Earthquake resilience and public engagement: A social media perspective

Abstract

Global earthquake resilience enhancement necessitates a cohesive international community and proactive public engagement. The ubiquity of social media, and its significant user data generation, positions it as a formidable tool in emergency management. This article scrutinizes the 2023 Türkiye-Syria Earthquake, employing an analysis of over 150,000 Weibo posts to assess Chinese netizens' attention toward this nondomestic disaster. Findings reveal substantial social media engagement, with a distinct disparity between posts and comments. Posts provide a comprehensive chronicle of the earthquake response, encompassing disaster reporting, Chinese rescue teams, international emergency response, and life-saving efforts. Comments serve as a conduit for emotional expression, focusing on prayers for the disaster-stricken area, the tragic loss of a Turkish TV producer, expressions of sympathy and donations, the sense of helplessness evoked by natural disasters, and prayers for the rescue team and response comparison. The public engagement evolved from initial symbolic participation to more substantive involvement in the later stages, reflecting the process of both public engagement and the enhancement of resilience awareness. Sentiment and emotion analysis indicate that, subsequent to the initial 3-day period dedicated to disaster reporting, the sentiment within the posts was predominantly positive, while comments exhibited a more negative sentiment, primarily characterized by "sadness" and "disgust." Spatial analysis revealed amplified attention toward the disaster in Sichuan Province and other regions with superior internet access. The article also discerned that comments exhibited a notably shorter lifespan than posts. This article proffers a novel perspective on the analysis of foreign disasters and furnishes invaluable insights for the enhancement of global earthquake resilience through public engagement.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.