Comparing Expert and Local Community Perspectives on Flood Management in the Lower Mono River Catchment, Togo and Benin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The article " Comparing the experts and local communities’ perspectives on flood management in the Lower Mono River Catchment, Togo and Benin" is well written and deals with a key issue for integrated flood management, namely the divergent perception between those who suffer from floods and those who study them or are called to mitigate their impacts. This is a relevant issue in all regions, in developed and developing countries. In West africa the problem of flooding is particularly felt, both in tropical and sub-tropical areas. The study is based on a participatory method of analysis that is particularly suited to the co-management of natural resources and risks.

The methods, results, discussion and conclusions are described in a comprehensive, clear and effective manner.

The article may be published after minor revision.

I suggest to improve the Introduction in order to provide a better understanding of the hydrological processes in West Africa and the description of the study area referring also to recent literature on the hydrology of the Mono river. I provided some references the authors could youse in the specific comments. I also suggest to provide at the end of the conclusion a final message suggesting how to proceed according to the study reccomendations.

English is fluent and requires only minor editing.

Please find hereafter my comments point by point with reference to manuscript lines and sentences highlited in yellow in the pdf file:

line 19 their

line 27 “to describe”

line 28 “their actions on the main…” not clear to me please clarify

line 32 I suggest to reverse the perspective in a positive manner (see the comment in the pdf file)

line 38 Introduction I suggest to improve this chapter with a better review on hydrological processes in west africa also in the perspective of observed and projected trends. see for example this recent and complete review:

• Descroix, L.; Guichard, F.; Grippa, M.; Lambert, L.A.; Panthou, G.; Mahé, G.; Gal, L.; Dardel, C.; Quantin, G.; Kergoat, L.; Bouaïta, Y.; Hiernaux, P.; Vischel, T.; Pellarin, T.; Faty, B.; Wilcox, C.; Malam Abdou, M.; Mamadou, I.; Vandervaere, J.-P.; Diongue-Niang, A.; Ndiaye, O.; Sané, Y.; Dacosta, H.; Gosset, M.; Cassé, C.; Sultan, B.; Barry, A.; Amogu, O.; Nka Nnomo, B.; Barry, A.; Paturel, J.-E. Evolution of Surface Hydrology in the Sahelo-Sudanian Strip: An Updated Review. Water 2018, 10, 748. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10060748

see also:

• Mahe et al. The rivers of Africa: witness of climate change and human impact on the environment, HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES,Volume27, Issue15. 2013
• Rameshwaran, P., Bell, V.A., Davies, H.N. et al. How might climate change affect river flows across West Africa?. Climatic Change 169, 21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03256-0

line 45 extreme rainfall

line 45 what do you mean that floods can be caused by high temperatures? amoing multiple natural causes temperatures seems to be irrelevant.

Line 55 “the natural ressources to tailor…” it is not clear to me what you mean, please clarify

Line 66 You could refere to the Integrated Flood Management (WMO) and the guidance document "Selecting Measures and Designing Strategies for Integrated Flood Management" https://www.floodmanagement.info/guidance-document/

Line 92 consider to reformulate in "by actors, particularly the experts and local communities"

Line 95 consider to reformulate in "the research question of this study is"

Line 126 Study Area: I would suggest to improve the description of the hydrology and hydrological processes in the Mono river. you can refer to:

• Amoussou, E.; Awoye, H.; Totin Vodounon, H.S.; Obahoundje, S.; Camberlin, P.; Diedhiou, A.; Kouadio, K.; Mahé, G.; Houndénou, C.; Boko, M. Climate and Extreme Rainfall Events in the Mono River Basin (West Africa): Investigating Future Changes with Regional Climate Models. Water 2020, 12, 833. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030833
• Biao et al. Hydrological Modelling of the Mono River Basin at Athiémé. Proc. IAHS, 384, 57–62, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-384-57-2021
• Lamboni et al. 2021, Future changes in precipitation, evapotranspiration andstreamflows in the Mono Basin of West Africa, IAHS, 384, 283–288, 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-384-283-2021

Line 146, please improve the quality of the map

Line 176 were instead of are

Line 179 do you mean for the group of experts? please verify

Line 182 participated instead of represented

Line 187 The following questions were asked to “both groups”....

Line 201 and helped us to understan

Line 214 insert “of” between model AND the

Line 226 habitat instead of houses

Line 233 food

Line 254 actors not experts

Line 272 as instead of “, and”

Line 286 what do you mean with plant formation? do you mean natural vegetation other than forest or plantations/orchards?

Line 323 what do they mean with losses of land? for example reduction of arable land? or degradation of land or what?

Line 331 activities? Instead of operations

Line 378 Figure 3 in figure a there is a "T" not explained in the caption

Line 385 high flood risk zones

Line 404 they are

Line 405 what do you mean with "common unit"? please clarify

Line 441 land cover/land use?

Line 452 community of actors?

Line 478 flood information system? or flood management system? please clarify

Line 524 Conclusions I suggest to add at the end a brief and synthetic message on how to proceed for taking into account the two perspective and avoiding that policies and strategies are built only on one of them.

Finally I congratulate your excellent work

greetings

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research work has the potential to be published but the following main shortcomings need to be addressed first:

1.  There is no Literature review as a separate section. The introduction contains a partial literature review. Please add a separate Literature review section, objectives of the research, and research gap clearly. I have given further comments in the attached pdf.
2. Poor diagrams and missing a flowchart explaining the approach. also, the study is figure is thirsty for information.
3. Discussions on novelty are altogether explained by saying that this river is studied for the first time, which cannot be a scientifically acceptable novelty.
4. Unnecessarily, language is made complex. Why not use short crisp clear sentences to make this paper understandable.
5. Results/ discussions are nice but don't have roots from the objectives (as objectives are not mentioned). Correlate these from the start and then explain these from the results.

An extensive revision is required. Please see my detailed comments in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Excellent work. Please accept as it is