Cited by 65Technology Adoption and User BehaviourDisaster Management and ResiliencePublic Relations and Crisis Communication

The Acceptance of Using Information Technology for Disaster Risk Management: A Systematic Review

Open access
Meechang, Kunruthai, Leelawat, Natt, Tang, Jing, Kodaka, Akira, Chintanapakdee, Chatpan·2020·Engineering Journal

Abstract

The numbers of natural disaster events are continuously affecting human and the world economics.For coping with disaster, several sectors try to develop the frameworks, systems, technologies and so on.However, there are little researches focusing on the usage behavior of Information Technology (IT) for disaster risk management (DRM).Therefore, this study investigates the affecting factors on the intention to use IT for mitigating disaster's impacts.This study conducted a systematic review with the academic researches during 2011-2018.Two important factors from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and others are used in describing individual behavior.In order to investigate the potential factors, the technology platforms are divided into nine types.According to the findings, computer software such as GIS applications are frequently used for simulation and spatial data analysis.Social media is preferred among the first choices during disaster events in order to communicate about situations and damages.Finally, we found five major potential factors which are Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), information accessibility, social influence, and disaster knowledge.Among them, the most essential one of using IT for disaster management is PU, while PEOU and information accessibility are more important in the web platforms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4186/ej.2020.24.4.111

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI algorithms designed for human resource planning require well-structured decision objectives to provide good solutions.

    “AI algorithms designed for human resource planning require well-structured decision objectives to provide good solutions (Meechang et al., 2020).”

    From Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management through AI capability framework (2023) · cites this paper as Meechang et al., 2020

    The Introduction and §2.1 describe a review of human acceptance of IT for disaster risk management, not AI algorithms for human resource planning. Searches for human resource planning, AI algorithms, and decision objectives found no passage addressing whether well-structured objectives are needed to produce good solutions. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • An AI algorithm might identify a relevant criterion or relationship affecting successful integration of employees into the company, but that relationship may not be evident for decision-makers, which could question the reliability of the results.

    “An AI algorithm might identify a relevant criteria or relationship between criterion affecting the successful integration of employees into the company.However, that relationship may not be evident for decision-makers, which could question the reliability of the results (Meechang et al., 2020).”

    From Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management through AI capability framework (2023) · cites this paper as Meechang et al., 2020

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several decisions made by humans are based on judgement and intuition.

    “In fact, several of the decisions made by humans are based on judgement and intuition (Meechang et al., 2020).”

    From Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management through AI capability framework (2023) · cites this paper as Meechang et al., 2020

    Section 2.1 discusses models of human behavior, and section 4.6 describes reliance on past experience in disaster preparedness. Neither passage says that human decisions are based on judgment and intuition; searches for that phrase and a paraphrase found no passage addressing the claim. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 140 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [8]8. M. Yasuda, T. Muramoto, A. Suppasri, N. Leelawat, and R. Nouchi, "Education for disaster risk reduction corresponding earthquake and tsunami," in Proceedings of the 7th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering, (7ACEE), Pathum Thani, Thailand, 2018.
  2. [14]14. P. Thamarux, N. Leelawat, and M. Matsuoka, "The GIS database analysis for multi natural hazards risk estimation web application development: A focus on startups in Thailand," in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Remote Sensing (ISRS 2017), Nagoya, Japan, 2017, pp. 163-166.
  3. [23]23. I. Ajzen, "Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior 1," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 665-683, 2002.
  4. [33]33. D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, and P. Smart, "Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review," British Journal of Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 207-222, 2003.
  5. [58]58. R. Nox and C. C. Myles, "Wildfire mitigation behavior on single family residential properties near Balcones Canyonlands Preserve wildlands in Austin, Texas," Applied Geography, vol. 87, pp. 222-233, 2017.
  6. [75]75. N. Leelawat, A. Suppasri, J. Park, I. Charvet, P. Latcharote, F. Imamura, J. Iijima, and Y. Abe, "DamageEstimateApp: A Mobile application that estimates building damages from tsunami disasters," in ICUR2016 Proceedings, European Centre on Urban Risks, Lisbon, 2016, pp. 267-274.
  7. [90]90. S. V. Ivanov and K. V. Knyazkov, "Evaluation of in- vehicle Decision Support System for Emergency Evacuation," Procedia Computer Science, vol. 29, pp. 1656-1666, 2014.
  8. [109]109. O. Mejri, S. Menoni, K. Matias, and N. Aminoltaheri, "Crisis information to support spatial planning in post disaster recovery," International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 22, pp. 46-61, 2017.
  9. [152]152. Asst. Prof. Natt is an IEEE Senior Member. He was a recipient of the SakIntania's Young Lecturer Award 2018 from the Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University; the Best Paper Award from the 6th International Conference on Sustainable Future for Human Security (SUSTAIN 2015), Indonesia; and the Dean Award 2014 from Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meechang, K., Leelawat, N., Tang, J., Kodaka, A., & Chintanapakdee, C.
Affiliations
  • Chulalongkorn University (TH)
  • Keio University (JP)
Venue
Engineering Journal
Published
2020-07-31
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
111
ISSN
0125-8281 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4239107822
Cited by
65
References
140
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Engineering Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Engineering Journal (Chulalongkorn University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Chulalongkorn University (763014)
  • Japan International Cooperation Agency (JPMJSA1708)
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency (JPMJSA1708)
  • Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development (JPMJSA1708)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
Keywords
information technology adoption, disaster risk management, technology acceptance model, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, social media, geographic information systems, disaster knowledge, social influence, information accessibility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review