the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 27 Jun 2025
Evaluating Disaster Risk Management System: A Case Study of Rwanda's Response to the 2nd–3rd May 2023 disaster event
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.
- Preprint
(1331 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2112', Blaise Mafuko Nyandwi, 18 Aug 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Clemence Idukunda, 24 Sep 2025
1.1. General assessment
Remark: 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 focusing only on the response phase instead of exploring too many topics.
Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. We are encouraged by the recognition that this case study offers valuable insights into disaster risk management in the Global South, and we agree with the recommendations on how to strengthen our manuscript. We will narrow the scope of the paper to focus on the response phase of Rwanda’s DRM during the May 2023 disaster, while treating preparedness and recovery aspects present in the study in relation to response.
1.2. Main 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.
Response: We will revise the introduction and ensure that it is related to the objective of our study.
- 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.
Response: This section will be shortened, and the statistics that appear outdated will be updated.
3. 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.
Response: We did not use AI to generate the content of our content. We only employed AI tools selectively for language refinement and proofreading purposes, ensuring that the core analysis, arguments, and insights remain entirely original and grounded in our fieldwork and scholarly research.
4. 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
Response: We thank you for this recommendation. We will dedicate a specific section to the study area.
- 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.
Response: Thank you for this recommendation. We will replace the term 'prevention' with 'preparedness' in the two sections. The term 'anticipation' was not used anywhere in the manuscript.
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
Response: We thank you for the points raised. We will also refocus the introduction on hydrogeological hazards and their impacts, emphasising the Rwandan context. In addition, as mentioned above, we will update statistics.
1.3. 2. Methodology
Remark: 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.
Response: Our study aims to assess the performance of Rwanda’s DRM system in practice. Specifically, the research examines how the system addresses disaster prevention, emergency response, and post-disaster recovery using the case study of the May Disaster. While emphasising the focus on response, we will expand the methodology section by (1) providing a more detailed description of the sampling procedure; (2) clarifying the thematic analysis process with reference to key qualitative research literature; (3) integrating descriptive statistics with qualitative findings to strengthen triangulation; and (4) explicitly stating the limitations of preparedness and recovery data to maintain transparency.
1.3.3. Results
Remark:
- 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.
Response: We thank you for your careful analysis of our results. We agree with your comments, and we will:
- Highlight our focus on the “response” phase by reclassifying our analysis towards the “response” phase.
- Revise our inputs regarding the early warning system analysis, acknowledging data limitations.
- Clarify that “unsupported claims” are the policy objectives
1.3.4. Discussion
Remark:
- 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.
Response: It was not our intention to overstate the effectiveness of Rwanda’s DRM system. As explained in the “limitations”, we believe that while this DRM system has positive aspects to share, it also takes certain measures that are not appropriate for its vulnerable and/or impacted population. Therefore, in line with your recommendation, we will moderate our statements regarding Rwanda’s DRM system effectiveness and avoid unsubstantiated comparisons with other countries unless supported by specific references. Moreover, we will strengthen the discussion by establishing a more critical link between our findings and the international literature on DRM in the Global South, including multi-hazard and decentralisation debates. In addition, as mentioned in your second point, we will relocate the impact statistics from the discussion to the results section.
Specific issues:
Remarks:
- 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 conditions. 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.
Response: Once again, we are grateful for your detailed guidance. We will adapt each of the points you raised. We will rewrite the identified sentences in a more precise and contextualised manner. By narrowing the scope to focus on the response phase, clarifying the methodology, and strengthening the analytical commitment, we believe the revised manuscript will make a more rigorous contribution to the scientific literature on disaster risk management in the Global South
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2112-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Clemence Idukunda, 24 Sep 2025
-
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 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Clemence Idukunda, 24 Sep 2025
General reflection
Remark: 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 that the authors 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 crisis 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
We sincerely thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our work, and we acknowledge your concerns regarding the current form of the paper.
We are encouraged by your recognition of the relevance and timeliness of the topic, as well as your assertion that the paper has potential if substantially reworked. We will carefully revise the manuscript to address the issues you raised.
- 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, the authors do not refer to this.
Response: We are grateful for your highly relevant recommendation regarding the framework within which our study could be embedded. We will revise our manuscript based on the scientific analysis of Rwanda’s DRM response as a case study that reveals systemic gaps in governance and coordination. We will highlight the novelty of applying this approach in the Rwandan context and emphasize the practical and policy-oriented insights this case provides.
- 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 are 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.
Response: We recognize this shortcoming and will significantly strengthen the methodology section. More specifically, (1) we will expand the description of sampling strategies for both affected individuals and key informants, (2) for qualitative data, we will test systematic thematic coding, present illustrative quotations, and refer to established methods; and (3) we will significantly enrich the methodology section by adding relevant scientific references to mixed-methods and DRM analysis.
- Superficial and Repetitive Analysis
- Findings are descriptive rather than analytical, with little critical engagement with underlying issues (e.g., governance, overall social, economic, and 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.
Response: We thank you for your critical review of our analysis. We acknowledge that some points of our analysis are not sufficiently supported by data from the survey and interviews conducted during fieldwork. Specifically, we will ensure that the revised version of our manuscript includes some quotes. We will restructure the results and discussion to avoid repetition and deepen the critical analysis, with the support of qualitative data. Moreover, we will pay particular attention to the robustness of our analysis and, as suggested, anchor it in themes such as governance challenges, institutional coordination, and resource limitations, linking these back to the international DRM literature and comparative case studies (especially those suggested: Bang, 2021; Ogra et al., 2021; Sakic Trogrlic et al., 2017).
- 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).
Response: We will thoroughly revise the manuscript for language clarity and conciseness, with the support of professional editing. Figures and tables will be redesigned to provide clearer and more analytical representations rather than restating text.
- 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, which is way too long, too broad (discussing well-known concepts,) but fails to adequately introduce the gap this specific research is tackling. Similarly, the 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)
Response: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from more clearly identifying the research gap and providing more specific references to related scientific literature, especially that dealing with multi-hazards. In our revision, we will shorten and reframe the introduction to focus on the specific knowledge gap addressed by this study, namely, the limited analytical assessment of DRM responses to multi-hazard events (floods and landslides) in Rwanda. We will integrate multi-hazard literature and revise the discussion to engage more critically with comparative international studies and highlight the specific contribution of our study, thereby clarifying both the theoretical and empirical contributions of the paper.
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 that authors revisit the paper and then resubmit it for consideration.
Response: We fully acknowledge the limitations of the current manuscript and are committed to addressing them in a revision. We will reconceptualize the paper to enhance its methodological rigor, analytical depth, and contribution to the international DRM literature. We thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has given us clear direction for strengthening our work.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2112-AC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 769 | 205 | 17 | 991 | 7 | 18 |
- HTML: 769
- PDF: 205
- XML: 17
- Total: 991
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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
If AI tools were used, this must be disclosed in line with journal policies. Otherwise, these sections should be rephrased more specifically.
1.3 Major Suggestions
1.3.1 Introduction
1.3.2 Methodology and Results
1.3.3 Results
1.3.4 Discussion
Specific issues: