Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello

The manuscript is well-written and somewhat close to a stndard version, I believe it would be printable if the following shortcomings were addressed.

- The title of the article emphsizes "Nigeria" and "Global South Perspective". However, the primary analysis is based on 10 Nigerian studies and global insights are only briefly included in the conclusion section.

- A comprehensive systematic review could include studies from several countries to extract real "transferable lessons".

- A brief introduction should explain the Flood Vulnerability Index and its importance, citing the source. It is better to describe research on flood risk from other parts of the world in 4-5 cases.

- In my opinion, the flowchart presented in Figure 2 is not at all suitable for the purpose and should be redrawn.

- The information presented in Table 3 needs summarization and should be presented in a shorter form.

- Many sections, especially the results and review of studies, are long and contain unnecessary details that could have been summarized in tables and graphs. This volume of detail tires the reader and obscures the main message.

- The GIS-Integrated Flood Risk Management Framework (GIFRM) is introduced several times in the text, but its operational explanation and how to use it in case studies are not clear. A dedicated section should be created to describe the framwork’s methodology in detail, along with an applied example.

- I recommend that a detailed critique of the strengths and weaknesses of flood management policies and a comparison of methods be made.

- The table of study selection and exclusion criteria is good, but the explanation of the selection method (CRD framework) and how it is applied in data analysis is not presented in an operational and clear manner.

- The article emphasizes GIS and spatial techniques, but quantitative analysis,

- Of the initial 827 articles, only 10 studies were selcted for the final synthesis. This number is too low for a “systematic review” that claims to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the literature and needs to be justified.

- Why were 82 studies excluded after abstract screening and another 40 after full evaluation? I recommend that you explain this further.

- The JBI scoring criteria should be presented clearly.

- No validation of models or evaluation of the performance of different methods is provided. This weakness makes the article more descriptive and less research-oriented.

- It is better to link each management recommendation to a specific result of the data analysis.

- The discussion section should more explicitly explain how the GIFRM framework addresses each of the methodological limitations identified in Section 3.8 (e.g. low-resolution data, lack of up-to-date data).

Author Response

Point 1: Expanding Global South Insights

Reviewer Comment:

The title emphasizes "Nigeria" and "Global South Perspective." However, the primary analysis is based on 10 Nigerian studies, and global insights are only briefly included in the conclusion section. A comprehensive systematic review could include studies from several countries to extract real "transferable lessons."

 

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. While our initial synthesis focused on Nigeria, we have substantially expanded the Global South perspective in the revised manuscript. A new subsection entitled “Expanding Global South Insights” has been added to the Literature Review, integrating five additional case studies from Bangladesh, South Africa, India, Iran, and Latin America. These cases demonstrate transferable GIS applications in flood risk assessment, including cloud-based Earth observation platforms, participatory mapping in data-scarce environments, and urban flood zonation in megacities. Collectively, they strengthen the manuscript’s comparative scope and reinforce the claim of offering lessons that extend beyond the Nigerian context. We have also updated the reference list to reflect these contributions

 

Point 2: Introduction: Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI)

Reviewer Comment:
A brief introduction should explain the Flood Vulnerability Index and its importance, citing the source.

 

Author Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new paragraph in the Introduction that explains the concept of the Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI), its origins, and its relevance in bridging physical hazard modelling with socio-economic indicators. Key references, have been added to strengthen the theoretical grounding. This addition enhances the global contextualization of our study and clarifies how vulnerability assessment frameworks inform flood risk management.

 

Point 3 – Literature Review: Global Cases and Recent Advances

Reviewer Comment:

It is better to describe research on flood risk from other parts of the world in 4–5 cases… Over the past five years, significant breakthroughs have been made in flood risk research, particularly in flood disaster identification.

 

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have expanded the Literature Review in two ways: (a) a new subsection titled “Expanding Global South Insights” now incorporates additional international case studies to broaden comparative analysis; and (b) a new paragraph highlights recent technological advancements including deep learning, image fusion, and AI-assisted flood mapping for disaster identification. These additions update the manuscript with the latest developments and strengthen the global scope of our synthesis.

 

 

 

Revised Point 4 – Methodology: CRD Framework, Exclusion Justification, JBI Scoring (Now 15 Studies Included)

Reviewer Comment:

The table of study selection and exclusion criteria is good, but the explanation of the selection method (CRD framework) and how it is applied in data analysis is not presented in an operational and clear manner. Of the initial 827 articles, only 10 studies were selected for the final synthesis. This number is too low for a “systematic review” that claims to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the literature and needs to be justified. Why were 82 studies excluded after abstract screening and another 40 after full evaluation? The JBI scoring criteria should be presented clearly.

 

Author Response:

We are grateful for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the application of the CRD framework by describing the study selection in greater operational detail. We have also included a JBI scoring table in the Appendix to clearly present the criteria used for quality appraisal. Importantly, in line with the reviewer’s concern regarding the limited number of included studies, we have expanded the synthesis to include 15 peer-reviewed studies. This adjustment not only strengthens the representativeness of our review but also enhances the transferability of lessons learned.

 

Point 5 – Results: Length, Summarization, and Table Improvement

Reviewer Comment:

The results section is too long. Some parts are repetitive. Table 3 is too detailed and complex. The presentation would be improved by summarizing the findings more clearly, possibly through condensed tables, figures, or graphs.

 

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, the Results section has been shortened by removing repetitive descriptions and replacing lengthy narrative accounts with comparative synthesis.

 

Point 6: Prisma Diagram

Reviewer Comment:

Figures and flowcharts need updating. Specifically, the PRISMA diagram should reflect PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and it must show the inclusion of the new 15 studies rather than the original 10.

 

Author Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The PRISMA flow diagram has been updated to follow the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and to reflect the revised number of included studies. Specifically, the final count of studies has increased from 10 to 15, incorporating five new Global South case studies.

 

 

 

 

 

Point 7: Discussion of results

Reviewer Comment

The Discussion section should be restructured for clarity, brevity, and stronger international positioning. The manuscript should more clearly articulate the research gap, situate Nigerian evidence in broader Global South contexts, and demonstrate the relevance of the proposed framework to both theory and practice.

 

Response:

We revised this section to streamline redundant descriptions and emphasize analytical synthesis. The section now explicitly integrates five additional Global South, enabling comparative insights beyond Nigeria. At the end of this subsection, we added a new research gap paragraph that clearly highlights three deficiencies:

1. Fragmented, hazard-only approaches with weak socio-economic integration.
2. Limited translation of academic outputs into governance or infrastructural action.
3. Insufficient comparative engagement with wider Global South debates.

This addition directly addresses the reviewer’s request for a clear articulation of the research gap and provides the rationale for the GIS-Integrated Flood Risk Management Framework (GIFRM).

 

Point 8 – Conclusion

Reviewers’ Comment

 

The conclusion should better reflect the revisions, explicitly acknowledge the identified research gaps, avoid overgeneralisation, and ensure consistency with the broader Global South positioning of the study.

 

Author Response:

 

We have revised the Conclusion to align more closely with the findings and revisions made throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• There is a highlighted marking on line 39 of the manuscript, which is likely an oversight in formatting. It is suggested that the author remove it to comply with the journal's formatting guidelines.
• The wording in line 142 could be improved grammatically or stylistically.

• The table below line 223 has a formatting issue, with some text content extending beyond the table borders. It is recommended that the author adjust the column width, row height, or reduce the font size to ensure all text is properly contained within the table boundaries.

• Please ensure that the table caption below line 417 is on the same page as the table body. Currently, the caption and the table are separated by a page break, which compromises readability and formatting standards.
• When reviewing lines 455-560, it is felt that the organization of this section could be optimized to enhance its clarity and persuasiveness.
• Section 4.2 revolves around the GIFRM model, but the beginning fails to provide sufficient introduction to this model.
• The paper provides a review of the application history of hydrological models and remote sensing technology in flood risk, which is commendable. However, the literature relied upon in the review section is relatively outdated (from 2012 and 2017), failing to fully reflect the latest advancements in this field. Over the past five years, significant breakthroughs have been made in flood risk research, particularly in flood disaster identification. It is recommended to incorporate some of the latest technologies in flood disaster identification, such as:Post-flood disaster damaged houses classification based on dual-view image fusion and Concentration-Based Attention Module；Identification of flood depth levels in urban waterlogging disaster caused by rainstorm using a CBAM-improved ResNet50.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended that the language of the manuscript be carefully polished and refined to enhance its clarity and fluency.

Author Response

SECOND REVIEWER’S COMMENT AND SUGGESTION

 

 

There is a highlighted marking on line 39 of the manuscript, which is likely an oversight in formatting. It is suggested that the author remove it to comply with the journal's formatting guidelines.

 

Author Response:

 

We thank the reviewer for this constructive feedback. The highlighted marking on line 39 was an oversight and has been removed to comply with the formatting guidelines.

 

 

The wording in line 142 could be improved grammatically or stylistically.

Author Response:

The wording in line 142 has also been improved grammatically for clarity.

The table below line 223 has a formatting issue, with some text content extending beyond the table borders. It is recommended that the author adjust the column width, row height, or reduce the font size to ensure all text is properly contained within the table boundaries.

 

Author Response:

 

All the tables and figures have been appropriately adjusted and formatted as recommended.

 

When reviewing lines 455-560, it is felt that the organization of this section could be optimized to enhance its clarity and persuasiveness.

 

Author Response:

 

The organisation section, lines 455-560, has been optimised to include a Discussion of results, theoretical context, GIS integration in flood risk management frameworks, comparative advantages of the GIFRM, policy, and practical implications.

 

Section 4.2 revolves around the GIFRM model, but the beginning fails to provide sufficient introduction to this model

Author Response:

 

Introduction of GIFRM has been expanded to capture the introduction of the model.

 

 

The paper provides a review of the application history of hydrological models and remote sensing technology in flood risk, which is commendable. However, the literature relied upon in the review section is relatively outdated (from 2012 and 2017), failing to fully reflect the latest advancements in this field. Over the past five years, significant breakthroughs have been made in flood risk research, particularly in flood disaster identification. It is recommended to incorporate some of the latest technologies in flood disaster identification, such as:Post-flood disaster damaged houses classification based on dual-view image fusion and Concentration-Based Attention Module；Identification of flood depth levels in urban waterlogging disaster caused by rainstorm using a CBAM-improved ResNet50.

 

Author Response:

 

The paper has also added recent articles with additional case studies from other countries to reflect the latest technology for flood risk disasters.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Integrating GIS into Flood Risk Management: A Global South Perspective on Resilience, Planning, and Policy in Nigeria" does not provide a comprehensive review , instead it is merely a collection of the findings and recommendation of earlier studies, it lacks critical review and analysis of previous work. 

Findings mentioned in the study are quite shallow and the recommendation made are general which are even applicable if this study area was not choosen for the study. 

The flow of the article is not proper and many points have been highlighted without necessity such as Khan et al. 2011 on first page.

Authors need to go through some good review articles for improving the manuscript.

Author Response

THIRD REVIEWER’S COMMENT AND SUGGESTION

 

The manuscript "Integrating GIS into Flood Risk Management: A Global South Perspective on Resilience, Planning, and Policy in Nigeria" does not provide a comprehensive review , instead it is merely a collection of the findings and recommendation of earlier studies, it lacks critical review and analysis of previous work.

Findings mentioned in the study are quite shallow and the recommendation made are general which are even applicable if this study area was not choosen for the study.

The flow of the article is not proper and many points have been highlighted without necessity such as Khan et al. 2011 on first page.

Authors need to go through some good review articles for improving the manuscript.

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive feedback. In response to the concern that the manuscript previously lacked a comprehensive and critical review, we have substantially revised the Literature Review and Discussion sections to provide a deeper analytical engagement with existing studies, rather than merely synthesising findings. The revised version now critically compares methodologies, assumptions, and outcomes across prior works, highlighting both convergences and gaps that inform our study’s contribution.

 Furthermore, a new subsection titled “Expanding Global South Insights” has been added to the Literature Review, integrating case studies from other countries. These comparative examples enrich the analytical scope and illustrate transferable GIS applications in flood risk management, thereby reinforcing the study’s relevance to broader contexts in the Global South. This refinement ensures that our conclusions are both empirically grounded . The reference list has also been updated accordingly.

The in-text citation of khan et al. (2011) was highlighted in error and has been removed. The introduction and literature review have been structured to follow a clear thematic progression from a global context to the Nigerian case, enhancing readability and continuity of argument.

Additionally, we carefully reviewed several high-quality review articles on GIS and flood risk management to guide our revision and align the manuscript’s structure and tone with current scholarly standards. These improvements have strengthened both the depth and presentation of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paraphrase 

 

Hello,  

Dear Editor,  

After a thorough review, it can be stated that the authors have adequately addressed the comments provided by the reviewers. Therefore, the article can be accepted for publication.  

Final Reviewer