Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Patterns and trends in the perception of seismic risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research looks at the very nature of perception of seismic risk, an issue that is not only academically important, but also it can save lives and reduce injury and community costs. The background idea is that citizens in big cities, vulnerable to seismic hazard are living with latent and permanent concerns about a possible earthquake. We were interested in revealing significant aspects of Bucharest citizens’ orientations and tendencies in relation to the possible seismic event. Bucharest, the capital of Romania, is exposed to the greatest seismic hazard compared with other European capitals. The dimensions of study were: the anticipations of seism occurrence, the behavior during the event, evaluations of consequences, support factors, and individual vulnerability. This article is an example of the low cost approach on a sample of 190 citizens, understood as an exercise in attempting to relate population characteristics to various aspects of risk perception. The methodology used was based on a field investigation, where the research agents’ applied one questionnaire containing free/post codified/fan answers concerning: demographic variables, the buildings’ features, and perceptions about the possible earthquake event. The findings of this study showed that the hazard perception significantly associates with aspects concerning the subjects’ orientation toward institutional factors/human relations/negativism, and toward financial/material/moral support in case of disaster etc. It is hoped that this issue will serve to inspire further investigations into this very important and socially sensitive field, due to the fact that hazard analysis and mitigation would be more effective when it takes into account the human dimension of disasters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arion C, Vacareanu R, Lungu D (2004) WP10––Application to Bucharest, RISK-UE. An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns. At ftp.brgm.fr/pub/Risk-UE

  • Armaş I (2006) Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal 26(5):1223–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armaş I, Neacşu M (2003) Atitudinea locuitorilor oraşului Bucureşti faţă de riscul seismic. An Univ Spiru Haret, seria geogr 6:115–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Boholm A (1996) Risk perception and social anthropology: critique of cultural theory. Ethnos 61:64–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boholm Å (1998) Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J Risk Res 1:135–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer B (1987) The psychology of risk. In: Singleton WT, Hovden J (eds) Risk and decisions. Wiley, New York, pp 25–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciurea AV, Ciubotaru VGh, Avram E (2007) Dezvoltarea managementului in organizaţiile sănătăţii. Excelenţa in serviciile de neurochirurgie. Editura Universitară, Bucuresti

    Google Scholar 

  • Crews F (1996) The verdict on Freud. Psychol Sci 7:63–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross Cult Psychol 22(1):61–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48:21–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes RM (1994) Psychological measurement. Psychol Rev 101:278–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deitz T, Stern PC, Pycroft RW (1989) Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: the case of environmental risk. Sociol Forum 41:47–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg BM (1991) Perception of risk. Studies of risk attitudes, perceptions and definitions. Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S, Roberts S (2004) Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards, Geoscience Australia Record 14

  • Eagley AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk R, Greenbaum CW (1995) Significance tests die hard: the amazing persistence of a probabilistic misconception. Theory Psychol 5:75–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Stud 9:127–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fordham M (2000) The place of gender in earthquake vulnerability and mitigation. In: Second Euro Conference on Global Change and Catastrophic Risk Management––Earthquake Risks in Europe, Austria, Laxenburg, Austria

  • Freudenburg WR, Pastor SK (1992) NIMBYs and LULUs: stalking the syndromes. J Soc Issues 48(4):39–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grecu B, Radulian M, Popa M, Bonjer KP, Bala A, Răileanu V (2005) Empirical evaluation of site effects in Romania by means of H/V spectral ratios. J Balkan Geophys Soc 8(Suppl 1):711–714

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdevici I (2004) Psihoterapia de scurtă durată. Dual Tech, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton D, Haque CE (2003) Patterns of coping and adaptation among erosion-induced displacees in Bangladesh: implications for hazard analysis and mitigation. Nat Hazards 29(3):405–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lungu DM, Scherer RJ, Zsohar M, Coman O (1994) On the phenomenon of long periods of ground vibration during the 1990, 1986 and 1977 earthquake records from Vrancea source. In Savidis SA, Balkema AA (eds) Earthquake resistance construction and design, 1. Rotterdam, pp 51–59

  • Macmillan MB (1991) Freud evaluated: the completed arc. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Mândrescu N, Radulian M, Mărmureanu Gh (2007) Geological, geophysical and seismological criteria for local response evaluation in Bucharest urban area. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 27:367–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marinescu Ş (2002) Managementul asigurării medicale în condiţii de dezastre. Editura Sylvi, Bucureşti

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris C, Simpson A, O’Riordan T (1995). Redefining the cultural context of risk perceptions. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis (Europe), Stuttgart, University of East Anglia, Norwich

  • Ngo EB (2001) When disasters and age collide: reviewing vulnerability of the elderly. Nat Hazards 2(2):80–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oncescu MC, Marza VI, Rizescu M, Popa M (1999) The Romanian earthquake catalogue between 1984–1997. In: Wenzel F, Lungu D (eds) & O. Novak (co-ed) Vrancea earthquakes: tectonics, hazard and risk mitigation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 43–47

  • Paradise TR (2005) Perception of earthquake risk in Agadir, Morocco: a case study from a muslim community. Environ Hazards 6(3):167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radulian M, Vaccari F, Mandrescu N, Panza GF, Moldoveanu CL (2000) Seismic hazard of Romania: deterministic approach. In: Seismic Hazard of the Circum-Pannonian Region (eds Panza GF, Radulian M, Trifu C-I). Pure appl. Geophys. 157:221–247

  • Renn O, Burns WJ, Kasperson JX (1992) The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical observations. J Soc Issues 48:137–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann B (1995) Risk perception research: review and documentation, programme group men, environment, technology. KFA Research Centre, Julich, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1979) Strength of belief and risk. Policy Sci 11:39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1987) Risk and society. Studies in risk taking and risk generation. George Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1996) A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 68:219–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1997) Explaining risk perception: an empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decis Policy 2:113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1992) Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, pp 117–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicusi WK, Zeckhauser RJ (2006) The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Clim Change 77:151–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iuliana Armaş.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Armaş, I., Avram, E. Patterns and trends in the perception of seismic risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Nat Hazards 44, 147–161 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9147-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9147-9

Keywords

Navigation