the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An evaluation on the alignment of drought policy and planning guidelines with the contemporary disaster risk reduction agenda
Abstract. Drought is a major global challenge causing significant socio-economic and environmental impacts. A paradigm shift from crisis to risk management is advocated to reduce the impacts of droughts, and to build the resilience of societies, and water and environmental systems against drought. A number of drought policy and planning guidelines are developed and used to support the transition from crisis to risk management and enhancing resilience. However, research is lacking on critical reflection, evaluation and update of the available drought guidelines. For example, there is no study on assessing the correspondence of the available guidelines to the contemporary disaster risk reduction agenda. Therefore, this study evaluates twelve drought policy and planning guidelines for their alignment with the four priority areas of the SENDAI framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. A qualitative evaluation matrix was developed and used in the assessment. The examined priorities and associated thematic elements were scored in the range 0–100, and classified under Very Low (0–10), Low (11–30), Medium-Low (31–50), Medium-High (51–70), High (71–90), and Very High (91–100) categories. Most guidelines achieved (medium) high to very high scores on data and information, risk assessment, and communication and dissemination elements associated with priority 1 (understanding disaster risk). Whereas, mostly very low to low coverage was found for science-policy-practice dialogue, local knowledge and practices, and research and development. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk (priority 2) earned high scores on most elements, notably for strategies and plans, coordination mechanisms, community representation, and policy and governance. In contrast, most elements under priority 3 (investing in disaster risk reduction) were classified under low to medium categories, which include financial allocation, risk transfer, and mainstreaming drought risk reduction into land use and rural development planning, business resilience and protection of livelihoods, and health and safety. Most elements under priority 4 (enhancing disaster preparedness) scored under medium low to medium high ranges, as sufficient information was lacking on multi-hazard early warning systems, post-disaster recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, and resilience of critical infrastructure. Furthermore, the study outlined several strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats pertaining to the examined guidelines. In general, the study reveals an urgent need to better align drought policy and planning guidelines with the contemporary disaster risk reduction agenda outlined in the SENDAI Framework. The findings of this study can be instructive in designing the next generation of drought guidelines in support of an accelerated transition towards drought risk management, and building resilient societies and ecosystems under a changing climate and increasing anthropogenic pressures.
- Preprint
(1045 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(290 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 Dec 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-163', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Oct 2024
reply
Overall this is a good manuscript with some really interesting insights on the guidelines related to drought response.
Risk reduction versus risk management: with Sendai coming into place their has been more reference to risk management as opposed to risk reduction and I see this manuscript is framed around risk reduction so it would be interesting to highlight the alignment with the current discussions on risk management in a more explicit way.
Context: It would be very helpful to provide some context for the guidelines selected for analysis. This helps in providing some background on why they score the way they do.
Scoring scale: The scoring scale (it would be good to provide an explanation on the range which is very wide - maybe would have been better to have 1-5 or 1-10 as the range to better capture the nuance as the long range does not reflect in the results thus there is failure to convey the nuances within the range (e.g 11-30 - an area with 12 and another at 29 are still grouped together with no further breakdown). The UNISDR framework ran until 2021 (2016-2021) - so possibly mention this context.
Multi-hazards: What about multi-hazards? it is important to have reflections around this as there is quite some focus on this with climate extremes becoming more frequent and intense thus need for a more comprehensive approach in dealing with hazards and I believe this submission should include this aspect.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-163-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ilyas Masih, 27 Oct 2024
reply
Author’s response to the comments made by the anonymous reviewer on the manuscript, “Masih, I.: An evaluation on the alignment of drought policy and planning guidelines with the contemporary disaster risk reduction agenda, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-163, in review, 2024.”
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing this manuscript, and providing your valuable comments. These are highly valued and much appreciated. Please find below a preliminary response. More detailed reply will be provided as part of the revised submission, after all the comments are received and a common strategy to address those suggestions is formulated.
Review comment: Overall this is a good manuscript with some really interesting insights on the guidelines related to drought response.
Response: Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation. These are encouraging and add to the confidence and motivation to further develop this work.
Review comment: Risk reduction versus risk management: with Sendai coming into place their has been more reference to risk management as opposed to risk reduction and I see this manuscript is framed around risk reduction so it would be interesting to highlight the alignment with the current discussions on risk management in a more explicit way.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. In the current manuscript both risk reduction and risk management are used interchangeably. However, following on the review comment, both terms and associated conceptual framing will be examined in more detail. The terms will be clarified in the revised manuscript. Moreover, the risk management will be made explicit and the document will be strengthened on this aspect.
Review comment: Context: It would be very helpful to provide some context for the guidelines selected for analysis. This helps in providing some background on why they score the way they do.
Response: This is a very helpful comment for the benefit of the readers who are not familiar with drought policy and planning guidelines. More information will be added on the context and background of the examined guidelines. The additions will be made in the Table 1, which summarizes the examined guidelines.
Review comment: Scoring scale: The scoring scale (it would be good to provide an explanation on the range which is very wide - maybe would have been better to have 1-5 or 1-10 as the range to better capture the nuance as the long range does not reflect in the results thus there is failure to convey the nuances within the range (e.g 11-30 - an area with 12 and another at 29 are still grouped together with no further breakdown). The UNISDR framework ran until 2021 (2016-2021) - so possibly mention this context.
Response: Thank you very much for your critical insight on the scoring scale. This point is very important and will be addressed with a careful examination. However, changing the scoring scale will be weighed for the pros and cons, and then a decision will be made either to keep the current scale or change it to one of the two options proposed by the reviewer. In any case, more explanation on the range will be added to strengthen the evaluation grid presented in Table 2. Moreover, the results will be strengthened by providing more nuanced justification of the categorization.
The last part of the comment, “The UNISDR framework ran until 2021 (2016-2021) - so possibly mention this context” is not fully clear on which framework is referred here. In case this is SENDAI framework, the timespan is 2015-2030, and this could be elaborated further. It will be very helpful if the reviewer can clarify this point.
Review comment: Multi-hazards: What about multi-hazards? it is important to have reflections around this as there is quite some focus on this with climate extremes becoming more frequent and intense thus need for a more comprehensive approach in dealing with hazards and I believe this submission should include this aspect.
Response: Indeed, dealing with multiple hazards is very important, especially in the light of observations and future predictions indicating climate extremes becoming more frequent and intense. Reflections around multi-hazards will be added in the revised manuscript. Currently, a brief information is provided under section 3.2.2 (Weaknesses), which will be elaborated further.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-163-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Winnie Khaemba, 01 Nov 2024
reply
Dear Ilyas,
Thanks. Indeed the paper was interesting and is a good contribution.
it is great to read from you with the detailed response to the comments.
For the UNISDR strategy, this is the one I meant - https://www.unisdr.org/files/51557_unisdrstrategicframework20162021pri.pdf . Please have a look.
All good with the rest as you have clearly indicated the changes you are making. Good luck with the revisions and I am looking forward to reading the final published paper.
Best wishes,
WinnieCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-163-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ilyas Masih, 01 Nov 2024
reply
Dear Winnie,
Thanks again for your valuable and encouraging remarks and comments on the manuscript. Also thanks for sharing the UNISDR framework document you referred in your comments. This is well received, and will be helpful in strengthening the discussion.
Kind regards,
Ilyas
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-163-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ilyas Masih, 01 Nov 2024
reply
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Winnie Khaemba, 01 Nov 2024
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ilyas Masih, 27 Oct 2024
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
331 | 82 | 25 | 438 | 17 | 5 | 6 |
- HTML: 331
- PDF: 82
- XML: 25
- Total: 438
- Supplement: 17
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1