Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Using Virtual Reality in Sea Level Rise Planning and Community Engagement

Authors: Juliano Calil, Geraldine Fauville, Anna Carolina Muller Queiroz, Kelly L. Leo, Alyssa N. Mann, Tiffany Wise- West, Paulo Salvatore, Jeremy N. Bailenson

Summary:

In this manuscript, authors tackle the important issue of communicating the potential outcome of Sea Level Rise problem to the communities. As the authors state, “As coastal communities around the globe contend with the impacts of climate change including coastal hazards such as sea level rise and more frequent coastal storms, educating stakeholders and the general public has become essential in order to adapt to and mitigate these risks.” Communicating the potential outcome of SLR risks has always been a challenge and the authors use Virtual Reality techniques to overcome this challenge, which is appropriate.

Comments:

Currently the study uses a bathtub approach to demonstrate the effects of SLR on coastal communities. This assumes that the only effect of climate change triggered SLR is the physical outcome of sea level rising and it is an oversimplification of the problems associated with SLR. Unfortunately, this is not the case and some of the other effects which are also mentioned in the current paper such as “more frequent storms” and associated wave run-up issues are important. The other important aspect of climate change triggered SLR phenomena is the associated temperature changes in sea water which is extremely important for the survival biotic environment in the sea and this may also be tackled through virtual reality platforms. This point was emphasized in the recent article for the Mediterranean Sea SLR problem which was published in the Water Journal. The reference is below and other earlier references on the temperature issues can be found in this article:

Aral, M.M. and Chang, B. (2017) “Spatial Variation of Sea Level Rise at Atlantic and Mediterranean Coastline of Europe” Special Issue Invited Paper, Water, 9, 522; doi:10.3460/w8110444.

The other problem is the storm surges and wave run-up problems as stated in the current paper by the authors, but they have not addressed the effects of these phenomena on communities. Foexample community risk issue was also tackled in a more recent paper below on wave run-up and its effects on social and community outcomes which was also published in the Water Journal. Typical references for these are below:  

Yavuz, C., Kentel, E. and Aral, M.M. (2020) “Tsunami Risk Assessment: Economic, Environmental and Social Dimensions,” Natural Hazards Journal, Springer Publishers, doi:10.1007/s11069-020-04226-y.

Yavuz, C., Kentel, E. and Aral, M.M. (2020) “Climate Change Risk Evaluation of Tsunami Hazards in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea,” Water, Special İssue in Computational Methods in Water Resources, MDPI Publishers, 12(2881), doi:10.3390/w12102881.

…. And many other references on these topics as referenced in the above papers.

Since the SLR, coastal storm surges and temperature changes are forecasted in these papers over a century, the authors do not have to run the simulations to portray these effects on virtual reality environments. They may simply use the numerical outcome of the results presented in these papers.

Thus, the other important component of SLR rise is the effect of storm surges and wave run-up and the temperature change issues which are occurring more frequently because of climate change. This study may make a positive contribution to the current literature on climate change literature on mitigation and adaptation efforts if the authors respond to the comments given above. In other words, the authors have tackled the issue of addressing the community and environmental problems from an extremely limited and unidirectional point of view. The literature on this topic is large and the current papers lack a comprehensive review of this literature although they claim they have done a detailed search. This reviewer finds the literature review incomplete. It would be remarkably interesting for the readers to learn about the problems of tackling the wave runup and temperature issues on Virtual Reality. If the authors claim that those topics are out of the scope of the current paper, at least they should discuss and point the way as to “how to include” and “how these other important topics” can be handled in virtual reality environments. The reader would benefit from the views of the authors.   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. You raised important points that weren’t sufficiently explained in the original version of our manuscript and have been addressed in this new version.

We did not in fact run any physical hazards models as part of this study. Rather, the VR experiences described simply used visual outcomes resulting from existing models as references to develop the immersive images and 3D models used in them.  To make that point clear, we have added a new sub-section to the manuscript (2.3 Coastal Hazards Models Selection - line 466) under the Materials and Methods section. In this new sub-section, we discuss how and why these physical hazards models were selected, and some of their limitations. That section is also included at the bottom of this message.

Additionally, we have added a few sentences (line 495) addressing the fact that physical hazards are not the only factors defining coastal risks, as follows:

"It is also important that note that natural hazards alone are not the best way to quantify risks to coastal communities. Such risks are better defined by complex interactions between physical hazards and the vulnerability of the communities affected by these hazards [80], which were not included in these experiences but should be considered in future experiences."

Sincerely,

Juliano et al.

---------------------------

2.3 Coastal Hazards Models Selection

It is important to note that the physical hazards included in these VR experiences (i.e. coastal flooding from SLR and storms and coastal erosion) were based on the best available models for each location. Simply, we represented the results of the selected models in the visualizations included in the VR experiences. Although we use the term ‘simulation’ in this article it is a reference to the VR experiences only, as they are often used as simulations of reality in constructed immersive environments, not referring to hazard model simulations.

The physical hazards data selected for these experiences are based on results of commonly used, peer-reviewed models with the highest spatial resolution available at the time. Once each hazard model was chosen, the specific model scenarios were selected for each experience. The scenario selection process was based on recommendations from recent publications and state guidance (e.g. [73,74]), and in consultation with local experts. Consultation with local experts was a key part of the process as the models and scenarios included in each VR experience were consistent across that various community efforts and plans to address SLR.

The SLR models used in Turner Station, MD are from NOAA’s Sea Level Rise Viewer. Flooding projections included in the VR experience range from 0.3m (1ft) to 1.83m (6ft), in 0.3m (1ft) increments. For specific model considerations and limitations, please consult reference [75]]. Coastal hazards represented in the Santa Cruz VR experience include King Tides, a combination of 0.73m (2.4ft) of SLR with an extreme storm event (100-yr storm), and projected coastal erosion at the year 2100. The flooding projections used were developed during a study conducted by a consulting firm (ESA) for the Monterey Bay area [76,77]. Coastal erosion projections used were prepared by a local consulting firm for a recent coastal planning report published by The City of Santa Cruz [78]. Coastal hazards represented in the Long Beach VR experience were developed by the USGS’s CoSMoS models, and include combinations of SLR scenarios ranging from 0.24m (0.8ft) to 1.49m (5.9ft) with or without an extreme storm (100-yr storm) [70]. For a more in-depth analysis of SLR models methods and limitations in California please refer to the Sea The Future tool developed by the California State Coastal Conservancy [79].

It is also important that note that natural hazards alone are not the best way to quantify risks to coastal communities. Such risks are better defined by complex interactions between physical hazards and the vulnerability of the communities affected by these hazards [80], which were not included in these experiences but should be considered in future VR experiences with similar objectives as the ones described herein. Finally, it is important to note that all models have limitations and these VR experiences were developed as communication tools to start informed conversations; they were not designed to support site-specific decisions including permitting.

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

First of all, the manuscript is a very well written and easy-to-read text with clear and clean formulations. The topic is quite new and important for the scientific comminuty as well as funding agencies to include funding for this type of outreach into research projects where applicable.

However, it is not really a scientific article as there is no scientific analyses about the numbers of visitors and the effect of VR on the peoples' opinions. This is somehow mentioned in section 4.1 but when I was reading the article, I expected a little more than a description of what has been done at the three sites and what the effects of VR were for "some" people. For instance, there is no statistical analyses of the peoples' reactions. I still think it is worth to be published within the Special Issue, where it fits very well. To avoid disappointment while or after reading this interesting and important article, the title should be changed to make clear that there is no scientific investigation following. Example: "Using Virtual Reality in Sea Level Rise Planning and Community Engagement - an Introduction" or "Using Virtual Reality in Sea Level Rise Planning and Community Engagement - an Overview"

According to the text, at least two communities, i.e., Santa Cruz and Long Beach, seemed to be aware of the projected SLR and its impacts already before the authors' experiences started. In these communities, I would assume that the VR technology would easily be welcomed, support understanding for and increase knowledge about local effects of SLR. It would be interesting to perform these experiences also in communities not being aware or not yet being interested in the local impacts of SLR. Is the way of presenting SLR impacts via VR technology as effective or even more effective in those communities? This is just a hint for future studies but could be added to section 4.1 as well.

A short summary as a last section would also be helpful describing briefly the application of VR to educate about SLR, where they did it and what the main findings were.

With an adapted title, some numbers in the "Main Findings" section at least about the amount of visitors, who took part in these experiences, and a short "5. Summary", I recommend to publish this manuscript within the desired Special Issue.

Some specific comments:

line 129: "an fully" --> "a fully" 
line 309/310: unclear formulation: "The attitude towards plastic use was significantly greater in the mixed...". Do you mean "The attitude against plastic use..."?
line 440: Figure caption is unclear and too short - please explain a little more: what are the colors, the blue areas and the black lines?
line 476: How many miles from Turner Station to Santa Cruz? It is approx. 2,900 miles, isn't it? Please correct this.
line 644: seawal --> seawall
line 830: consider --> considered
line 881: 2,000 thousand times - is it two million or two thousand (= 2,000) times?
line 859: I would rename this section to "Main Findings and Discussion".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your detailed feedback, it was much appreciated. We have accepted and incorporated all your suggestions in the new version, as follows:

1) Renamed the Manuscript to "Using Virtual Reality in Sea Level Rise Planning and Community Engagement - an Overview"

2) Renamed section 4 to "Main Findings and Discussion".

3) Incorporated all suggested line edits and fixed typos.

4) Added a few more numbers related to app downloads and events attendance (lines 712-714, and also lines 927-928). Unfortunately, we don't have any more details about the attendance that we could add to the study at this time.

5) Added a new recommendation for future research under section 4.1 "Further, new research could also focus on communities that are still not aware - or not yet interested - in the local impacts of SLR."

6) Added a summary section (line 1017) with a brief description of the applications' objectives, where they were used, and main lessons learned.

Sincerely,

Juliano et al.

 

5. Summary

This study contributes to expanding the body of knowledge about how VR could be used to trigger community discussion, reflection, engagement, and action toward SLR in real-life cases. The objective of this study is twofold: first, present three VR experiences developed by multidisciplinary teams aiming at enhancing environmental literacy, particularly SLR related issues; second, the use of those experiences for communicating about coastal hazards in collaboration with three coastal communities, Turner Station, MD, Santa Cruz, CA, and Long Beach, CA. These immersive and interactive experiences included important features, such as hyper-realistic visualizations of coastal changes, reported as critical to VR experiences that communicate environmental issues [63]. As of February of 2021, nearly 1,000 people tried these experiences at various outreach events - a significant increase in the number of people engaging with SLR planning when compared with traditional processes - and nearly 2,500 users had installed these applications across multiple platforms. We expect these numbers to increase as we continue to promote and deploy these experiences at future events.

Main findings from these three case studies include: (i) In Santa Cruz, nearly 63% of users of VR at a library display (74 out of 118) reported significant or very significant change in their awareness of SLR after participating in the VR experience; (ii) immersive solutions can bring attention to new, and sometimes unexpected, topics. In Turner Station, the realistic 360° images developed resulted in an important dialog about community resilience that could not be happening otherwise; (iii) Including local team members was a critical success factor across these three projects. They added legitimacy and trust to the process, made sure the VR tools represented cultural aspects of each community properly, promoted the project and various community events, and insured physical hazards models and scenarios selected were consistent with those included in other community efforts; (iv) it is hard to build consensus around controversial topics.  In Long Beach, a long-term adaptation image - showing the rea restored to its natural state as a wetland - was ultimately removed from the final version of the published experience; (v) VR is still novel enough that the mere presence of headsets at an event is enough to attract an audience; (vi) Users familiar with the locations portrayed in VR seemed to have stronger emotional reactions than users not familiar with them.

Finally, our findings corroborate the findings from Jude and Colleagues (2015) that compelling visuals and narrative framing can be effective in creating a space for dialogue, and VR simulations enhance communication between coastal management organizations, stakeholders, and the public [63].

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed my comments. The paper can be published as is.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much, your comments provided a significant contribution to our study.

Sincerely,

Juliano Calil

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the revision was successful. After consideration of the following, it can be published:

line 519 (former version line 476): My intention was not to change the number from 2,500 to 2,900 but the redundant "hundred". It is not "2,900 hundred miles" but "2,900 miles". Please correct this and check throughout the entire manuscript again for these errors (redundant "hundred" or "thousand").

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and for catching this error.

The Work 'hundred' was removed from line 519 (former line 476). We checked that the words hundred were properly used, and no further changes were needed. The word 'thousands' had been previously removed from line 929.

Sincerely,

Juliano Calil