Search results

This study intends to assess the research trends on natural disasters and their contribution to the various fields of policy decisions in India by conducting a bibliometric analysis between 2008 and 2022. The Scopus database was used to extract pertinent literature. The key relevant terms were used to seek relevant papers based on the query of two searches, ‘Natural disaster and India’ scenarios combined by the Boolean operator ‘AND’. Microsoft Excel and VOSviewer-Var1.6.16 were used to assess bibliometric indicators. The database yielded 1,293 papers in all, with 14,584 citations. There were 262 single authors and 1,031 multi-author documents among the publications that were retrieved, with an average of 11.28 citations per document. After 2016, there was a dramatic growth in the total number of publications. The journal articles were the leading source of the particular literature, and this study extracted approximately 858 journal articles from the Scopus database. About 713 and 580 articles were open and closed access, respectively. Earth and planetary sciences (28.07%), social science (31.01%), and environmental science (30.39%) had a higher proportion of papers than other topics. The most impactful authors were Rajib Shaw and Filip K. Arnberg from Keio University, Japan, and Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Besides, the most funding institutions were from India (39.33%), China (13.11%), and the United States (11.9%) for natural disaster research, in the case of India. The current baseline information on natural disaster-related literature in the context of India showed that this field is growing rapidly but with inadequate research collaboration and low productivity as needed. Research collaboration in this field needs to be strengthened to improve the solid response to natural disasters in any place in India. In addition, there is a need to expand the research focus in this field to include associated indicators.

Purpose: Risk is a multifaceted concept, and its identification requires complex approaches that are often misunderstood. The consequence is that decisions are based on limited perception rather than the full value and meaning of what risk is, as a result, the way it is being tackled is incorrect. The individuals are often limited in their perceptions and ideas and do not embrace the full multifaceted nature of risk. Regulators and individuals want to follow norms and checklists or overuse models, simulations, and templates, thereby reducing responsibility for decision-making. At the same time, the wider use of technology and rules reduces the critical thinking of individuals. We advance the automation process by building robots that follow protocols and forget about the part of risk assessment that cannot be programed. Therefore, with this study, the objective of this study was to discover how people define risk, the influencing factors of risk perception and how they behave toward this perception. The authors also determine how the perception differed with age, gender, marital status, education level and region. The novelty of the research is related to individual risk perception during COVID-19, as this is a new and unknown phenomenon. Methodology: The research is based on the analysis of the self-administered purposely designed questionnaires we distributed across different social media platforms between February and June 2020 in Europe and in some cases was carried out as a interview over communication platforms such as “Skype,” “Zoom” and “Microsoft Teams.” The questionnaire was divided into four parts: Section 1 was designed to collect demographic information from the participants; Section 2 included risk definition statements obtained from literature and a preliminary discussion with peers; Section 3 included risk behavior statements; and Section 4 included statements on risk perception experiences. A five-point Likert Scale was provided, and participants were required to answer along a scale of “1” for “Strongly Agree” to “5” for “Strongly Disagree.” Participants also had the option to elaborate further and provide additional comments in an open-ended box provided at the end of the section. 466 valid responses were received. Thematic analysis was carried out to analyze the interviews and the open-ended questions, while the questionnaire responses were analyzed using various quantitative methods on IBM SPSS (version 23). Findings: The results of the analysis indicate that individuals evaluate the risk before making a decision and view risk as both a loss and opportunity. The study identifies nine factors influencing risk perception. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that we can continue to develop models and rules, but as long as the risk is not understood, we will never achieve anything.

An extensive research base supports the positive effects of self-monitoring interventions on a number of student outcomes, both academic and behavioral. While the vast majority of this research base relied on traditional paper-and-pencil forms of self-monitoring, advances in technology have created significant opportunities to develop technology-based self-monitoring (TBSM) systems that may offer a number of benefits in terms of efficiency and data management, storing, and graphing. Technology-based self-management applications have evolved and been studied extensively in health-related fields, but research and development for such applications is only beginning in the field of education. In this chapter we (1) provide a brief overview of the literature on traditional forms of self-monitoring, (2) examine how educators and educational researchers may apply lessons learned about TBSM from the medical field, (3) summarize emerging literature on TBSM for students with or at risk for emotional/behavioral disorders in particular, and (4) offer suggestions for future research and development in TBSM.

Despite its central role in the influence process, power has largely been overlooked by scholars seeking to understand global leaders' influence over their constituents. As a consequence, we currently have limited understanding of the varieties of power that global leaders hold, how power is exercised in global contexts, and what impact exercising power has in global organizations. The intended purpose of this chapter is to mobilize research on this important topic through systematic review. The review is organized around the following guiding questions: (i) how is power defined in global leadership research? (ii) what power bases do global leaders possess? (iii) how do global leaders exercise power? (iv) what factors influence global leaders' exercise of power? and (v) what are the outcomes of global leaders' exercise of power? Based on a synthesis of extant insights, this chapter develops a foundation for future research on power in global leadership by mapping critical knowledge gaps and outlining paths for further inquiry.