the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Capacity Building Experience for Disaster Risk Reduction in Central Asia
Abstract. A capacity building experience in Central Asia is illustrated, which consisted in the organization of a series of eight training workshops devoted to the different components of risk assessment, focused on earthquakes, floods and selected landslide scenarios. Specifically, the activity consisted of five country-based workshops on exposure assessment, organised one in each of the involved Countries (i.e. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan), plus three thematic workshops on hazard, vulnerability and risk modelling, organised at the regional scale of Central Asia. The capacity building workshops provided participants an opportunity to learn about international practice and methodologies related to natural risks assessment, as well as to discuss the value of methods applied for large-scale risk assessment, showing how they complement and advance what was previously done in the region. The involvement of local scientific experts (including invited speakers) was essential in recognizing and supplying relevant information from methodologies previously applied in each country, as well as to discuss the possibilities offered by the newly proposed procedures and to validate their products. To increase the impact of the capacity building activities and to cascade the training, local universities, research institutes and associations were involved, so as to reach younger professionals and experts.
In view of the restrictions imposed by the Covid19 emergency, all workshops were held in online mode; this restriction eventually turned out to be an advantage, as it allowed for a much broader participation, beyond any expectations, especially for the regional thematic workshops. Participation was active and varied, involving not only individuals from academy and research institutes, but also a significant number of representatives from Ministries, professionals, young experts and students. The feedback from participants, received through anonymous evaluation forms, was especially useful and positive, indicating that the topics covered by the workshops were relevant to their current work and that participants are likely to use the presented tools and data in their activities. It also provided valuable indications that were considered when planning the subsequent activities.
Lessons learned from this capacity building activity are discussed, including a summary description of the workshops structure, their attendance and feedback from participants. The experience collected during the workshops is summarized here and generalized in order to support future experiences of this kind, in the region and worldwide.
- Preprint
(2561 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-156', Nadejda Komendantova, 06 Nov 2023
I carefully read the manuscript. In my opinion the part with the description of organisation of the workshops could be shorten. This could be a part of methodology describing how workshops were organised, who participated etc.
For the results part the table on the page 21 is really very interesting. I would do it a central element of the results section of the paper. I think that the readers would also benefit a lot if this one will be described in more details.
The conclusion section could include ideas on what we can learn from these workshops to develop recommendations for consistent risk assessment for earthquakes, floods and landslides in Central Asia? Could we see any differences among the countries? Are there common elements? Could recommendations for the government be developed?
Small remarks…. not sure if including the web site links into the manuscript as a reference to the source is in accordance with the guidelines of the journal. Also it might be good to have a language check and break some very long paragraphs (at the beginning of the manuscript) into few smaller ones.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-156-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-156', Solmaz Mohadjer, 13 Mar 2024
The manuscript “Capacity Building Experience for Disaster Risk Reduction in Central Asia' describes a series of online training workshops designed to improve the capacity of Central Asian nations in assessing risk related to earthquakes, floods and landslides. Through these workshops, the authors identify several challenges and offer some recommendations for future capacity building activities in the region. In general, the manuscript touches on an important topic related to risk reduction, but it fails to generate and communicate new and/or meaningful results for Central Asian nations. In addition, it provides little to no broader implications of lessons learned. The manuscript, though submitted as a 'research article', reads more like a summary report prepared for the World Bank, and therefore, I believe it does not fulfill the NHESS requirements for publication as a research article (i.e., no substantial and original scientific results within the scope of the journal). Without some major revisions and reorganization, I will not be able to recommend this manuscript for publication in NHESS. I hope my suggestions outlined below are helpful, and can improve the manuscript for future publication in NHESS or other journals. I'm happy to be contacted by authors for further assistance.
Major comment
There is no clear research question or a problem statement. Given this, it is difficult to assess what is being generated and why, and how useful the findings are. Once these core elements are clarified, then the manuscript can be reorganized to help the reader move along a logical path.General comments- Since this manuscript is submitted as a research article, please clearly indicate your research question(s) in abstract and introduction. Currently, there is no research question(s) or problem statements.
- Abstract should be shortened to fulfil the journal requirement for research articles (100-200 words). The abstract is currently at >380 words.
- In the 'introduction' section, explain the necessity and novelty of the issues/questions this manuscript aims to address. Provide an overview of previous work this manuscript is building on (with references).
- In the 'methods' section, explain your approach in detail. For example, why training in the form of online workshops is used? What kind of pedagogical approaches did you use to make these workshops effective? Currently, the workshop descriptions are too general to be useful. Also, I suggest explaining your evaluation/self-assessment methods in this section.
- Over 1000 participated in these workshops, why no statistical analysis was done? How do you know your results are indeed significant?
- There is no clear result section. I suggest creating this section, and including your workshops and the evaluation data in this section.
- Deepen the discussion section. Include study limitations, and discuss the wider applicability of your findings.
- Include a separate section for 'conclusions' at the end of your manuscript. Currently it is combined with discussion.
- Include the evaluation form as a manuscript appendix.
- Include an ethical statement either in the 'methods' section or as a separate section at the end of the manuscript. This is especially important because of participation of human subjects providing authors with knowledge and personal data. In the statement, include which research ethic committee or institutional review board the authors received their ethical approval/ethical opinion and when.
- Related to #7, I strongly encourage authors to include a statement on 'inclusion in global research' as part of their ethical statement. The authors hold affiliations outside of the region of their multi-regional collaborations. I encourage them to provide a disclosure statement in their manuscript based on the Global Code of Conduct (see: https://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/).
Comments on tables and figures- Table 1 includes repetitive information and is not very informative. I suggest having three columns for workshop names, objectives, and activities. Since all workshops had a similar structure, there is no need to repeat it in the table. This would reduce the number of rows to four: exposure mapping, hazard modeling, vulnerability analysis, and risk modelling.
- Figures 1-3 are not needed. Consider deleting or moving them to supplementary material. Instead, add a few sentences as text in the manuscript.
- Figures 4-6 could be included and discussed under a section heading like 'Participants' self-assessment of skills and experiences'.
- Figures 13-15 appear as snapshots from Google Form. Consider re-creating these figures.
Language comments:- Please replace the term 'natural disaster' with 'disaster' throughout the manuscript. See: https://www.undrr.org/our-impact/campaigns/no-natural-disasters
- Use the term capacity building consistently throughout the manuscript. In some places a hyphen is used in between two words.
- Define the term 'young professionals' - do you mean early career scientists/researchers?
- Consider replacing the term 'local' with 'in-country' when referring to experts, scientists, etc. There are many experts working in Central Asia that are not local despite living and working in those countries.
- Consider removing subjective terms like 'extremely', 'significant', 'naturally', etc.
- The term 'country-based' workshops doesn't make much sense. Consider changing it to 'workshops'.
Other comments:- lines 57-58 - What is the state of existing expertise of regional institutions? If the objective of the capacity building activities is to increase the existing expertise in Central Asia nations, the reader needs to know what you are building on. This is particularly important when it comes to evaluating the results. How do the authors know the objective is/is not achieved?
- line 60 - to enhance local capacity (not to build since there's already some existing local capacity) and delete 'fully'
- line 81 - the workshop objectives should be mentioned earlier before workshop descriptions.
- lines 85-88 - consider deleting these lines. Instead of wishing for success, the article should aim to measure success.
- line 103 - local and national experts? What's the difference?
- line 121 - delete pm
- line 134 - Since participation was by invitation, it would be useful to know who was invited and why. A stakeholder analysis table or grid would be quite meaningful here.
- line 142 - no need to show 'languages' in bold. Also, explain why local language(s) were not used especially when a large number of participants didn't fully understand English. Also, why there is no assessment of Russian language skills. Not everyone in the region understands Russian fully.
- line 152 - List where the evaluation form is stored for viewing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-156-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-156', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Apr 2024
Review Report on “Capacity Building Experience for Disaster Risk Reduction in Central Asia” by authors A. Peresan et al, NHESS
This paper is a Report on eight training Workshops held in five Central Asia countries, with the aim of capacity building for disaster risk reduction. The theme is very appropriate, as Central Asia is a seismic region with high hazard and risk factors. In addition, floods and landslide scenarios were appropriately discussed. The main points of interest were hazard, exposure to hazard, vulnerability, assessment and modeling of risk factors. The main objective was to share international methodologies and practices, and discuss ways of their improvement and specific applications. Both local and international experts delivered lectures, presentations, comments and discussions on the subject matter, with many original and useful points. The participation of academia and research institutes was supplemented by the presence of Ministries representatives, in a joint effort to make a successful and useful meeting. The organizers received a very positive feedback from participants, indicating that the topics were relevant and useful for their daily activity in this direction.
The paper discusses lessons learned from this capacity building activity, together with a summary description of the workshops structure, attendance and feedback from participants. It is intended to help future experiences of this kind, both in that region and elsewhere.
The paper is highly original, both on the subject of hazard and risk reduction and in the science of communication. The particular presentation of the three thematic workshops on hazard and risk modeling and vulnerability includes an almost exhaustive set of specific problems, case studies and methods in current practice, which are very valuable researchers, instructors and decision factors. The necessity of large databases was emphasized, and, what is very interesting, ways of financial funding for such activities was discussed with experts. The paper excels both in discussing in-depth scientific problems and corroborating them with useful practical measures. Engineering experts presented methods of quantifying the vulnerability of constructions, including both analytical models and empirical data.
Peer review & Review criteria
take into account all of the following aspects:
- Does the paper address relevant scientific and/or technical questions within the scope of NHESS?
Yes
- Does the paper present new data and/or novel concepts, ideas, tools, methods or results?
The paper is a relative novelty in scientific research, including communication of scientific results and feedback
- Are these up to international standards?
Yes.
- Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and outlined clearly?
The paper is very well written, with clarity and a logical construction
- Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and the conclusions?
Yes
- Does the author reach substantial conclusions?
yes, among them : the necessity of common discussions with scientific experts, decision factors and financial founders; recommendations for future capacity building activities
- Is the description of the data used, the methods used, the experiments and calculations made, and the results obtained sufficiently complete and accurate to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
The presentation of the specific data is very clear.
- Does the title clearly and unambiguously reflect the contents of the paper?
Yes
- Does the abstract provide a concise, complete and unambiguous summary of the work done and the results obtained?
The abstract is a complete and clear summary of the work, less concise
- Are the title and the abstract pertinent, and easy to understand to a wide and diversified audience?
Yes
- Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations and units correctly defined and used? If the formulae, symbols or abbreviations are numerous, are there tables or appendixes listing them?
Not applicable
- Is the size, quality and readability of each figure adequate to the type and quantity of data presented?
The Figures and Tables are of very good quality
- Does the author give proper credit to previous and/or related work, and does he/she indicate clearly his/her own contribution?
The References are almost exhaustive
- Are the number and quality of the references appropriate?
Yes
- Are the references accessible by fellow scientists?
Almost all
- Is the overall presentation well structured, clear and easy to understand by a wide and general audience?
The structure of the paper is of a high quality
- Is the length of the paper adequate, too long or too short?
The length is appropriate
- Is there any part of the paper (title, abstract, main text, formulae, symbols, figures and their captions, tables, list of references, appendixes) that needs to be clarified, reduced, added, combined, or eliminated?
No
- Is the technical language precise and understandable by fellow scientists?
The language is very clear
- Is the English language of good quality, fluent, simple and easy to read and understand by a wide and diversified audience?
The English is excellent
- Is the amount and quality of supplementary material (if any) appropriate?
Not applicable
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-156-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
439 | 101 | 46 | 586 | 37 | 39 |
- HTML: 439
- PDF: 101
- XML: 46
- Total: 586
- BibTeX: 37
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
4 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Assessing landslide damming susceptibility in Central Asia C. Tacconi Stefanelli et al. 10.5194/nhess-24-1697-2024
- Regional seismic risk assessment based on ground conditions in Uzbekistan V. Ismailov et al. 10.5194/nhess-24-2133-2024
- A regional-scale approach to assessing non-residential building, transportation and cropland exposure in Central Asia C. Scaini et al. 10.5194/nhess-24-355-2024
- A new regionally consistent exposure database for Central Asia: population and residential buildings C. Scaini et al. 10.5194/nhess-24-929-2024