Evaluating Disaster Risk Management System: A Case Study of Rwanda's Response to the 2nd&ndash;3rd May 2023 disaster event

Idukunda, Clémence; Henry, Sabine; Twarabamenye, Emmanuel; De Longueville, Florence; Michellier, Caroline

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2112

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2112

Preprints

27 Jun 2025

| 27 Jun 2025

Evaluating Disaster Risk Management System: A Case Study of Rwanda's Response to the 2nd–3rd May 2023 disaster event

Clémence Idukunda, Sabine Henry, Emmanuel Twarabamenye, Florence De Longueville, and Caroline Michellier

Abstract. This study evaluates Rwanda's Disaster Risk Management (DRM) system in response to the severe floods and landslides that struck the Southern, Northern, and Western provinces on May 2–3, 2023. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, including document analysis, semi-structured interviews with 16 government officials and 140 disaster-affected individuals, and field observations. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, while quantitative data were examined using descriptive statistical methods. While institutional frameworks and planning tools exist for disaster risk reduction, challenges remain in both disaster preparedness and response. These include inadequate early warning systems, poor coordination between authorities and communities, inefficient resource allocation, and insufficient local-level information dissemination have exacerbated disaster impacts. The study recommends enhancing community-based early warning systems, involving local communities in DRM efforts, fostering local resilience, conducting hazard-specific research, and adopting regional best practices. These findings offer valuable insights for improving DRM systems in Rwanda and other disaster-prone regions.

Received: 06 May 2025 – Discussion started: 27 Jun 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Clémence Idukunda, Sabine Henry, Emmanuel Twarabamenye, Florence De Longueville, and Caroline Michellier

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2112', Blaise Mafuko Nyandwi, 18 Aug 2025
1.1        General Assessment
This study evaluates climate risk management related to excessive rainfall in the tropics, situated in a Global South context. The authors adopt the noteworthy approach of analysing a major disaster that affected an entire region. Using such a remarkable case in terms of both intensity and damage is indeed valuable.
The paper addresses a relevant and timely topic, especially in the context of hydrometeorological hazards and climate change with significant potential for contributing to disaster risk management scholarship in the Global South. However, there are several issues related to structure, clarity, methodological rigour, and contextualisation that require revision. We recommend focussing only on the response phase instead of exploring to many topics.
1.2        Minor Suggestions 1.2.1     Minor Comments
Length of the introduction: The introduction is too long. A significant portion is devoted to distinctions between long-lasting hazards and sudden hazards, although this is not the main focus of the study. This section should be synthesised.

Statistics on African disasters (pp. 3–4): The statistical overview in sections 3 and 4 of page 3 should be shortened and updated, as some figures appear outdated.

Generic or AI-generated phrasing: Several passages appear overly generic, possibly generated by artificial intelligence. For example:
Page 8, line 8, section 2.3: “This comprehensive approach allowed for a nuanced understanding…”

Page 10, line 1, section 3.2.1: “…which provides a comprehensive framework for effective disaster management.”

Page 17, line 1, section 4: “Rwanda’s DRM system is notable by its comprehensive framework…”

If AI tools were used, this must be disclosed in line with journal policies. Otherwise, these sections should be rephrased more specifically.

Study area: The section on the study area and its figures (currently within the introduction, p. 4) should be moved to a stand-alone section.

Terminology consistency: Terms such as “prevention”, “preparation”, and “anticipation” are used inconsistently. Phases of the DRM cycle should be clearly defined and used consistently throughout.

1.3        Major Suggestions
1.3.1       Introduction
The introduction opens by contrasting long-lasting and sudden hazards, concluding that the latter require more specific management. This argument appears subjective, since both types demand a ‘robust and sustained DRM’ approach. Instead, the introduction should better contextualise the study within two critical issues: climate change and rapid urbanisation in developing countries.

Section 1 (p. 3) discusses decentralisation in DRM but does not fully develop the argument. Uganda is mentioned, but Rwanda’s case is not linked to this issue. The manuscript would benefit from situating the Rwandan experience within this debate.

Some paragraphs (e.g. paragraph 2, p. 3) appear generic, and the contextual references are outdated. Recent reports, such as those from the African Union Commission and UNDRR, should be incorporated. Likewise, the statistics presented (paragraphs 3–4, p. 3) are no longer representative of the current situation.

1.3.2       Methodology and Results
The study aims to evaluate consistencies, discrepancies, and gaps across DRM cycle phases (prevention, preparation, response, recovery). However, the methodology and results sections are insufficiently detailed to achieve these objectives.

1.3.3       Results
Overall, the data are too limited to support a critical evaluation of all DRM phases (prevention, preparedness, response and recovery + early warning system). They mainly relate to the response phase. It would be more appropriate to focus the analysis explicitly on response, rather than attempting to cover the entire cycle without enough data.

Page 15, paragraph 4: The findings presented as recovery data are in fact closer to response activities. Given the timing of both data collection and implementation of the evaluated activities, they cannot meaningfully evaluate recovery as originally claimed.

Page 15, final paragraph: The statement “These recovery efforts reflect the implementation of Policy Objective 14…” appears unsubstantiated. Similar issues arise in paragraph 2, p. 16, where repetition is also evident.

Section 3.5:

Line 1: The ineffectiveness mentioned is unclear – which specific component of the Early Warning System is being assessed?

Lines 5–6: The data are insufficient to conduct a robust evaluation of the Early Warning System.

1.3.4       Discussion
The discussion tends to overstate the effectiveness of Rwanda’s DRM system, comparing it favourably with neighbouring countries without sufficient evidence. This creates inconsistency, as the discussion begins with strong praise but later acknowledges limitations, which could confuse readers.

New impact statistics are introduced in the discussion, which should instead be placed in the results.

Specific issues:
Line 7: “Rapid coordination” is claimed, but no quantitative data are provided on aid volumes or delivery times.

Lines 9–11, first paragraph of section 4: The comparison to neighbouring countries is problematic, as it draws on a single case study conducted almost a decade earlier under different condition. Such claims of superiority are not adequately substantiated.

References at the end of the first paragraph (section 4) appear poorly matched to the argument.

Paragraph 2, opening sentence (“Such compound …”): needs reformulation for clarity.

Page 17, paragraph 2: Presents damage data rather than system evaluation and is overly long.

Centralisation vs. decentralisation: Although highlighted in the introduction, it remains unclear in the results and discussion which mode was applied in the May 2023 disaster. This should be clarified.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2112-RC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-2112', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Aug 2025
General Reflection

The manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic, namely the performance of Rwanda’s disaster risk management (DRM) system during a recent severe flood and landslide event. While the subject matter is important and fits the scope of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, the paper in its current form does not meet international publication standards. The work is largely descriptive, methodologically limited, and insufficiently analytical. Due to its’ limited analytical engagement, it adds very little to the literature. For these reasons, I cannot recommend publication. However, I do strongly believe that the paper has potential and strongly recommend to authors to rework it. For instance, authors could gain some inspiration from similar papers published (e.g., Bang, 2021; Ogra et al., 2021; Sakic Trogrlic et al., 2017) in different contexts.
Bang et al., (2021) A gap analysis of the legislative, policy, institutional and crises management frameworks for disaster risk management in Cameroon. Progress in Disaster Science
Ogra et al., (2021) Exploring the gap between policy and action in Disaster Risk Reduction: A case study from India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
Sakic Trogrlic et al., (2017) Taking stock of community-based flood risk management in Malawi: different stakeholders, different perspectives. Environmental Hazards
Lack of Scientific Contribution
The paper mainly reports institutional actions during the disaster, without offering new conceptual, theoretical, or methodological insights.

Its contribution to the international DRM literature is unclear and limited. And this comes not from case study research (which is great!) but due to a very limited engagement with the literature and limited analytical analysis.

A focus on a case study of a past event is very interesting and can yield very useful findings. There are established methodologies, such as the widely recognized forensic analysis of past events (e.g., see the UNDRR Global Risk Assessment Report from 2024, as well as many published scientific papers). However, authors make no reference to this.

Methodological Weaknesses
The “mixed-methods” design is weakly implemented. Quantitative data (140 interviews) are only summarized descriptively, with no deeper analysis.

Qualitative interviews (16 officials) are presented in anecdotal form, without systematic coding or robust interpretation.

The sampling and choice of participants is insufficiently described. Your analysis method (thematic analysis) is barely mentioned and does not use a single reference. In general, the whole methodology section is chronically under referenced.

Superficial and Repetitive Analysis
Findings are descriptive rather than analytical, with little critical engagement with underlying issues (e.g., governance, overall social, economic, institutional issues)

Key points (early warning gaps, poor coordination, resource shortages) are repeated across several sections.

I was surprised to see a complete absence of any quotes given the qualitative nature of reported research.

Writing and Presentation
English could be significantly improved throughout the manuscript.

Figures and tables are of modest quality; some merely restate information already in the text (e.g., Table 5).

Weak Positioning in Literature
The literature review is broad but unfocused, citing many works without clearly identifying the knowledge gap this study addresses. This was especially evident in the Introduction, that is way too long, too broad (discussed well known concepts) but fails to adequately introduce the gap this specific research is tackling. Similarly, Discussion section engages with the literature in a very limited manner (e.g., you state the compounding nature of hazards but almost completely fail to engage with a rich and growing multi-hazard literature)

Recommendation
I recommend rejection. Although the case study is important, the paper lacks originality, methodological rigor, and analytical depth. Substantial rewriting and reconceptualization would be required for it to meet the standards of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. I strongly suggest to authors to revisit the paper and then resubmit it for consideration.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2112-RC2

Clémence Idukunda, Sabine Henry, Emmanuel Twarabamenye, Florence De Longueville, and Caroline Michellier

Viewed

Total article views: 666 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
486	167	13	666	7	17

HTML: 486
PDF: 167
XML: 13
Total: 666
BibTeX: 7
EndNote: 17

Views and downloads (calculated since 27 Jun 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2025	48	9	2	59
Jul 2025	49	49	5	103
Aug 2025	207	74	6	287
Sep 2025	182	35	0	217

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 Jun 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2025	48	9	2	59
Jul 2025	49	49	5	103
Aug 2025	207	74	6	287
Sep 2025	182	35	0	217

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 655 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 655 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 17 Sep 2025

Short summary

This study examines Rwanda's response to the deadly floods and landslides of May 2023. It finds that while disaster management systems exist, there are gaps in early warning and local involvement. Through document review, interviews, and site visits, the study identifies these gaps and suggests strengthening community-based action and learning from similar regions to improve future disaster response and recovery.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0