the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An assessment of potential improvements in social capital, risk awareness, and preparedness from digital technologies
Tommaso Piseddu
Mathilda Englund
Karina Barquet
Abstract. Contributions to social capital, risk awareness and preparedness constitute the parameters against which applications of digital technologies in the field of disaster risk management should be tested. We propose here an evaluation of four of these, mobile positioning data, social media crowdsourcing, drones and satellite imaging, with an additional focus on acceptability and feasibility. The assessment is carried out through a survey disseminated among stakeholders. The frame of the analysis also grants the opportunity to investigate to what extent different methodologies to aggregate and evaluate the 10 results, the CRITIC model, the dCRITIC model, the Entropy model, the Mean Weight model and the Standard Deviation model, may influence the preference of one technology over the others. We find that the different assumptions on which these methodologies rely deliver diverging results. We therefore recommend future research to be based on a sensitivity analysis that considers multiple and alternatives methods to evaluate survey results.
- Preprint
(777 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Tommaso Piseddu et al.
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-8', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2023
The authors brought up an important and timely topic: digital technologies for disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies. However, their current version of the manuscript requires a fundamental review of the concepts, followed by adjustments and improvements in the methodology. I recommend major revision and reconsideration in the future.
Some points:
• Social capital is not a usual concept in geosciences. In the introduction, the authors should define this concept using references.
• The following questions require answers: “How are these digital technologies used currently (what is the state-of-the-art)?”, and “How are these digital technologies can be implemented effectively?” A systematic review can contribute to these answers.
• The analysis and content reflect a North Global perspective. I suggest to mentioned in a specific section the limitations of the research. Some vulnerable groups can become more vulnerable in South Global from the application of digital technologies in the only way. Besides this, inequality in undeveloped countries or developing countries can hamper the wide and fair application of digital technologies. The sentence in line 37: “… the end improve societal resilience among the most vulnerable segments of the population” requires attention.
• More discussion and results analysis are required, such as, whether there is a relation between the knowledge area or profession, or country and the weights. Cluster analysis can be used.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-8-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tommaso Piseddu, 06 Aug 2023
Thank you very much for you valuable comment. We are sure it will help us improve the quality of the manuscript. We provide here point-by-point answers to the points raised in your comment.
- We agree that social capital is not a usual concept in geosciences. We will therefore add the following definition in the introduction: "features of social organizations, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993, p. 35).
- A new section will be included to shed light onto how these technologies are currently being used and how they can be implemented effectively. The section will build on a quick review of some recent papers. We do aknowledge that a proper systematic review may return more accurate results but we are concerned that its results may be so large to constitute an entirely separate paper. Time constaints also limit the possibility the carry out an entire systematic review.
- The manuscript does present an analysis and a content that mainly reflect a North Global perspective. Such a condition is the result of the manuscript being constrained in its geographic scope by the scope of the Horizon2020 BuildERS project. This was mentioned in lines 61-64 where we refer to "the most vulnerable segements of the European population". We will make sure to further stress the geographical constraints of the analysis in the discussion and review the sentence in line 37.
- A deeper analysis on the correlation between the country and the scores assigned to every technology could indeed be interesting, but our data may not allow for this. Most of the participants indicated more than one geographical area as their country of operation. Several indicated entire continents or other supranational areas, making the identification of a single country of operation problematic. The possibility of such an analysis will anyway be investigated and results included if relevant and substantial.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-8-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Tommaso Piseddu, 06 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-8', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jun 2023
This manuscript evaluates digital technologies and tools for improving social capital, risk awareness, and disaster preparedness. Despite the relevance of the selected topic, in the current version there are some critical aspects that must be fixed. Therefore I suggest major revisions as follow:
- Author/s need to clarify what are digital technologies and why they decide to focus on a specific group (i.e., mobile positioning data, social media crowdsourcing, drones, and satellite imaging.). For an in-depth analysis of the role of digital technologies in government please read and cite: Barcevičius, E., Cibaitė, G., Codagnone, C., Gineikytė, V., Klimavičiūtė, L., Liva, G., ... & Vanini, I. (2019). Exploring Digital Government transformation in the EU.
- For a better understanding of the importance and the different role of DG in disaster situations, please read and cite: Vermiglio, C., Noto, G., Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., & Zarone, V. (2022). Disaster management and emerging technologies: a performance-based perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research.
- A further theoretical issue of the paper is the lack of clear explanation regarding "social capital" and "risk" and "resilience" concepts which are pivotal for the theoretical background of the paper. On this regard, I suggest to broaden the explanation considering the following papers:
ALDRICH D., MEYER M.A., (2015) Social Capital and Community Resilience. American Behavioral Scientist 2015, Vol. 59(2) 254–269;
ALEXANDER, D.E., 2013. Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 1, pp.1257– 1284.
CAPANO G., WOO J.J. (2016), Resilience and robustness in policy design: a critical appraisal. Policy Science. Springer.
DUFTY, N. (2012). Using social media to build community disaster resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 27(1), 40–45
MANYENA, S.B., 2006. The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), pp.433–50.
JURGENS M., HELSLOOT I., (2018), The effect of social media on the dynamics of (self) resilience during disasters: A literature review. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 79-88. John Wiley & Sons.
- The methodology is interesting and well grounded, although author/s doesn't clarify the reasons that justify the adoption of the selected criteria.
- Practical and managerial implications of the study are not fully explained. Who can benefit from the results of this study? Managers? Policy makers? Practictioners? Academic community? You must clarify the target and create a strong linkage among theories, methodology and findings.
Good luck for future steps.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-8-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tommaso Piseddu, 06 Aug 2023
Thank you very much for yuor insightful comment. We are confident the quality of the manuscript will benefit from it. We are provide a point-by-point reply to the points raised in the comment.
- The selection of the technologies has been done in accordance with the scope of the Horizon2020 BuildERS project this manuscript contributes to. This is mentioned in lines 76 - 78: "Previous work in the BuildERS project indicates that mobile positioning data, social media crowdsourcing, drones, and satellite imaging have the greatest innovation potential for disaster risk management (Latvakoski et al., 2022). " with a reference to:
Latvakoski, J., Öörni, R., Lusikka, T., & Keränen, J. (2022). Evaluation of emerging technological opportunities for improving risk awareness and resilience of vulnerable people in disasterss. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 80, 103173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103173
- We welcome the suggetion to read and cite Vermiglio, C., Noto, G., Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., & Zarone, V. (2022). Disaster management and emerging technologies: a performance-based perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research for a better understanding of the importance and the different role of DG in disaster situations. Such an understanding may also benefit from the quick review of recent papers we will perform as suggested by the second comment by Reviewer #2.
- We will work as follow to solve the lack of clear explanation regarding the concepts of "social capital", "risk" and "resilience" building also the suggestions you provided: We will add two paragraphs to the introduction to define social capital, risk, and resilience and will incorporate the following of your suggested references: Aldrich and Meyer (2015), Alexander (2013), and Manyena (2006). Dufty (2012) and Jurgens and Helsloot (2018).
The first three paragraphs in the introduction may be rephrased as follows:
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR, 2015) calls for investments in digital technologies and tools to enhance societal resilience. Recent developments in digital technologies and tools offer emerging opportunities for managing disaster risk, i.e., the potential for loss or damages determined by the function of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability (UNDRR, 2009). More specifically, digital technologies and tools hold significant potential in strengthening social capital, risk awareness, disaster preparedness, and, in the end, societal resilience (Latvakoski et al., 2022).
Resilience describes the ability of a system to cope with or adapt to shocks (Zhou et al., 2010). Many scientific fields adopt the concept of resilience (Alexander, 2013), including ecology (Holling, 1973), psychology (Garmezy et al., 1984), and disaster research (Manyena, 2006). Such work identifies a plethora of factors that enable or constrain resilience (Jordan & Javernick-Will, 2012). In disaster research, social capital has emerged as a critical determinant of resilience (Kerr, 2018). Social capital refers to “features of social organizations, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993, p. 35).
Greater levels of social capital within a community are linked to higher levels of disaster preparedness and risk awareness (Brunie, 2007; Hausman et al., 2007; Morsut et al., 2021). The nexus between social capital, risk awareness, and disaster preparedness can improve and facilitate collaboration; provide social safety nets; strengthen communication and information-sharing; speed up response and recovery efforts; and in the end improve resilience among the most vulnerable segments of the population (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015).
- The criteria are selected with the aim to fit the theoretical framework that constitutes the backbone of the Horizon2020 BuildERS project. We will make sure to provide an appropriate reference to the project's outputs that describe the development of such a framework.
- The conclusions of the manuscript are meant to benefit the academic community and practitioners. For the former, we hope that the warnings we raised on the implications of the choice of the model to aggregate survey’s replies may raise awareness among researchers working with similar methods; for the latter, we hope the conclusions of the analysis will inform practitioners on the suitability of adopting one or more of the tools to achieve their goals of increasing awareness and social resilience and disaster-responsiveness. This will be further clarified in the conclusions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-8-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Tommaso Piseddu, 06 Aug 2023
Tommaso Piseddu et al.
Tommaso Piseddu et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 379 | 80 | 17 | 476 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 379
- PDF: 80
- XML: 17
- Total: 476
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1