the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Disaster Management Following the Great Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in 2023, Türkiye
Abstract. Türkiye experienced devastating earthquakes in Kahramanmaraş on February 6, 2023, making it one of the most severe tragedies of the century. This study analyzed the Turkish Government's response strategies to these earthquakes, focusing on crisis communication, response capacity, and crisis management. The study utilized qualitative methodology and purposive sampling, with the government-affiliated Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) as a sample. Starting on February 6, 2023, 25 days of official tweets and press statements from the AFAD were analyzed. AFAD's initial press statement was released 13 minutes after the quake, and the declaration of a level four disaster occurred only 86 minutes after the earthquake, demonstrating that state institutions were fully aware of the severity of the situation. The results indicate to the global community that despite extensive rescue and response capabilities in disaster management, there are still challenges to prevent loss of life. The primary focus should be on disaster prevention and mitigation efforts, prioritizing solid building construction and strict control policies. The presence of over 270 thousands volunteer rescuers is a testament to the remarkable spirit of solidarity. Furthermore, social media played a pivotal role in information management and coordination in the aftermath of the earthquakes.
- Preprint
(1298 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3069 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2538', Samar Momin, 14 Oct 2024
reply
This review concerns the article "Disaster Management Following the Great Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in 2023, Türkiye." It is divided into three categories: general comments, specific comments, and technical comments.
General Comments:
The article titled "Disaster Management Following the Great Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes in 2023, Türkiye" clearly reflects the contents of the paper. The abstract is to be revised, although it provides a concise, and complete summary of the work done and the results obtained, it can be improved. The reviewer appreciates the idea and effort of the author, however, the text quality of the manuscript needs to be improved significantly. The ideas are well-structured but the presentation needs refinement to improve consistency in terminology, and use of writing style before publication. The figures are descriptive and of good quality, and the tables are informative but need revision to follow consistency (in this case number format). It is well-referenced with proper credit attributed to previous and/or related works. The manuscript contributes interesting insights and a methodology to comparatively analyze the post-earthquake responses of the Turkish government and its respective responsible agencies. Studying such past events is extremely important for comprehensive disaster risk management strategies for resilience at the county and national. Thus, this manuscript has scientific relevance but needs improvement in presentation quality.
Specific Comments:
The reviewer appreciates the efforts of the author, however, this analysis seems a bit dated considering the recent advances in natural language processing tools in AI. Did the authors consider using such improved techniques for the analyses of text-based data?
To see the full list of detailed comments (42) , please refer to the attached annotated PDF of the manuscript.
Technical Comments:
In general, there are different styles used in the text to represent numbers and time and several instances of in-text citation throughout the manuscript. Ensure consistency.
- Inconsistent representation of numbers throughout the manuscript: for example, use of commas versus periods in numerical data (e.g., "103,6 billion US$" vs. "202 billion US dollars").
- Citation style varies between sections; please revise to ensure uniformity.
- Some figures and tables lack sufficient caption details, which makes interpretation difficult without referring back to the main text.
To see the full list of detailed comments (42), please refer to the attached annotated PDF of the manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Bektaş Sarı, 17 Oct 2024
reply
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable suggestions regarding the manuscript. I have implemented your recommended revisions, which are explained below and highlighted in the attached document.
Page 1, lines 14-15: sentence and number revised.
Page 2, lines 38-63: revised and citation added.
Page 4, lines 98-99-101-108: revised.
Page 5 Lines 115-116-117-119-129-131-132: table and numbers revised.
Page 6, lines 134-135-137-138: sentences revised.
Page 6, line 161: I used MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software to manage the data in this study. I honestly didn't know how to use natural language processing tools in my analysis, but I'm eager to learn and incorporate them into my future academic work.
Page 7, lines 174-175: sentence revised and explanation added.
Page 8: Figure 2 revised regarding time (am/pm) inconsistencies.
Page 9, lines 209-221: sentence and number revised.
Page 11, lines 251-253-256: sentence and citations revised.
Page 12, lines 263-265-267-268-271-175-280: suggested revisions implemented.
Page 13, lines 190-192-294-309-311-313-321: suggested revisions implemented.
Page 14, lines 323-325-341-347-349: suggested revisions implemented.
Page 15, line 361: revised regarding time (am/pm) inconsistencies.
Page 15, line 378: I downloaded the Copernicus-style files from the address and managed references with Mendeley automatically. However, I tried to revise some of the references manually. https://publications.copernicus.org/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html
Page 16, line 389: revised.
Page 18, line 464: revised.
Page 20, line 518: revised.
Thank you so much for your suggestions on improving my academic approach. If you have any further recommendations, I will revise them.
Regards.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
160 | 48 | 19 | 227 | 34 | 3 | 5 |
- HTML: 160
- PDF: 48
- XML: 19
- Total: 227
- Supplement: 34
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1