Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 87 references

AI-based Approach in Early Warning Systems: Focus on Emergency Communication Ecosystem and Citizen Participation in Nordic Countries

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This review argues that AI can improve early warning systems at every stage—data collection, risk assessment, communication, and personalized alerts—and maps that claim onto the INFORM framework and Nordic systems.

desk verdict A serviceable survey of AI for early warning systems that overstates how much AI is actually in its Nordic examples. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18926 v1 pith:ZWJR4AMP submitted 2025-06-20 cs.CY cs.AI

Fuzel Shaik , Getnet Demil , Mourad Oussalah This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords earlywarningsystemsartificialintelligencedisasterriskmanagementINFORMframeworkemergencycommunicationperceptionNordiccountriescitizenparticipation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The chapter is a review-level argument that artificial intelligence belongs in every phase of disaster early warning: preparedness, emergency response, and post-crisis recovery. Its central claim is that integrating AI into early warning systems improves the accuracy and speed of processing complex climate data, which in turn improves data collection, risk assessment, communication, and personalized recommendations. Care matters because climate-related disasters already affect billions of people, and better warnings are one of the few interventions that can reduce harm without moving people or rebuilding infrastructure. The chapter grounds the claim in the EU-accredited INFORM risk framework and supports it with case studies from Norway, Denmark, and Finland.

What carries the argument

The argument is organized around the INFORM risk framework, a four-product structure—INFORM Risk, Warning, Severity, and Climate Change—that measures humanitarian risk along dimensions of hazard and exposure, vulnerability, and lack of coping capacity. Within that structure, severity is quantified by the formula $SI = IC \times CPA + CC$ (Impact of Crisis, Condition of People Affected, Complexity of Crisis). For the communication side, the chapter leans on the risk-perception identity $\text{Perceived Risk} = \text{Hazard} + \text{Outrage}$ and on Reynolds's nine-step crisis-response sequence, using them as slots where AI techniques such as deep learning, natural language processing, anomaly detection, recommender systems, and generative adversarial networks can be inserted.

What would settle it

Inspect the primary sources for Norway's LEWS and Finland's LUOVA: if neither system actually contains a machine-learning component, the chapter's Nordic evidence for AI's transformative role collapses to the Danish DCGAN case. A stronger test would compare warning lead times, false-alarm rates, and public compliance before and after an AI component is added to a national early warning system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that AI-integrated early warning systems are more effective because they process complex climate data with greater accuracy and speed, and that this advantage flows through the entire warning chain: sensing and data collection, risk modeling, emergency communication, and personalized recommendations. It asserts that AI can be embedded in each product of the INFORM risk framework, turning a static annual index into a dynamic system that monitors, warns, and assesses severity continuously. The chapter presents Nordic systems as illustrations: Norway's landslide early warning system, Denmark's DCGAN-based urban flood forecasting, and Finland's LUOVA warning coordination.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the Nordic examples are genuine demonstrations of AI in early warning, but the descriptions of two of the three systems do not clearly involve machine learning at all.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If AI is embedded this way, INFORM Risk could move from an annual static assessment to a continuously updated, real-time risk monitoring system.
  • AI-driven personalization could tailor warnings to individual locations, vulnerabilities, and behavior, strengthening citizen participation and self-protection.
  • Automated text summarization and social-media mining could relieve information overload in emergency centers and shorten the time between warning issuance and public action.
  • The same mapping predicts that AI can enhance each INFORM product, including climate-change risk projections under different emission and population scenarios.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's own claims: the three Nordic cases suggest the harder problem may be the communication layer rather than prediction, because two of the three systems already deliver useful warnings without machine learning.
  • Beyond the paper's own claims: the simplified severity formula $SI = IC \times CPA + CC$ omits the normalization and weighting steps of the official INFORM methodology, so a natural next test is whether AI-driven data fusion changes severity scores once those steps are restored.
  • Beyond the paper's own claims: a controlled before-and-after comparison of warning lead times, false-alarm rates, and public compliance around an AI upgrade would settle whether the claimed transformation is real.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review chapter on AI-based approaches in early warning systems, with an emphasis on emergency communication and citizen participation in Nordic countries. It outlines a holistic disaster-management view across preparedness, response, and post-crisis phases; maps AI and ICT capabilities onto the four INFORM products (Risk, Warning, Severity, Climate Change); discusses AI in emergency communication, mobile apps, and risk perception; and presents case studies from Norway, Denmark, and Finland, plus mobile emergency apps in Sweden. The central claim is that integrating AI into EWS improves accuracy, speed, risk assessment, communication, and personalized recommendations.

Significance. If the claims were properly supported, the chapter would be a useful broad survey for practitioners: the INFORM-component mapping is a clear organizational device, and the concrete systems described (GloFAS, EFFIS, FEWSN, the Danish DCGAN flood model) are consistent with the cited literature. The chapter also acknowledges limitations such as data quality, algorithmic bias, and regulatory constraints. However, the chapter is a literature synthesis, not an original empirical study, and its Nordic case-study evidence does not uniformly support the AI-specific conclusions drawn from it.

major comments (2)
  1. [1.6] The chapter asserts that the Nordic case studies "highlight how AI-driven technologies enhance EWS in the Nordic countries" and concludes that "AI technologies are pivotal in transforming emergency management across the Nordic region". The descriptions preceding these statements do not support them: Norway's LEWS is described as using "empirical models, real-time data, and expert judgment" with thresholds derived from historical landslide events, with no machine-learning component; Finland's LUOVA "consolidates forecasts, evaluations, and warnings from multiple sources", again without any AI element. Only the Danish DCGAN flood model is explicitly AI. This is an internal mismatch between the evidence and the AI-specific claim, and it weakens the region-specific contribution advertised by the title. The authors should either provide explicit evidence of AI/ML components in LEWS and LUOVA or revise the claims to distinguish AI from broader digital/ICT-based early warning.
  2. [1.4.3] The severity index is quoted without normalization or weighting as SI = IC*CPA + CC. As written, this is not a faithful representation of the INFORM Severity methodology, which uses dimension scores that must be normalized and combined through a composite scoring procedure rather than by raw multiplication. If the component indices are on a bounded scale, the product can produce implausible values. Since the subsequent suggestions for AI support to INFORM Severity build on this formula, the authors should replace it with a correct, citation-accurate description or explicitly state that it is a simplified illustration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reads "Nordic counties" where "Nordic countries" is intended; this typo should be corrected throughout the manuscript.
  2. [1.3.2] In the bullet list under "UNEP and AI for Earth Monitoring", the second item is not numbered: the list goes "i)", then an unnumbered sentence, then "iii)".
  3. [Throughout] There are many PDF-extraction artifacts, such as "systemâĂŹs", "jÃďrjestelmÃď", and "EENAstresses", which should be cleaned up before publication.
  4. [1.2] The central sentence "Integrating AI into EWS enhances their effectiveness..." is presented as a direct factual statement, but the chapter provides no quantified or systematic evaluation of that claim; a framing such as "the reviewed literature indicates" would be more accurate for a survey chapter.
  5. [1.5.2] The claim that approximately 70% of emergency calls to 112 originate from mobile devices is attributed to EENA via Halliwell and Lumbreras (2018), but no page or section reference is given, making the assertion difficult to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is a review chapter with no derivation or fitted prediction; the sole self-citation is descriptive and not load-bearing.

full rationale

This chapter is a narrative review, not a derivation: it advocates a holistic AI-in-EWS view, maps AI capabilities onto the INFORM components, and illustrates with Nordic case studies. No quantity is fitted, predicted, or derived from another quantity, so none of the definitional or fitted-input circularity patterns applies. The Severity Index formula SI = IC*CPA + CC and the perceived-risk formula are quoted from external sources (Poljanšek et al., 2020; Sandman, 1989), not derived here, and no subsequent result is computed from them. The self-citations to Shaik and Oussalah (2024) support descriptive statements about mobile emergency apps; that article is a separately published, peer-reviewed study, and the chapter's central claim about AI improving EWS is additionally supported by numerous external citations (e.g., Haggag et al., 2021; Emerton et al., 2016; Cheng et al., 2021). The Nordic case-study section contains an evidentiary mismatch -- Norway's LEWS is described with empirical thresholds and expert judgment, and Finland's LUOVA as a multi-source aggregation system, both without an explicit ML component, while Denmark's DCGAN is explicitly AI -- but that is a support gap, not a circular reduction. Consequently, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted anywhere in the chapter, so the free-parameter count is zero. The document's claims rest on four domain assumptions: the INFORM severity formula as quoted, the AI nature of the Nordic case studies, the accuracy of secondary statistics, and Sandman's hazard-plus-outrage decomposition. No new entities are introduced; the 'integrated INFORM framework with ICT and AI tools' diagram in Fig. 1.4.1 is a mapping of existing tools, not a new postulated component. The evidentiary burden is transferred to the cited literature, which is the normal and acceptable structure of a review.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The INFORM Severity Index is calculated as SI = IC*CPA + CC
    Stated in Section 1.4.3 as the analytical framework from Poljanšek et al. (2020); the chapter does not reproduce the normalization or verify the formula, and builds its AI-improvement proposals on it.
  • domain assumption The Nordic systems LEWS, DCGAN, and LUOVA illustrate AI-driven EWS
    Section 1.6 frames these systems as case studies of AI in EWS; the cited descriptions of LEWS (empirical thresholds, expert judgment) and LUOVA (aggregation of forecasts) do not identify any machine-learning component.
  • domain assumption Secondary statistics quoted from cited reports are accurate (70% of 112 calls from mobile devices; 200 million people affected annually; 3.3 to 3.6 billion exposed)
    These numbers motivate the chapter's emphasis on mobile emergency communication in Sections 1.1 and 1.5.2 but are not independently checked in the chapter.
  • domain assumption Perceived risk can be decomposed as Perceived Risk = Hazard + Outrage (Sandman 1989)
    Quoted in Section 1.5.3 as the basis for the risk-perception discussion; the chapter treats the decomposition as given and uses it to motivate AI-supported communication modules.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-based Approach in Early Warning Systems: Focus on Emergency Communication Ecosystem and Citizen Participation in Nordic Countries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWJR4AMP

@misc{pith2026250618926,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-based Approach in Early Warning Systems: Focus on Emergency Communication Ecosystem and Citizen Participation in Nordic Countries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWJR4AMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18926}
}
read the original abstract

Climate change and natural disasters are recognized as worldwide challenges requiring complex and efficient ecosystems to deal with social, economic, and environmental effects. This chapter advocates a holistic approach, distinguishing preparedness, emergency responses, and postcrisis phases. The role of the Early Warning System (EWS), Risk modeling and mitigation measures are particularly emphasized. The chapter reviews the various Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabler technologies that can be leveraged at each phase, focusing on the INFORM risk framework and EWSs. Emergency communication and psychological risk perception have been emphasized in emergency response times. Finally, a set of case studies from Nordic countries has been highlighted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18926 by the authors.

Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. 1 Overview illustration of AI enablers in disaster preparedness, emergency response, and post-disaster phases. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3. 1 Timeline of Climate-Related Disasters European Green Deal and Digital Strategy (Final, 2019), launched in 2019, places significant emphasis on digital technologies as key enablers for achieving climate objectives. The European Commission’s digital strategy, "Shaping Europe’s Digital Future," outlines how digital technologies, including AI, can accelerate and maximize the impact of policies to deal with climate cha… view at source ↗
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3. 2 Timeline of Climate-Related Global Initiatives 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4: 1 Integrated INFORM framework with ICT and AI tools. understanding of hazards. Moreover, interactive decision support systems can be created with ICT, enabling decision-makers to examine different risk scenarios and reach well-informed conclusions. These advancements…
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5. Figure 1.5: 1 An illustration of the impact of AI in Risk assessment and EWS. course, AI systems can efficiently process and analyze vast datasets, providing timely insights for prompt decision-making. For instance, AI-driven predictive models offer accurate risk forecasts, whic…
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5. Figure 1.5: 2 An illustration of AI in Reynolds’s Crisis Response steps. health effects that lead to anger, fear, and frustration. Psychological studies have shown that these emotions may cause problematic responses to emergency calls, such as Denial (refusal to take good advice…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., and Bush, K

    Abrash Walton, A., Marr, J., Cahillane, M. J., and Bush, K. (2021). Building community resilience to disasters: A review of interventions to improve and measure public health outcomes in the northeastern united states. Sustainability , 13(21):11699

    2021

  2. [2]

    and Moussiades, L

    Adamopoulou, E. and Moussiades, L. (2020). An overview of chatbot technology. In IFIP international conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations , pages 373--383. Springer

    2020

  3. [3]

    and Wamba, S

    Akter, S. and Wamba, S. F. (2019). Big data and disaster management: a systematic review and agenda for future research. Annals of Operations Research , 283:939--959

    2019

  4. [4]

    Alam, F., Ofli, F., and Imran, M. (2020). Descriptive and visual summaries of disaster events using artificial intelligence techniques: case studies of hurricanes harvey, irma, and maria. Behaviour & Information Technology , 39(3):288--318

    2020

  5. [5]

    Andrienko, N., Andrienko, G., Fuchs, G., Slingsby, A., Turkay, C., and Wrobel, S. (2020). Visual analytics for data scientists . Springer

    2020

  6. [6]

    P., Brundage, M., and Bharath, A

    Arulkumaran, K., Deisenroth, M. P., Brundage, M., and Bharath, A. A. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 34(6):26--38

    2017

  7. [7]

    Bayrak, T. (2009). Identifying requirements for a disaster-monitoring system. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal , 18(2):86--99

    2009

  8. [8]

    Benini, A. (2016). Severity measures in humanitarian needs assessments: Purpose, measurements, and integration (technical note). Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS), Geneva, Switzerland

    work page 2016

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , 99(suppl 3):7280--7287

    2002

  2. [10]

    Bostock, M., Ogievetsky, V., and Heer, J. (2011). D³ data-driven documents. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics , 17(12):2301--2309

    2011

  3. [11]

    Center, A. D. R. (2015). Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015--2030. Technical report, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland

    2015

  4. [12]

    and Chawla, S

    Chalapathy, R. and Chawla, S. (2019). Deep learning for anomaly detection: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03407

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chandola, V., Banerjee, A., and Kumar, V. (2009). Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) , 41(3):1--58

    2009

  6. [14]

    Chen, M., Hao, Y., Hwang, K., Wang, L., and Wang, L. (2017). Disease prediction by machine learning over big data from healthcare communities. Ieee Access , 5:8869--8879

    2017

  7. [15]

    Cheng, M., Fang, F., Navon, I., and Pain, C. (2021). A real-time flow forecasting with deep convolutional generative adversarial network: Application to flooding event in denmark. Physics of Fluids , 33(5)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Church, S., Laske, N., Leschiner, D., Simmons, N., Verhalen, S., and Willis, M. (2023). The impact of the us inflation reduction act on global clean energy supply chains. Technical report, American University Diplomacy Lab

    2023

  9. [17]

    Cohn, V. (1990). Reporting on Risk. The Media Institute, Washinton D.C

    1990

  10. [18]

    Committee, I.-A. S. and the European Commission (2024). Inform report 2024: 10 years of inform. Technical report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. JRC136641

    2024

  11. [19]

    R., on Earth, D., Studies, L., on Earth Sciences, B., Committee, M

    Council, N. R., on Earth, D., Studies, L., on Earth Sciences, B., Committee, M. S., on Planning for Catastrophe, C., for Improving Geospatial Data, A. B., Tools, and Infrastructure (2007). Successful response starts with a map: improving geospatial support for disaster managem...

    2007

  12. [20]

    De Groeve, T., Poljansek, K., and Vernaccini, L. (2015). Index for risk management-inform. JRC Science for Policy Reports (Brussels: European Commission)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. (2018). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    K., Hughes, L., Kar, A

    Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Grover, P., Abbas, R., Andreini, D., Abumoghli, I., Barlette, Y., Bunker, D., et al. (2022). Climate change and cop26: Are digital technologies and information management part of the problem or the solution? an editori...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Emanuel, K. (2017). Assessing the present and future probability of hurricane harvey’s rainfall. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114(48):12681--12684

    2017

  16. [24]

    L., Muraro, D., Prudhomme, C., Stephens, E

    Emerton, R., Zsoter, E., Arnal, L., Cloke, H. L., Muraro, D., Prudhomme, C., Stephens, E. M., Salamon, P., and Pappenberger, F. (2016). Developing a global operational seasonal hydro-meteorological forecasting system: Glofas-seasonal v1.0. Geoscientific Model Development , 9(1...

    2016

  17. [25]

    Esposito, M., Palma, L., Belli, A., Sabbatini, L., and Pierleoni, P. (2022). Recent advances in internet of things solutions for early warning systems: A review. Sensors , 22(6):2124

    2022

  18. [26]

    Final, C. . . (2019). The european green deal

    2019

  19. [27]

    Fischer-Preßler, D., Bonaretti, D., and Fischbach, K. (2020). Effective use of mobile-enabled emergency warning systems. In In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Fisher, C. W. and Kingma, B. R. (2001). Criticality of data quality as exemplified in two disasters. Information & Management , 39(2):109--116

    2001

  21. [29]

    K., Lambert, E., Kopp, R

    Frederikse, T., Buchanan, M. K., Lambert, E., Kopp, R. E., Oppenheimer, M., Rasmussen, D., and Wal, R. S. v. d. (2020). Antarctic ice sheet and emission scenario controls on 21st-century extreme sea-level changes. Nature communications , 11(1):390

    2020

  22. [30]

    and Krahmer, E

    Gatt, A. and Krahmer, E. (2018). Survey of the state of the art in natural language generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 61:65--170

    2018

  23. [31]

    and Hill, J

    Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models . Cambridge University Press

    2006

  24. [32]

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y. (2014). Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems , volume 27

    2014

  25. [33]

    S., El-Dakhakhni, W., Coulibaly, P., and Hassini, E

    Haggag, M., Siam, A. S., El-Dakhakhni, W., Coulibaly, P., and Hassini, E. (2021). A deep learning model for predicting climate-induced disasters. Natural Hazards , 107:1009--1034

    2021

  26. [34]

    and Lumbreras, C

    Halliwell, D. and Lumbreras, C. (2018). Mobile identity platform for the emergency services. EENA Operations Document

    2018

  27. [35]

    He, X., Zhao, K., and Chu, X. (2021). Automl: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Knowledge-Based Systems , 212:106622

    2021

  28. [36]

    J., Roberts, M

    Henriksen, H. J., Roberts, M. J., van der Keur, P., Harjanne, A., Egilson, D., and Alfonso, L. (2018). Participatory early warning and monitoring systems: A nordic framework for web-based flood risk management. International journal of disaster risk reduction , 31:1295--1306

    2018

  29. [37]

    and Schmidhuber, J

    Hochreiter, S. and Schmidhuber, J. (1997). Long short-term memory. Neural computation , 9(8):1735--1780

    1997

  30. [38]

    C., Wang, J., Zhao, P., and Jin, R

    Hoi, S. C., Wang, J., Zhao, P., and Jin, R. (2018). Online learning: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.02871

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Imran, M., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., and Vieweg, S. (2015). Processing social media messages in mass emergency: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 47(4):1--38

    2015

  32. [40]

    Keim, M. (2021). Climate-related disasters: the role of prevention for managing health risk. Global climate change and human health: from science to practice. United States: John Wiley & Sons Inc , pages 25--46

    2021

  33. [41]

    Kerle, N. (2011). Remote sensing based post-disaster damage mapping--ready for a collaborative approach. IECO/IEEE-Earthzine, URL: http://www. earthzine. org/2011/03/23/remote-sensing-basedpost-disaster-damage-mapping-\

    2011

  34. [42]

    Kim, K., Boulanin, V., et al. (2023). Artificial intelligence for climate security: Possibilities and challenges. Policy Commons , page 52

    2023

  35. [43]

    Klemas, V. (2015). Remote sensing of floods and flood-prone areas: An overview. Journal of Coastal Research , 31(4):1005--1013

    2015

  36. [44]

    u reder, P., Riedler, B., Wendt, L., Braun, A., Tiede, D., Schoepfer, E., Zeil, P., Spr \

    Lang, S., F \"u reder, P., Riedler, B., Wendt, L., Braun, A., Tiede, D., Schoepfer, E., Zeil, P., Spr \"o hnle, K., Kulessa, K., et al. (2020). Earth observation tools and services to increase the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance. European Journal of Remote Sensing , 5...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Luca, P., Mads-Peter, D., Graziella, D., Herv \'e , C., and Michele, C. (2017). Performance evaluation of the national norwegian early warning system for weather induced landslides. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences

    2017

  38. [46]

    Lundberg, S. M. and Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in neural information processing systems , volume 30

    2017

  39. [47]

    L., P \'e an, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., et al

    Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., P \'e an, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., et al. (2021). Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernme...

    2021

  40. [48]

    and AghaKouchak, A

    Mazdiyasni, O. and AghaKouchak, A. (2015). Substantial increase in concurrent droughts and heatwaves in the united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112(37):11484--11489

    2015

  41. [49]

    Meresa, H., Tischbein, B., and Mekonnen, T. (2022). Climate change impact on extreme precipitation and peak flood magnitude and frequency: observations from cmip6 and hydrological models. Natural Hazards , 111(3):2649--2679

    2022

  42. [50]

    and Oussalah, M

    Mohamed, M. and Oussalah, M. (2019). Srl-esa-textsum: A text summarization approach based on semantic role labeling and explicit semantic analysis. Information Processing & Management , 56(4):1356--1372

    2019

  43. [51]

    Norio, O., Ye, T., Kajitani, Y., Shi, P., and Tatano, H. (2011). The 2011 eastern japan great earthquake disaster: Overview and comments. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science , 2:34--42

    2011

  44. [52]

    Pan, S. J. and Yang, Q. (2009). A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering , 22(10):1345--1359

    2009

  45. [53]

    Papathoma-K \"o hle, M., Promper, C., and Glade, T. (2016). A common methodology for risk assessment and mapping of climate change related hazards—implications for climate change adaptation policies. Climate , 4(1):8

    2016

  46. [54]

    Pearl, J. (2009). Causality . Cambridge University Press

    2009

  47. [55]

    Piciullo, L. (2016). Performance analysis of landslide early warning systems at regional scale. PhD Dissertation, Universita degli studi di Salerno, Salerno, Italy , page 186pp

    2016

  48. [56]

    Poljan s ek, K., Disperati, S., Vernaccini, L., Nika, A., Marzi, S., and Essenfelder, A. (2020). Inform severity index

    2020

  49. [57]

    Poljan s ek, K., Marzi, S., Galimberti, L., Dalla Valle, D., Pal, J., Essenfelder, A., Mysiak, J., and Corbane, C. (2022). Inform climate change risk index. JRC Technical Report

    2022

  50. [58]

    Rajabi, N., Rajabi, K., and Rajabi, F. (2023). Forecasting and management of disasters triggered by climate change. In Visualization Techniques for Climate Change with Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence , pages 181--207. Elsevier

    2023

  51. [59]

    M., Nedelcu, ., Tarb a , L

    Repanovici, R. M., Nedelcu, ., Tarb a , L. A., and Busuioceanu, S. (2022). Improvement of emergency situation management through an integrated system using mobile alerts. Sustainability , 14(24):16424

    2022

  52. [60]

    Reynolds, B. (2002). Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication . Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

    2002

  53. [61]

    A., Zehe, E., Redick, C., Bah, A., Cowger, K., Camara, M., Diallo, A., Gigo, A

    Sacks, J. A., Zehe, E., Redick, C., Bah, A., Cowger, K., Camara, M., Diallo, A., Gigo, A. N. I., Dhillon, R. S., and Liu, A. (2015). Introduction of mobile health tools to support ebola surveillance and contact tracing in guinea. Global Health: Science and Practice , 3(4):646--659

    2015

  54. [62]

    and Rokach, L

    Sagi, O. and Rokach, L. (2018). Ensemble learning: A survey. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 8(4):e1249

    2018

  55. [63]

    San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Schulte, E., Schmuck, G., Camia, A., Strobl, P., Liberta, G., and Amatulli, G. (2012). Comprehensive monitoring of wildfires in europe: the european forest fire information system (effis). In Tiefenbacher, J., editor, Approaches to Managing Disaster - Ass...

    2012

  56. [64]

    Sandman, P. (1989). Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In Effective Risk Communication. Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis, vol 4. Springer , pages 45--49

    1989

  57. [65]

    Sarker, I. H. (2022). Ai-based modeling: techniques, applications and research issues towards automation, intelligent and smart systems. SN Computer Science , 3(2):158

    2022

  58. [66]

    Schiermeier, Q. (2018). Climate as culprit. Nature , 560(7716):20--22

    2018

  59. [67]

    A., and Hartmann, M

    Schwarz, K., Aranda, D. A., and Hartmann, M. (2023). Towards automated situational awareness reporting for disaster management—a case study. Sustainability , 15(10):7968

    2023

  60. [68]

    L., Capineri, C., and Haklay, M

    Senaratne, H., Mobasheri, A., Ali, A. L., Capineri, C., and Haklay, M. (2017). A review of volunteered geographic information quality assessment methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Science , 31(1):139--167

    2017

  61. [69]

    Shaik, F. A. and Oussalah, M. (2024). On mining mobile emergency communication applications in nordic countries. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction , page 104566

    2024

  62. [70]

    Smith, B. (2017). Ai for earth can be a game-changer for our planet. Retrieved from ai-for-earth-can-be-a-game-changer-for-our-planet/(Accessed September 12, 2022)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Swedish psap sos alarm investigates a new ai-based corona hotspot map

    SOSAlarm (2020). Swedish psap sos alarm investigates a new ai-based corona hotspot map. Retieved from: https://www.sosalarm.se https://www.sosalarm.se/om-oss/pressrum/pressmeddelanden/2020/swedish-psap-sos-alarm-investigates-a-new-ai-based-corona-hotspot-map/. Accessed: 2024-07-10

    2020

  64. [72]

    L., Prasanna, R., Stock, K., Hudson-Doyle, E., Leonard, G., and Johnston, D

    Tan, M. L., Prasanna, R., Stock, K., Hudson-Doyle, E., Leonard, G., and Johnston, D. (2017). Mobile applications in crisis informatics literature: A systematic review. International journal of disaster risk reduction , 24:297--311

    2017

  65. [73]

    Taylor, S. J. and Letham, B. (2018). Forecasting at scale. The American Statistician , 72(1):37--45

    2018

  66. [74]

    Frontier technologies: An unprecedented opportunity for acceleration towards the sdgs

    UNEP (2020). Frontier technologies: An unprecedented opportunity for acceleration towards the sdgs

    2020

  67. [75]

    Historic paris agreement on climate change: 195 nations set path to keep temperature rise well below 2 degrees celsius

    UNFCCC (2015). Historic paris agreement on climate change: 195 nations set path to keep temperature rise well below 2 degrees celsius. Accessed: 2019-12-25

    2015

  68. [76]

    Luonnononnettomuuksien varoitusjärjestelmä LUOVA

    Valtioneuvosto (2005). Luonnononnettomuuksien varoitusjärjestelmä LUOVA . Published by the Finnish Government

    2005

  69. [77]

    Van Buuren, S. (2018). Flexible imputation of missing data . CRC press

    2018

  70. [78]

    R., Tonne, C., Semenza, J

    van Daalen, K. R., Tonne, C., Semenza, J. C., Rockl \"o v, J., Markandya, A., Dasandi, N., Jankin, S., Achebak, H., Ballester, J., Bechara, H., et al. (2024). The 2024 europe report of the lancet countdown on health and climate change: unprecedented warming demands unprecedent...

    2024

  71. [79]

    Wang, B. et al. (2022). Big data-based analysis and prediction of international events. Journal of Sociology and Ethnology , 4(7):16--23

    2022

  72. [80]

    I., Radford, J

    Ward, M., Tulloch, A. I., Radford, J. Q., Williams, B. A., Reside, A. E., Macdonald, S. L., Mayfield, H. J., Maron, M., Possingham, H. P., Vine, S. J., et al. (2020). Impact of 2019--2020 mega-fires on australian fauna habitat. Nature Ecology & Evolution , 4(10):1321--1326

    2020

  73. [81]

    Harnessing artificial intelligence for the earth

    World Economic Forum (2018). Harnessing artificial intelligence for the earth. Technical report, World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland. In collaboration with PwC and Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment

    2018

  74. [82]

    Wu, Z., Pan, S., Chen, F., Long, G., Zhang, C., and Philip, S. Y. (2020). A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , 32(1):4--24

    2020

  75. [83]

    Yang, Q., Liu, Y., Chen, T., and Tong, Y. (2019). Federated machine learning: Concept and applications. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) , 10(2):1--19

    2019

  76. [84]

    Yao, R. (2024). Resilient Urban Environments: Planning for Livable Cities . Springer Nature

    2024

  77. [85]

    Yin, C., Yang, Y., Chen, X., Yue, X., Liu, Y., and Xin, Y. (2022). Changes in global heat waves and its socioeconomic exposure in a warmer future. Climate Risk Management , 38:100459

    2022

  78. [86]

    Zhou, H.-j., Wang, X., and Yuan, Y. (2015). Risk assessment of disaster chain: Experience from wenchuan earthquake-induced landslides in china. Journal of mountain science , 12:1169--1180

    2015

  79. [87]

    Zhu, Y., Janssen, M., Wang, R., and Liu, Y. (2022). It is me, chatbot: working to address the covid-19 outbreak-related mental health issues in china. user experience, satisfaction, and influencing factors. International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction , 38(12):1182--1194

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.