussion. The writing focuses too much on reporting what each author did and not enough on integrating those studies into a clear, coherent argument. Start with a strong topic sentence stating the overall insight. Group studies by theme.
Section 3.3: before starting with reporting what other studies found, bring a sentence and introduce a section topic and give reader an overview/orientation about this section.
Section 3.4: Similar to the comment above, put the findings in priority and center of manuscript.

Response:
We appreciate this important observation. We have revised Sections 3.1 – 3.6 to group studies thematically and emphasize synthesis to prioritize analytical insights rather than study-by-study description.

Comment:
Suggestion for line 617:  Some studies used hydrological-hydraulic modelling that provided important results for risk analysis and management, but did not include community participation (Ntajal et al. [31], Caprario et al. (2019) [32] and Havrys et al. (2024) [33]).

Response:
Line 617 has been rephrased to better reflect the analytical focus of the section and emphasise the contrast with participatory approaches as “A complementary gap exists at the opposite end of the methodological spectrum. A significant portion of the studies analysed rely solely on technical modelling to support flood risk analysis and management and make no provision for community participation in any stage of their methodological process (Ntajal et al. [31], Caprario et al. [32] and Havrys et al. [33]).”

Comment:
This manuscript currently has just 1 Figure. I strongly suggest at least one more Figure in 3 and try to bring the discussion/conclusion in form of a Figure. It makes the readers more interested in the manuscript.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion and for highlighting the potential benefits of additional visual elements to enhance the clarity of the manuscript. After careful consideration, we have opted not to include an additional figure. We believe that the revised text provides a sufficiently clear and rigorous presentation of the study’s findings, without the need for an additional figure. Nonetheless, we appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have ensured that the manuscript narrative is as clear and accessible as possible.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have incorporated an additional conceptual figure in the manuscript (Section 3/Discussion), illustrating the continuum of socio-technical integration identified in the review—from modelling-only approaches to fully integrated participatory frameworks. This figure synthesises the main findings and enhances the visual communication of the study’s contribution, improving accessibility and reader engagement.

Comment:
I strongly suggest merging Sections 3 and 4. Combining the results and discussion would improve the overall quality of the paper and make the authors’ arguments easier for readers to understand.

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, we have opted to maintain separate Results and Discussion sections to preserve analytical clarity. The Results section presents the systematic synthesis of findings based on predefined analytical domains, while the Discussion provides higher-level interpretation, comparison, and theoretical framing.

Comment:
I have found some problems with references. For example, in the text, Islam et al. [9] is cited but in References section it is study number 10.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for identifying this issue. The reference list and in-text citations have been carefully reviewed and corrected to ensure full consistency between citation numbering and the reference list. All discrepancies have been resolved.

Comment:
Modeling approach should be further discussed in the review as currently the manuscript lacks explaining Modeling approach

Response:
We would like to clarify that the primary objective of this review is not to provide a detailed technical exposition of hydrological–hydraulic modelling methods themselves, but rather to examine how these modelling approaches are applied in conjunction with community participation within the context of socio-environmental risk management. Accordingly, the selection and analysis of studies were guided by predefined criteria focused on the interaction between modelling, participation, and risk governance, rather than on the methodological depth of modelling techniques per se.

A comprehensive discussion of modelling approaches, including their theoretical development, numerical structure, and comparative performance, would extend beyond the defined scope of this review and could shift its focus away from its central contribution. Nevertheless, we recognise the importance of ensuring that readers have sufficient contextual understanding of the role of modelling within the analysed studies.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The comments were addressed. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments. The quality of manuscript is good now and it is ready for publication.