Pilot feasibility study demonstrates high usability and technical viability of an integrated VR-IoT system across 50 stakeholders, suggesting potential for disaster preparedness training.
Disaster risk reduction requires tools that connect preparedness training, real-time situational awareness, and recovery support across stakeholder groups. This original research reports the design and pilot feasibility evaluation of a human-centered virtual reality and Internet of Things (VR-IoT) framework for disaster preparedness, emergency response, and supervised post-disaster psychological recovery. The framework was developed through an iterative human-centered design process and organized around a closed-loop architecture that links distributed sensing, edge-cloud processing, transparent alerting, immersive simulation, and feedback for system improvement. A descriptive pilot evaluation generated primary data from 50 stakeholders: community members, emergency responders, and mental health professionals. Technical indicators met predefined feasibility thresholds, including mean end-to-end latency of 420 ms, mean packet loss of 1.8%, and mean frame rate of 72.4 frames per second. Overall usability was high (mean System Usability Scale score 80.4), and most participants reported no or mild VR-related symptoms. Preparedness indicators improved descriptively after simulation exposure, including decision accuracy, task completion time, and self-reported confidence. The findings support the feasibility of an integrated VR-IoT framework for disaster management. However, response and recovery components were assessed mainly for supervised feasibility rather than real-world effectiveness. The study contributes primarily through system-level integration and implementation logic, not through new VR, sensing, or communication methods. The technical cutoffs were pilot progression criteria, and the single-arm design does not support causal effectiveness claims. Further controlled, longitudinal, and degraded-infrastructure testing is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lindayani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: