the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 24 Apr 2024
Turning regret into future disaster preparedness with no-regrets
Abstract. Global efforts are focusing on long-term preparedness for disasters highlighting the need for taking well-informed decisions in advance to avoid panic behaviour when a disaster strikes. Taking well-informed decisions includes the evaluation of the potential outcomes of a decision or action to avoid regretting them afterwards. Yet, little is known about what we regret about our actions and inactions in the context of disasters. Using the responses of a survey disseminated in flood affected areas in German in 2021, this study dives into the regrets of citizens and the reasons for their regrets. The results showed the that participants only regretted preparedness actions when they threatened their life, but foremost, participants regretted their inaction. Overall, the results indicate the need for promoting long-term preparedness which can be supported with no-regrets actions which in addition need to be easy-to-implement. Furthermore, the need for integrating actions supporting psychological preparedness was identified. To increase citizens preparedness motivation, their self-responsibility needs to be enhanced which could be achieved through fostering collective action.
- Preprint
(547 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(214 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1186', Julius Schlumberger, 23 May 2024
reply
In the manuscript “Turning regret into future disaster preparedness with no-regrets,” the authors examine the actions and non-actions that citizens regretted or did not regret during the flood events of 2021 in Germany. The study, which utilizes anecdotal evidence from 438 responses collected through an online survey, offers valuable insights into the regret attached to disaster risk management as taken by citizens. While the study is well-written, it would benefit from improvements in the structure of its analysis and conclusions. Additionally, the authors can enhance the research's strength and quality by providing more detailed discussion of the data collected. I recommend the authors address the following major revisions to increase the depth and relevance of this study.
Context of the Study: The introduction provides a clear and comprehensive overview of the topic of regret in the context of disaster risk management. However, the study would benefit from an additional paragraph in the introduction that reflects on the knowledge gap this study addresses and its context within existing literature.
Methodological Details: The survey developed by the authors contains very interesting and useful questions and demonstrates a thorough approach to collecting relevant information on subjective regret experiences. It would be beneficial to include more details about the survey in the main text, such as a table summarizing the key questions considered in this study. Additionally, visualizing some of the collected contextual information (e.g., questions 2, 3, and 7 from the survey) and referring to this in the results section would add clarity. Clarification is also needed on whether any filtering of the responses was necessary or if all 438 responses were suitable for consideration.
Result Details: The anecdotal insights from the survey provide interesting reflections on regret by citizens but are somewhat general. A more in-depth analysis, such as examining correlations between experienced impacts, feelings of preparedness, and regret, could add depth to the analysis. While the authors mention a relationship between regret and (near-)failure of actions, it would be beneficial to discuss this more explicitly. The authors refer to two groups of actions, including long-term preparedness. In the introduction, different types of preparedness measures (e.g., placement of furniture, pumps, emergency kits) are defined as ‘weak’ preparations, while (proactive) disaster preparedness (mentioned as long-term preparedness) includes emergency plans and drills. The paper would benefit from a more detailed discussion on the limits and benefits of each group in light of the given event, especially considering its low occurrence probability. Discussing the nuances in the measures taken and the associated regret for each type would add valuable context. For instance, a 2D visualization (x: no regret, regret; y: no damage – fully destroyed house) could illustrate which measures were generally perceived with more or less regret depending on the experienced damage. Furthermore, discussing specific types of measures and their associated regret would inform the recommendations regarding future preparedness more effectively. Finally, it could be an idea to make a distinction between (in)action of citizens because of personal choice and the role of the institutional context. The authors discuss the importance of emergency plans and the insufficiency of the warning timing/comprehensiveness which lies clearly outside of the capabilities/responsibilities of an individual citizen but play a crucial role to create the pre-conditions for no-regret preparedness by the citizens.
Result Section Structure: The distinction between actions that were regretted and those that were not is useful. However, the authors should adhere more strictly to this separation. For example, the initial sentences under “What do we regret” actually discuss measures that were not regretted. Additionally, the sections could be streamlined to align with the recommendations the authors intend to provide, such as actions that are regret-free, and the role of awareness and information access in (in)action. The discussion of various reasons for inaction, including insufficient access to or understanding of information, should be consolidated for coherence.
Conclusion Section: The conclusion section needs significant revision. It is uncommon to use the conclusion for anything other than reflecting on the key findings from the study and discussing limitations or remaining knowledge gaps. The current draft mixes summary and new information and does not at all reflect on remaining knowledge gaps or weaknesses of the present study design/data-set. A clear distinction should be made between the analysis of survey data and the authors’ reflections on answering the research question (“recommendations for long-term disaster preparedness and the suitability of the no-regrets approach”). Additionally, some conclusions drawn seem unsupported by the analysis provided. The four recommendations for no-regret future preparedness require further detail. The authors should differentiate actions based on their primary purpose within the DRM Cycle and their feasibility for citizens. Reflecting in more detail on the survey's learnings to support a nuanced set of recommendations would be very beneficial.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 225 | 64 | 21 | 310 | 34 | 15 | 23 |
- HTML: 225
- PDF: 64
- XML: 21
- Total: 310
- Supplement: 34
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1