Collectively Remembering Environmental Disasters: The Vaia Storm as a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on “Collectively Remembering Environmental Disasters: The Vaia Storm as a Case Study” by Marialuisa Menegatto, Gloria Freschi, Margherita Bulfon, and Adriano Zamperini

 

The authors present an interesting analysis of collective memory and cognitive responses to an environmental disaster that impacted northeast Italy in October 2018. The first two sections lay out that extremely high winds caused the felling of spruce trees that had been encouraged/cultivated in the area for lumber. The shallow root systems could not withstand the high winds. After the storm, the exposed roots were the perfect breading ground of the bark beetle, a parasitic beetle that caused further damage to the surviving trees. Based on the storm as an event and then the continued, longer-term impacts, the authors wish to answer, “What shapes, modes and dimensions is the collective remembering of the Vaia storm taking on?”

Section 3 outlines the authors’ conceptual framework. The authors chose the term “environmental disaster” (as opposed to “natural disaster” or other moniker) to describe the event, because the natural and anthropogenic components are blended in an ongoing sequence of causes and effects. The authors employ a sociocultural framework in which aspects of personal identity, larger cultural frameworks, and the materiality of symbols and monuments are considered. Collective memory in this context includes individual memories as they impact the group’s understanding of the event but also the group level efforts to mediate and commemorate the event and the larger process of dealing with its impact. This is a dynamic, ongoing process.

Section 4 presents the authors’ data collection. The study’s participants included 13 adults who were directly engaged in remembering and commemorating the storm in some way. These individuals were given semi-structured interviews that lasted 90 to 120 minutes. The interviews focused on personal memories of the storm, associated emotions, after-the-fact sensemaking of their experiences and the storm itself, and materialization through symbols or cultural artifacts.

Section 5 presents the results of the interviews, organized according to four themes: sensory experiences, emotional aspects, narrative dimensions, and material representations. The analysis of the sensory impacts identified repeated emphasis on the sound of the wind during the night when the storm hit and then the visual impact and olfactory impact from the strong smell of spruce pitch the next morning when people could perceive the damage. The emotional dimensions included the feelings of isolation as the storm created isolation by cutting phones service and electrical power, as well as the shock of seeing places that were emotionally meaningful to the participants so heavily damaged/changed. The narrative dimension focused on how people sought to place the event and their responses into a larger framework. Themes included a sense of loss and concerns over general environmental degradation and climate change. The material dimension mentions museums, wooden sculptures made from the felled trees, and the VAIA Cube, “a speaker for amplifying the sounds of electronic devices.”

Section 6 is the discussion. The authors stress that the sounds, images, and odors emotionally impacted their participants and remain the focus of remembering. The storm altered the participants’ lives in a physical sense and in terms of their conceptual frameworks. This includes altering conceptual frameworks about how the natural world works (e.g., ideas of forestry management) but also subjective, personal components of individual identity. The storm happened in darkness but could only be understood in the light, and affected an entire ecosystem, not just a specific place.

The next section, which is also labeled section 6, notes that the authors’ study has a limited sample size and reflects an ongoing process that is still far from being over. The issues related to the bark beetle, for example, have yet to be resolved. Thus, future (ongoing) analyses are warranted. The final section is the conclusions, which is more of a list of suggestions the authors have for general research into collective memory and environmental disasters.

Overall, I like this paper a lot. It is a descriptive analysis, but it has some meaningful implications and I like the analytic structure the authors present. But it can be improved in my opinion.

Most significantly, I recommend the authors perhaps shorten their discussion in Section 3 and expand their discussion of the 4 themes of collective memory in Section 5. For example, the discussion of the material dimension in Section 5 was so brief that I really have no idea how the material representations/symbols impact or reflect the participants’ collective remembrance the storm. Museums are mentioned, but how they relate to the storm and the participants is unclear. What is an example of an exhibit and how does it contribute to collective memory, for example? Are any of the participants involved in or impacted by material remembrance of the Vaia storm? I realize there may be some issues of confidentiality here, but the discussion lacks any meaningful detail that really links the material dimension to the collective remembrance. Section 5 is really the core of the paper, but it is the least developed of the sections it seems to me.

On less significant notes, there are two section 6 headers. Also, the conclusion (Section 7) is underwhelming to me. I think it would be much better if the authors started this section by stressing what they learned about collective memory of the Vaia storm using their approach that would not be otherwise known. The reader will be more easily persuaded to the authors’ suggestions if the authors directly establish exactly what the benefits of their approach are in this section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf