# Town-Watching Workshop Using Disaster Information Tweeting and Mapping System +
## 3 Town-Watching Workshop
### Discussion  
In Objective 1, in the preliminary survey Q.1-3 (Figure 10(c)), and in the post-survey Q.4-2 (Figure 10(c)) respondents were asked about their intent to post on SNS during disasters and whether it was helpful for mitigating damages. Consequently, there was no significant difference among the answer distribution by participant characteristics in the questions. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the questions. However, we found the following observations:  
* Three respondents answered \"Disagree\" to Q.1-3, however they changed to \"Strongly agree\" or \"Agree\" in Q.4-2. One of the respondents described a reason that the current information can be shared in real time by SNS.
* One respondent answered \"Agree\" to Q.1-3, however it changed to \"Disagree\" in Q.4-2. The respondent was a man in his 70s and did not describe the reason why he disagreed in the post survey. Since he had no experience to use Twitter and answered \"No\" to the questions about DITS/DIMS system (Q.3-1 to Q.3-3), the system might not be suitable for him.  
Based on the result of Q.1-4, although almost all participants did not have experience posting information on SNS before the workshop, the number of concerned respondents increased in Q.4-3 (Figure 10(d)). This result indicates that these participants attempted to actively post and share information on SNS through the workshop. The result of option (4) in Q.4-3 showed that few participants did not want to use SNS in the future, indicating that the workshop educated the participants about posting useful information during a disaster on SNS.  
In Objective 2, the results related to Q.2-1 and Q.2-2 (Figure 10(a)) show the effects of conducting a town-watching workshop. Almost all respondents answered either (4) Strongly agree or (3) Agree. This  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Gender**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Age Groups**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Groups of Smartphone**} \\  & & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**20s–50s**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Owners/Non-Owners**} \\  & & **Males** & **Females** & **(Around** & **(Around** & **(Around** & **(Around** & **(Around** & **(Around** & **(Around** & **(Around** & **(Around** & **(Around** & **(Around & **(Around & **(Around & & **(Around & & **(Around & & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** &  
showed that the workshop contributed to the review of the town for its readiness for a disaster. Here, there was no significant difference among the answer distribution by the participant characteristics in these questions.  
Regarding the operations of the DITS/DIMS (Q.3-1 to Q.3-3), \(>\) 80% of the respondents provided positive answers. There was no significant difference among the answer distribution by the participant characteristics in these questions. However, certain respondents commented that the system was not user-friendly for elderly people, and certain recommendations were provided to make the system more user-friendly. Based on the comments and suggestions, we will do our best to improve the system in the near future.