the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 14 Jul 2021
Evaluating the suitability of documents on the prevention of major risks intended for the general public
Abstract. Providing preventive information to the public is one of the major challenges in the prevention of major hazards. In France, the DICRIM (Document d'Information Communal sur les Risques Majeurs; in English "Municipal Information Document on Major Risks") is currently the main regulatory risk communication tool intended for the general public. It has been developed with the aim of contributing to awareness and knowledge of risks and informing on the actions and behaviors to adopt. This raises questions as to its suitability composed of readability and legibility, essential for its appropriation by the population. Answering these questions constitutes the first step in improving its effectiveness. This article presents the development of indicators and a decision support model used to analyze and improve the suitability of a DICRIM. Two types of indicator, considering visual and content characteristics, were developed: System Indicators for the entire document and Substantive and Formal Component Indicators for the fields it contains. They were formalized using five types of source: the literature, expert knowledge, opinions of residents, analysis of a DICRIM database and a questionnaire survey. The aggregation of indicators provides suitability scores and feedback on what should be improved in the DICRIM. Validation sessions were performed with five risk analysis experts. The advantage of the model is that it can be used by the town halls and design offices of any municipality without the need to call on experts or significant human or financial resources.
- Preprint
(1005 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-192', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Sep 2021
The paper focuses on the problem identifying methods for evaluating the suitability – in terms of legibility and readability – of a document provided in France at municipal level to the population for describing risk conditions in their area. The problem is connected to the topic of dissemination of risk information, and thus the question falls in the scope of the journal. Nevertheless, the analysis is focused, as previously mentioned, only on the readability and legibility of the document. The themes of reception of such a document by the population, or of contents or target-related contents, are not explicitly taken into account. At least the perspective of introducing the index in a more comprehensive evaluation should be explicitly discussed.
The methods refer to a literature far from the one of risk assessment and information. The authors cite an approach already common in other contexts, without giving details about it. It’s highlighted that such an approach has not been applied to the risk information context, but it should be made clearer where the innovation stands (e.g. adaptation of the approach, identification of proper indicators, identification of sections of the document to be analyzed).
The sources for providing the definition of the indicators and defining their milestones, the authors indicate that several sources can be used. Although, a clear indication of which specific sources have been used for each indicator should be provided at least as supplement material.
Among such sources, the authors indicate a database with about fifty DICRIMs as potential sources for extrapolating the structure of the indicators [page 8, lines 207-209]. The approach is not very clear, and it can give the idea that they are based on the average scores or description of the analyzed documents. If this is the case, the specific indicator would not describe the suitability of the document, but only its ranking.
Still referring to the database of the DICRIMs, it’s not clear if these are the documents used for the verification phase, thus not allowing a proper evaluation of the soundness of such a phase.
When introducing the groups of experts involved in different phases, the indication of each one’s years of experience is a bit funny; it could be preferable to have a general description of the criteria adopted for selecting them.
A section dedicated to the description of the potential use of such indicators/indexes is lacking, with a focus of different potential uses for the synthetic index or the indexes relevant to the single components. In fact, it’s not clear the usefulness at municipal level of one synthetic index summarizing all the evaluations.
The proposed approach makes use of a huge set of indicators (114) for the evaluation of a single document. Considering also that readability and legibility shouldn’t be the only elements taken into account when evaluating the suitability of the document for informing the public, this high number of required evaluations could be detrimental for the use of the approach. Please discuss this in the new section (see previous comment); it could be helpful to have the indication of the mean time required for compiling the indicators for one DICRIM.
Page 3, line 68. The title is a bit misleading, please change with something more focused on the effectiveness of communication (e.g. Effective communication in risk management).
Page 5, line 125. Please introduce the regulatory reference defining the list of 11 mayor risks that may affect a municipality.
Page 6, Figure 3. The picture in a bit unclear. Shouldn’t the definition of corrective actions follow a step of evaluation of the indicators for the specific DICRIM? Please clarify and/or modify the picture.
Pages 13 and 14, tables 4 and 5. The two grids refer to the same detection element, but there’s no reference to the specific component they are linked to; adding the component could help the reader in interpretating the table.
Page 13, table 4. Please clarify “form 10” in the caption.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-192-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Corinne Curt, 15 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-192/nhess-2021-192-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Corinne Curt, 15 Dec 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2021-192', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Nov 2021
The manuscript covers the very important issue of risk communication for the general public and specifically, how official documents (DICRIM) developed with the aim of contributing to awareness and knowledge of risks, can be easily understood. The authors analyzed the content of the French DICRIM and defined an indicator-based procedure and a decision support model used to analyze and improve the suitability of the official documents. It represents the second phase of a broader research, previously begun, which aims to build a decision support model in charge of drawing up and update documents regarding risk communication at municipal level.
Dear authors, I have carefully read your interesting manuscript and understood the underlying reasons and the important basic concepts. However, I encountered difficulties in reading the text, since it is not fluid, and in the understanding the workflow you used to perform your analysis. Some parts of the manuscript are, in my opinion, to be presented differently.
First of all, I did not understand how figure 3 can reflect the method used. If it is clear that a Systemic Analysis is performed for the suitability detection elements, but it is not clear to me how all the other sources used to select and identify other indicators were processed (the orange ellipses in figure 3). For example, the results of the questionnaire survey dedicated to the design of the cover page were used for the SI or for the CI indicator? I think you have used for the component analysis since the cover page is one of the document components but it is not clear when reading the manuscript. And it is the same for what you named “DICRIM database” or for the “opinions of residents”.
A second problem concerns the experts: did they provide indicators or they were included in the verification phase only, or both?
I have also encountered a problem with some terminology, it is my fault, but it is not clear to me if anchoring points on the scales, references and milestones can be considered the same concept. Please clarify better the differences.
Regarding the scales of analysis, it is clear the reasons for using more than one. Conversely, I found difficulties in the understanding the way you have used the indicators for the two scale of analysis.
Finally, you analyzed three of the fifty DICRIM you collected and storage in a database. How your results can extend to all?
Please, you can find more specific comments in the pdf enclosed file.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Corinne Curt, 15 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-192/nhess-2021-192-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Corinne Curt, 15 Dec 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-192', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Sep 2021
The paper focuses on the problem identifying methods for evaluating the suitability – in terms of legibility and readability – of a document provided in France at municipal level to the population for describing risk conditions in their area. The problem is connected to the topic of dissemination of risk information, and thus the question falls in the scope of the journal. Nevertheless, the analysis is focused, as previously mentioned, only on the readability and legibility of the document. The themes of reception of such a document by the population, or of contents or target-related contents, are not explicitly taken into account. At least the perspective of introducing the index in a more comprehensive evaluation should be explicitly discussed.
The methods refer to a literature far from the one of risk assessment and information. The authors cite an approach already common in other contexts, without giving details about it. It’s highlighted that such an approach has not been applied to the risk information context, but it should be made clearer where the innovation stands (e.g. adaptation of the approach, identification of proper indicators, identification of sections of the document to be analyzed).
The sources for providing the definition of the indicators and defining their milestones, the authors indicate that several sources can be used. Although, a clear indication of which specific sources have been used for each indicator should be provided at least as supplement material.
Among such sources, the authors indicate a database with about fifty DICRIMs as potential sources for extrapolating the structure of the indicators [page 8, lines 207-209]. The approach is not very clear, and it can give the idea that they are based on the average scores or description of the analyzed documents. If this is the case, the specific indicator would not describe the suitability of the document, but only its ranking.
Still referring to the database of the DICRIMs, it’s not clear if these are the documents used for the verification phase, thus not allowing a proper evaluation of the soundness of such a phase.
When introducing the groups of experts involved in different phases, the indication of each one’s years of experience is a bit funny; it could be preferable to have a general description of the criteria adopted for selecting them.
A section dedicated to the description of the potential use of such indicators/indexes is lacking, with a focus of different potential uses for the synthetic index or the indexes relevant to the single components. In fact, it’s not clear the usefulness at municipal level of one synthetic index summarizing all the evaluations.
The proposed approach makes use of a huge set of indicators (114) for the evaluation of a single document. Considering also that readability and legibility shouldn’t be the only elements taken into account when evaluating the suitability of the document for informing the public, this high number of required evaluations could be detrimental for the use of the approach. Please discuss this in the new section (see previous comment); it could be helpful to have the indication of the mean time required for compiling the indicators for one DICRIM.
Page 3, line 68. The title is a bit misleading, please change with something more focused on the effectiveness of communication (e.g. Effective communication in risk management).
Page 5, line 125. Please introduce the regulatory reference defining the list of 11 mayor risks that may affect a municipality.
Page 6, Figure 3. The picture in a bit unclear. Shouldn’t the definition of corrective actions follow a step of evaluation of the indicators for the specific DICRIM? Please clarify and/or modify the picture.
Pages 13 and 14, tables 4 and 5. The two grids refer to the same detection element, but there’s no reference to the specific component they are linked to; adding the component could help the reader in interpretating the table.
Page 13, table 4. Please clarify “form 10” in the caption.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-192-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Corinne Curt, 15 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-192/nhess-2021-192-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Corinne Curt, 15 Dec 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2021-192', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Nov 2021
The manuscript covers the very important issue of risk communication for the general public and specifically, how official documents (DICRIM) developed with the aim of contributing to awareness and knowledge of risks, can be easily understood. The authors analyzed the content of the French DICRIM and defined an indicator-based procedure and a decision support model used to analyze and improve the suitability of the official documents. It represents the second phase of a broader research, previously begun, which aims to build a decision support model in charge of drawing up and update documents regarding risk communication at municipal level.
Dear authors, I have carefully read your interesting manuscript and understood the underlying reasons and the important basic concepts. However, I encountered difficulties in reading the text, since it is not fluid, and in the understanding the workflow you used to perform your analysis. Some parts of the manuscript are, in my opinion, to be presented differently.
First of all, I did not understand how figure 3 can reflect the method used. If it is clear that a Systemic Analysis is performed for the suitability detection elements, but it is not clear to me how all the other sources used to select and identify other indicators were processed (the orange ellipses in figure 3). For example, the results of the questionnaire survey dedicated to the design of the cover page were used for the SI or for the CI indicator? I think you have used for the component analysis since the cover page is one of the document components but it is not clear when reading the manuscript. And it is the same for what you named “DICRIM database” or for the “opinions of residents”.
A second problem concerns the experts: did they provide indicators or they were included in the verification phase only, or both?
I have also encountered a problem with some terminology, it is my fault, but it is not clear to me if anchoring points on the scales, references and milestones can be considered the same concept. Please clarify better the differences.
Regarding the scales of analysis, it is clear the reasons for using more than one. Conversely, I found difficulties in the understanding the way you have used the indicators for the two scale of analysis.
Finally, you analyzed three of the fifty DICRIM you collected and storage in a database. How your results can extend to all?
Please, you can find more specific comments in the pdf enclosed file.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Corinne Curt, 15 Dec 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-192/nhess-2021-192-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Corinne Curt, 15 Dec 2021
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 690 | 494 | 37 | 1,221 | 23 | 24 |
- HTML: 690
- PDF: 494
- XML: 37
- Total: 1,221
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1