The study discusses a highly current and important matter regarding increasing
apiary disasters (due to climate variation) and urban vulnerability (both in South
Africa). The research demonstrates the applicability of GIS-based Multi-Criteria
Analysis to the study of age-related resistance to extreme rainfall within eThekwini
Municipality. Combining environmental and anthropogenic factors in a spatial
framework has broad applications and is useful for disaster risk reduction and
municipal planning.
The manuscript’s overall structure is appropriate for the study site, which is
especially suitable given the increased frequency of extreme weather and associated
flooding within KwaZulu-Natal. Linking susceptibility patterns to urban development,
informal housing, drainage infrastructure, and climate justice provides relevant
practical significance for the research. In addition, the inclusion of policy frameworks
such as the Sendai Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals will broaden
the relevance of this research across South Africa.
Despite these strengths, the manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be
considered for publication.
Throughout the manuscript, the terms “extreme rainfall susceptibility,” “flood
susceptibility,” “risk,” “hazard,” and “vulnerability” are often used interchangeably.
While the study states that it focuses specifically on extreme rainfall rather than
flooding, the selected variables and modelling approach more closely resemble a
flood susceptibility assessment driven by rainfall-related factors. The authors need to
clearly define the specific phenomenon being modelled and ensure consistency in
terminology throughout the manuscript.
The methodological section
The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) may be suitable in conjunction with
Geospatial Information Systems and Multi-Criteria Assessments (GIS-MCA) studies;
however, the weighting process lacks transparency and completeness when
compared to other methodologies. Also, there is no mention of either the
Consistency Index (CI) or Consistency Ratio (CR), both of which are required
components of AHP based modelling (see Section 1.4). Without these two measures
(CI and CR), the reliability and consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix cannot
be adequately evaluated. Furthermore, the justification for using each weight should
be explicitly stated along with documentation from peer-reviewed literature.
Also, Table 3 contains numerous apparent classification and typographical errors
(e.g., unrealistic soil pH ranges), which undermine the analytical reliability of the
study's results.
Other examples include inconsistent slope intervals and duplicate susceptibility
labels as per those used for the different classes being evaluated. Corrections and
validations must be made to the errors identified above before resubmitting the final
document.
There is another major flaw in this paper: a lack of assessment of the model
developed, known as “model validation.” There is no evaluation of how well the
Susceptibility outputs match the actual occurrence of floods, the historical records of
disasters, or independent validation data sets. Without this type of assessment, it is
impossible to demonstrate that the Susceptibility Model has a valid prediction and
will provide useful information when applied in practice. Therefore, I strongly
recommend that the authors include model validation procedures in this paper,
including a ROC/AUC analysis (Score of Ability to Discriminate between True and
False Events) to overlay historical flood maps with the search area for approval of
this Susceptibility Model.
The results section of this paper provides information only and does not give a
detailed analysis. The authors should develop and present greater analytical depth in
their results by including statistical measures such as quantitative spatial statistics,
area percentages for each susceptibility class, ward/summary-level analyses at the
local level, and/or hotspot analysis of the results. The inclusion of this type of
statistical evaluation will significantly improve the contribution of the work to science
and will provide useful information for the use of this model.
There are also several minor issues requiring attention. Placeholder text remains
within the manuscript (“blahblah”), which should be corrected immediately. Some
references require formatting consistency and verification, particularly recent
citations dated 2025. Language editing is recommended throughout the manuscript
to improve clarity and grammatical consistency.
Overall, the study demonstrates strong potential and addresses an important
environmental and planning issue. However, substantial methodological clarification,
conceptual refinement, correction of classification inconsistencies, and stronger
analytical validation are required before the manuscript can be considered suitable
for publication.
Recommendation: Major Revision.