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.
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
Armaş I, Neacşu M (2003) Atitudinea locuitorilor oraşului Bucureşti faţă de riscul seismic. An Univ Spiru Haret, seria geogr 6:115–123
Boholm A (1996) Risk perception and social anthropology: critique of cultural theory. Ethnos 61:64–84
Boholm Å (1998) Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J Risk Res 1:135–164
Brehmer B (1987) The psychology of risk. In: Singleton WT, Hovden J (eds) Risk and decisions. Wiley, New York, pp 25–39
Ciurea AV, Ciubotaru VGh, Avram E (2007) Dezvoltarea managementului in organizaţiile sănătăţii. Excelenţa in serviciile de neurochirurgie. Editura Universitară, Bucuresti
Crews F (1996) The verdict on Freud. Psychol Sci 7:63–68
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
Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48:21–37
Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339
Dawes RM (1994) Psychological measurement. Psychol Rev 101:278–281
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
Drottz-Sjöberg BM (1991) Perception of risk. Studies of risk attitudes, perceptions and definitions. Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm
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
Falk R, Greenbaum CW (1995) Significance tests die hard: the amazing persistence of a probabilistic misconception. Theory Psychol 5:75–98
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
Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108
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
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
Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811
Holdevici I (2004) Psihoterapia de scurtă durată. Dual Tech, Bucureşti
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
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
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
Marinescu Ş (2002) Managementul asigurării medicale în condiţii de dezastre. Editura Sylvi, Bucureşti
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
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
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
Rohrmann B (1995) Risk perception research: review and documentation, programme group men, environment, technology. KFA Research Centre, Julich, Germany
Sjöberg L (1979) Strength of belief and risk. Policy Sci 11:39–57
Sjöberg L (1987) Risk and society. Studies in risk taking and risk generation. George Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, England
Sjöberg L (1996) A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 68:219–225
Sjöberg L (1997) Explaining risk perception: an empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decis Policy 2:113–130
Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–11
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
Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, Boulder
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9147-9