Turning regret into future disaster preparedness with no-regrets

Ommer, Joy; Kalas, Milan; Neumann, Jessica; Blackburn, Sophie; Cloke, Hannah L.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186

Preprints

24 Apr 2024

| 24 Apr 2024

Turning regret into future disaster preparedness with no-regrets

Joy Ommer, Milan Kalas, Jessica Neumann, Sophie Blackburn, and Hannah L. Cloke

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.

Received: 20 Apr 2024 – Discussion started: 24 Apr 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 547 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (547 KB)

Supplement (214 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

29 Aug 2025

| Highlight paper

Turning regret into future disaster preparedness with no regrets

Joy Ommer, Milan Kalas, Jessica Neumann, Sophie Blackburn, and Hannah L. Cloke

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2929–2938, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2929-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2929-2025, 2025

Short summary Executive editor

Joy Ommer, Milan Kalas, Jessica Neumann, Sophie Blackburn, and Hannah L. Cloke

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1186', Julius Schlumberger, 23 May 2024

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
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joy Ommer, 02 Jan 2025
  
  We thank you for your thoughtful and constructive review of our manuscript! We note your suggestions and will provide more details on the knowledge gap as well as on the methodology. We aim to integrate your recommendations for the results section as far as the survey data can provide this information. Furthermore, we will strengthen the discussion around short and long-term preparedness, but it will be challenging to add the suggested visualisation due to the nature of the data. Also, it will be challenging to clearly distinct between personal choices and the institutional context for the same reason. However, we will aim to clarify the pre-conditions where possible. We will restructure the results section and improve the conclusion in line with your recommendations. Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and for helping us strengthen the manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1186', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Nov 2024

Summary:

'Turning regret into future disaster preparedness with no-regrets' analyses how German citizens regretted their actions (or inactions) during their 2021 July floods. An online survey was used to analyse the opinions of 438 citizens impacted by these floods. This survey found that participants did not regret taking short-term preparedness actions, or actions which endangered their life. Yet, they did regret inaction. Overall, this paper showed that a no-regrets framework could be used to empower citizens, to enable them to sufficiently prepare for flooding. However, the paper could benefit from further context about responsibilities of the citizens compared to the government, and the creation of a separate discussion section with the paper’s implications for disaster preparedness.

General Comments:

Section 1 sets out the research context well, but the paper could benefit from additional framing around legal responsibilities of flood risk and response in Germany. Whilst there was a lot of detail about the hazard and exposure of the 2021 floods, there was no detail about the flood risk governance structure in Germany – specifically the balance of the responsibilities of preparedness between citizens and the government. Outlining this would allow the reader to understand that the German Federal State requires that residents hold legal responsibility for protecting their property, and therefore understand the implications if residents are failing to prepare/protect sufficiently for flooding. Using this framing would also allow the authors to link their results of dependence and trust between citizens and local authorities back to this context in Section 3.

In addition, there is an absence of a discussion section, whereby the implications of this study on regret for long-term disaster preparedness should have been discussed. Splitting up the content of Section 4 into a discussion (recommendations) section and a conclusion would provide more clarity on how this paper contributes to wider literature and to German flood governance. More detail is also needed on the five implications for disaster preparedness. This would be enhanced through suggestions for how the recommendations could be implemented by either citizens or the government; such as explicitly suggesting how long-term preparedness could be enhanced by collective action, and what needs to change about the current system of preparedness for this to happen.
Specific Comments:

The paper would benefit from adding some nuance into the context in Section 1 around the lack of preparedness being due to the lack of flood warning. Whilst flood warnings often do lead to an increased chance of preparedness, some citizens may not have the social capital or mobility to act upon these warnings. One or two sentences outlining this challenge would add to the paper.

On line 92-95; please specify how land cover changes in America could intensify further rainfalls in the future (from the Insua-Costa et al, 2022 reference), as that was slightly confusing with no further information.
The methods section could explicitly outline some of the most significant survey questions in the main text to make it more accessible to the reader, rather than just listing them the supplementary materials. These could be embedded alongside the quotes, to make it clear what the citizen was answering about.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joy Ommer, 02 Jan 2025
  
  We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to evaluating our work and providing detailed feedback! Your insights are valuable to us and will help enhance the clarity and impact of our study. We thank you for the general comment on linking the paper more closely to risk governance in Germany which we focused on in another paper (Risk social contracts: Exploring responsibilities through the lens of citizens affected by flooding in Germany in 2021). Furthermore, we will split the conclusion section as suggested by you and address your specific comments. We thank you again for your feedback!
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1186', Julius Schlumberger, 23 May 2024

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
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Joy Ommer, 02 Jan 2025
  
  We thank you for your thoughtful and constructive review of our manuscript! We note your suggestions and will provide more details on the knowledge gap as well as on the methodology. We aim to integrate your recommendations for the results section as far as the survey data can provide this information. Furthermore, we will strengthen the discussion around short and long-term preparedness, but it will be challenging to add the suggested visualisation due to the nature of the data. Also, it will be challenging to clearly distinct between personal choices and the institutional context for the same reason. However, we will aim to clarify the pre-conditions where possible. We will restructure the results section and improve the conclusion in line with your recommendations. Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and for helping us strengthen the manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-1186', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Nov 2024

Summary:

'Turning regret into future disaster preparedness with no-regrets' analyses how German citizens regretted their actions (or inactions) during their 2021 July floods. An online survey was used to analyse the opinions of 438 citizens impacted by these floods. This survey found that participants did not regret taking short-term preparedness actions, or actions which endangered their life. Yet, they did regret inaction. Overall, this paper showed that a no-regrets framework could be used to empower citizens, to enable them to sufficiently prepare for flooding. However, the paper could benefit from further context about responsibilities of the citizens compared to the government, and the creation of a separate discussion section with the paper’s implications for disaster preparedness.

General Comments:

Section 1 sets out the research context well, but the paper could benefit from additional framing around legal responsibilities of flood risk and response in Germany. Whilst there was a lot of detail about the hazard and exposure of the 2021 floods, there was no detail about the flood risk governance structure in Germany – specifically the balance of the responsibilities of preparedness between citizens and the government. Outlining this would allow the reader to understand that the German Federal State requires that residents hold legal responsibility for protecting their property, and therefore understand the implications if residents are failing to prepare/protect sufficiently for flooding. Using this framing would also allow the authors to link their results of dependence and trust between citizens and local authorities back to this context in Section 3.

In addition, there is an absence of a discussion section, whereby the implications of this study on regret for long-term disaster preparedness should have been discussed. Splitting up the content of Section 4 into a discussion (recommendations) section and a conclusion would provide more clarity on how this paper contributes to wider literature and to German flood governance. More detail is also needed on the five implications for disaster preparedness. This would be enhanced through suggestions for how the recommendations could be implemented by either citizens or the government; such as explicitly suggesting how long-term preparedness could be enhanced by collective action, and what needs to change about the current system of preparedness for this to happen.
Specific Comments:

The paper would benefit from adding some nuance into the context in Section 1 around the lack of preparedness being due to the lack of flood warning. Whilst flood warnings often do lead to an increased chance of preparedness, some citizens may not have the social capital or mobility to act upon these warnings. One or two sentences outlining this challenge would add to the paper.

On line 92-95; please specify how land cover changes in America could intensify further rainfalls in the future (from the Insua-Costa et al, 2022 reference), as that was slightly confusing with no further information.
The methods section could explicitly outline some of the most significant survey questions in the main text to make it more accessible to the reader, rather than just listing them the supplementary materials. These could be embedded alongside the quotes, to make it clear what the citizen was answering about.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Joy Ommer, 02 Jan 2025
  
  We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to evaluating our work and providing detailed feedback! Your insights are valuable to us and will help enhance the clarity and impact of our study. We thank you for the general comment on linking the paper more closely to risk governance in Germany which we focused on in another paper (Risk social contracts: Exploring responsibilities through the lens of citizens affected by flooding in Germany in 2021). Furthermore, we will split the conclusion section as suggested by you and address your specific comments. We thank you again for your feedback!
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (13 Jan 2025) by Viktor Rözer

AR by Joy Ommer on behalf of the Authors (17 Feb 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Mar 2025) by Viktor Rözer

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (07 Mar 2025)

RR by Julius Schlumberger (21 Mar 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have done some work to address my earlier comments. Especially regarding the introduction and method section. I still see substantial comments regarding the quality and interpretation of the results and would thus still suggest some major revisions.

Major comments:
• Flow of reading: It is difficult to pinpoint, but I have struggle following the logic of the paragraphs at times. This is particularly true in the introduction and the result section. I am aware that different people read and think differently, but I would encourage the authors to revisit the flow of their arguments and general logic of the sections. Something that helps me, is to try and structure the paragraphs that the first sentence of each paragraph already provides a rough outline of the general story I want to tell. This might be useful to do as well. Similarly, in the result section, I am sometimes confused by the fact that the authors first place the conclusion and then the supporting arguments. For example in l. 186-192: When reading the first sentence of this parapgrah I was wondering: how can the authors make this claim we have not even talked about the early warnings yet at all.
• I still lack substance in the result section. Particularly in section 3.2, the authors claim to talk about the regret caused by actions, but spend the majority of the subsection discussing the timing of the early warning. The only actions that are reported to be regretted (without any substantive information about the frequency of this regret, it is presented as two anecdotes from participants, out of a survey sample of more than 400 responses) are a person ‘starting to act when the water was filling up the basement’. Overall, the authors often implicitly mention that there is regret, but not what the exact regret was and consequently how this can be used to develop no-regret strategies (as is the purpose of this manuscript).
• I see significant thematic overlap between section 3.4 and 4.1. and 4.2. Similarly, 4.3 seems to be a repetition of earlier conclusions. I would suggest to merge 4.1 and 4.2 into the 3.4 (and potentially earlier sections and call section 3 results and discussion. The authors have already started a discussion in section 3 at many occasions by contextualizing the findings/statements from participants with literature or offering possible interpretations and explanations for discovered behaviors. Likewise, I would suggest that authors use literature to also show where the regret approach confirmed findings already available in literature and which new insights are gained to highlight the value of applying a regret-based focus.
• The discussion section needs significant work. I am missing a reflection on the limitations of the approach and the overall value of applying a regret-based approach. These are valuable discussion that add depth to this paper.

Minor comments:
• L.26: Did Thieken et al. 2023 already look at regrets. If so, it would be good to clarify how they addressed this and how this study is different from it. If not, please correct the statement.
• L.32-33: Sentence is incomplete.
• L.35-39: This paragraph seems very detached from the surrounding flow of logic. Propose to strike it.
• L.64: It would be good to describe what has been done as part of the research gap (since the authors state that the no-regrets approach ahs been widely applied in DRM). Likewise, would be good to substantiate the claims made about the research gap with literature. There is quite some work on learning which might be adjacent to the work done here. In that context, it could also be quite helpful to link the concept of regret to learning as this is how future preparedness is affected?
• L.94: the sentence does not make sense or is incomplete.
• L.127-128: this sentences seems redundant.
• L. 134-138: The added section on elaborating which questions of the survey were considered requires clarification.
• L.142: the sentence is incomplete.
• L.148: Clarification: what is meant by majority of regrets? Does it mean the amount of unique reasons to regret something, or that most regrets mentioned were about things people did not do? It would be interesting to add information how many regrets (N=?) were about inaction compared to the total number of regrets.
• L.150: It is great that authors added quantitative information. I would suggest to stick with one way of doing this (either absolute or percentage) but not both interchangeably. Similarly, it would be good to clarify how many data-points were actually considered. The footnote is an important information, but authors should consider to add this information in the main body of the text in the method section and clarify always the total amount of responses out of which n=X did say/do something.
• L.161ff: The first sentence needs clarification. I don’t understand what the authors want to say here. Indicating if this is specific anecdotal evidence or represented in more answers (by providing an n=?) is important. Now it reads very generalizable. For which of the N outlined in l.155ff does this apply?
• L.173: is this the same number of participants as in line 153 (N=31)?
• L.174: What do authors mean by commonly (%?).
• L.180; was this information provided by the participants? How many people offered this reason?
• L.185: I am not a native English speaker but the heading seems to be wrong. I would rather call this section: ‘The feeling of regret caused by taking actions.’
• L.187: Is this a voluntary information provided by the participants? What is the N?
• L.190: receiving the warning in time for what? How do the authors judge whether the warning was in time or not?
• L.191: there seems to be something wrong with the reference.
• L.195: it would be interesting to know what person provided this quote: a person that received no warning and got surprised by the water approaching or someone who received a warning 24hrs before?
• L. 208: the authors provide now one anecdotal story to draw the conclusion that they had regrets when action turned into a thread of life.
• L. 224: How many people reported that they took these actions (out of how many people that answered the question)?
• L.225: How many are few (out of the total number of people that answered the question?)
• L.226: did only one person say that they did not regret to do nothing? Or the other way round, did all other participants that did not take action regret that they did not take action (see section 3.1)? Did the not doing anything regret correlate with experienced damages/impacts?
• L.234: Is acting ‘prudently’ taking no action? The authors seem to present it in that way by starting the sentence with ‘Similarly…’
• L.243: How does ‘doing everything they could’ leading to no regret match up with the insight from the other person who started cleaning their basement? I would suggest to be more nuanced in how the authors report on the types of actions that cause (no) regret.
• L.251: Did any of the participants report on any damages/injuries experienced due to helping others? Do the authors reflect on how this might have changed the regret? (also linked to l.260).
• L.252: How many is many? (out of the participants that filled that question?)
• L.267: I find this quite striking that participants (how many?) disregard the value of warnings entirely because it did not work. It seems that all the blame is put towards the authorities (which I cannot judge based on the very limited information the authors provide regarding the warning system and apparent failure). I would also be interested if the authors can put this conclusion more in the context of existing literature. The participants express an intention to be more proactive, but is that the same as preparedness?
• L. 274-277: Is this now because of regret or because of learning and memory? Why does regret play a role here?
• L.276: deep uncertainty also contains the lack of knowledge. I would suggest that the authors replace ‘greater uncertainty’ with ‘lack of knowledge’ as uncertainty implies that the person actually did some evaluation of risk and potential action, but more like just had no idea what this actually meant.
• L.284-286: this paragaph might fit better at the beginning of this section when the authors already touch upon the warnings and implications.
• L. 297: It seems a bit weird to end a paragraph on turning regret into preparedness with an anecdote of someone, that we can actually not do anything about it as it is force of nature.
• L.314: Did the participants regret their inaction? Or did they regret that they did not have enough time. If the latter: is regret the right word to capture the thought process of participants in the situation?
• L.316: After reading the discussion, I am not convinced that this manuscript offers sufficient evidence for this. Authors should make this more explicit/clear.
• L.318: I don’t see this conclusion reflected in the results. The authors mention an anecdote from one participant who highlighted the value of emergency plans. Further back the authors this up by one reference from literature. To me, it does not seem that looking at the regret from people, they all concluded that they need an emergency plan for next time. If this was the case, the authors should substantiate this finding and make it more explicit in the results.
• L.324: Again, I don’t see this back in the evidence provided in the results.
• L.332ff: I am not sure how the discussion of trust is relevant in the manuscript which is focusing on regret. If the authors want to keep this paragraph they should make the linkage more explicit and clear for readers.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (02 Jun 2025) by Viktor Rözer

AR by Joy Ommer on behalf of the Authors (09 Jun 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (10 Jun 2025) by Viktor Rözer

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (17 Jun 2025) by Uwe Ulbrich (Executive editor)

AR by Joy Ommer on behalf of the Authors (17 Jun 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

29 Aug 2025

| Highlight paper

Turning regret into future disaster preparedness with no regrets

Joy Ommer, Milan Kalas, Jessica Neumann, Sophie Blackburn, and Hannah L. Cloke

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2929–2938, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2929-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-2929-2025, 2025

Short summary Executive editor

Joy Ommer, Milan Kalas, Jessica Neumann, Sophie Blackburn, and Hannah L. Cloke

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1186-supplement

Joy Ommer, Milan Kalas, Jessica Neumann, Sophie Blackburn, and Hannah L. Cloke

Viewed

Total article views: 612 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
434	144	34	612	70	42	69

HTML: 434
PDF: 144
XML: 34
Total: 612
Supplement: 70
BibTeX: 42
EndNote: 69

Views and downloads (calculated since 24 Apr 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2024	82	12	7	101
May 2024	56	12	6	74
Jun 2024	22	9	2	33
Jul 2024	20	5	2	27
Aug 2024	15	7	2	24
Sep 2024	10	7	1	18
Oct 2024	7	10	0	17
Nov 2024	29	7	2	38
Dec 2024	11	10	0	21
Jan 2025	27	10	3	40
Feb 2025	25	4	0	29
Mar 2025	12	9	0	21
Apr 2025	12	11	1	24
May 2025	14	11	2	27
Jun 2025	23	2	5	30
Jul 2025	21	7	0	28
Aug 2025	48	11	1	60

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 24 Apr 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2024	82	12	7	101
May 2024	56	12	6	74
Jun 2024	22	9	2	33
Jul 2024	20	5	2	27
Aug 2024	15	7	2	24
Sep 2024	10	7	1	18
Oct 2024	7	10	0	17
Nov 2024	29	7	2	38
Dec 2024	11	10	0	21
Jan 2025	27	10	3	40
Feb 2025	25	4	0	29
Mar 2025	12	9	0	21
Apr 2025	12	11	1	24
May 2025	14	11	2	27
Jun 2025	23	2	5	30
Jul 2025	21	7	0	28
Aug 2025	48	11	1	60

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 600 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 600 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 01 Sep 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (547 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

What do we regret about our disaster preparedness? This study showed that we regret most not having taken any actions! Also, we only regret actions which end up threatening our life! What we don't regret is helping others! The findings of this study suggest that the no-regrets approach could be a suitable framework for moving towards longer term disaster preparedness.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0