Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile

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

Abstract

It has been found that both preparedness for disasters and public response are significantly influenced by risk perceptions and trust in authorities and experts. Although Chile is a country with a long history of natural disasters, few studies have evaluated the risk perceptions of natural hazards or the degree of social trust. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk perception in Chile regarding various natural hazards and the degree of trust on authorities and institutions. A survey was conducted in five major cities in Chile during the year 2013 and was completed by a total sum of 2054 participants. We assessed risk perception of nine natural hazards and the level of trust in ten national institutions and authorities. According to declared levels of trust, the institutions and authorities included in this study were categorized into three groups: (1) low trust, which included governmental authorities and institutions; (2) medium trust, formed by institutions with educational and preparation roles; and (3) high trust, formed by institutions and authorities responsible for maintaining public order and conducting rescue and aid operations. Although our results show that earthquakes, tsunamis and wildfires were natural hazards of greatest concern to the national population, they also reflect that there are specific additional concerns in different cities that are coherent with their individual history of natural disasters. Implications for natural disaster risk preparedness are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The purpose of this question associated with acceptability was to create an acceptability ranking for the main risks that affect the Chilean population, in order to determine the position of natural hazards in a broader risk context. For some hazards such as nuclear power, motor vehicles and biotechnology, the interpretation of acceptability is straightforward. Nevertheless, in the context of natural hazards, this interpretation is not as straightforward. It is hypothesized that people evaluate the degree of acceptability of a natural hazard based on the expected consequences when the hazard occurs (i.e., there is an earthquake). Consequences depend on many factors: exposure to the risks (i.e., living in a flood-prone area or close to a seismic fault), vulnerability (resistance of structures to seismic waves) and preparedness (evacuation procedures for tsunami occurrences). For all of these factors there is a trade-off between risk and benefit. Reducing the risk would entail resources (for retrofitting homes, for example), time (for training exercises) or foregone benefits, like not living close to the sea in a coastal area. Earthquakes occur periodically in Chile, and there is no way to eliminate them, but that does not preclude people from having, and changing, their acceptability of them. For example, if earthquake risk is rated as acceptable, it would actually mean that the degree of exposure to earthquake risks is acceptable, when benefits are considered.

  2. The focus groups were conducted in May 2013 in Santiago city. For each focus group, 8–10 participants were conveniently selected by gender, age and socioeconomic level. As a prerequisite, the participants could not know each other. The aim of the focus groups was to validate the questionnaire in terms of their understanding, so no additional questions were used.

  3. The interviewers were undergraduate and graduate students of social sciences and psychology of universities located in the five cities being studied.

References

  • Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A Psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14(6):1085–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcury TA, Christianson EH (1990) Environmental worldview in response to environmental problems Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environ Behav 22(3):387–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrientos S (2007) Earthquakes in Chile. In: Moreno T, Gibbons W (eds) The geology of Chile. Geological Society of London, London, pp 263–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastide S, Moatti J-P, Pages J-P, Fagnani F (1989) Risk perception and the social acceptability of technologies: the French case. Risk Anal 9(2):215–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bichard E, Kazmierczak A (2012) Are homeowners willing to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change? Clim Change 112(3–4):633–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfman NC, Cifuentes LA (2003) Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile. Risk Anal 23(6):1271–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfman NC, López-Vázquez E, Gutiérrez VV, Cifuentes LA (2008) Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile. J Risk Res 11(6):755–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfman NC, Jiménez R, Arévalo PC, Cifuentes LA (2012) Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energy Policy 46:246–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burningham K, Fielding J, Thrush D (2008) ‘It’ll never happen to me’: understanding public awareness of local flood risk. Disasters 32(2):216–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centro Sismológico Nacional (2014) Sismos Importantes y/o Destructivos (1570 a la fecha). http://www.sismologia.cl/

  • Dilley M (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Earle TC, Cvetkovich G (1995) Social trust: toward a cosmopolitan society. Greenwood Publishing, Westport, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Elnashai AS, Gencturk B, Kwon OS, Al-Qadi IL, Hashash Y, Roesler JR, Kim SJ, Jeong S-H, Dukes J, Valdivia A (2010) The maule (Chile) earthquake of February 27, 2010: consequence assessment and case studies. MAE Cent Rep No 10–04

  • Espluga J, Prades A, Gamero N, Solà R (2009) El papel de la “confianza” en los conflictos socioambientales. Política y sociedad 46(1):255–273

    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 Sci 9:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1998) Understanding public attitudes to technology. J Risk Res 1(3):221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk RL, Figueroa P (2010) Coyunturas críticas de un desastre: El caso del 27F. Estado, Gobierno y Gestión Pública (15–16), pp 69/93

  • Gardner GT, Gould LC (1989) Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Anal 9(2):225–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner GT, Tiemann AR, Gould LR, DeLuca DR, Doob LW, Stolwijk JAJ (1982) Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. J Soc Psychol 116:179–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregg CE, Houghton BF, Johnston DM, Paton D, Swanson DA (2004) The perception of volcanic risk in Kona communities from Mauna Loa and Hualālai volcanoes, Hawai‵ i. J Volcanol Geoth Res 130(3):179–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Mendelsohn R (1993) Perceived risk, dread, and benefits. Risk Anal 13(3):259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grothmann T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Nat hazards 38(1–2):101–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008) Whose reality counts? Factors affecting the perception of volcanic risk. J Volcanol Geoth Res 172(3):259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (2013a) Censo de Población 2012. http://www.censo.cl/contenido/documentos/poblacion_resultado_censo2012.pdf

  • Kellens W, Terpstra T, De Maeyer P (2013) Perception and communication of flood risks: a systematic review of empirical research. Risk Anal 33(1):24–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M (2008) Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: a study in an alpine valley in Italy. J Environ Psychol 28(2):164–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ONEMI (1994) Fenómenos que afectaron al país entre 1990 y Septiembre de 1993

  • ONEMI (2014a) Chile Preparado—Campañas. http://www.onemi.cl/campanas/

  • ONEMI (2014b) Incendio forestal en Valparaíso. http://www.onemi.cl/alerta/se-declara-alerta-roja-para-la-comuna-de-valparaiso-por-incendio-forestal-7/

  • Paton D (2008) Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: how trust influences its effectiveness. Int J Glob Environ Issues 8(1):2–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton D, Smith LM, Johnston D (2000) Volcanic hazards: risk perception and preparedness. N Z J Psychol 29(2):86–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Plapp T, Werner U (2006) Understanding risk perception from natural hazards: examples from Germany. In: Ammann W, Dannenmann S, Vulliet L (eds) RISK21-coping with risks due to natural hazards in the 21st century, vol 21. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2005) Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Anal 25(1):199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp M (2001) Some socio-demographic and socio-psychological predictors of environmentalism. TRAMES J Humanit Soc Sci 5(55/50):355–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan/James & James, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Levine D (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson RE (ed) Communicating risks to the public: technology, risk, and society. Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp 175–218

  • Ruin I, Gaillard J-C, Lutoff C (2007) How to get there? Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries. Environ Hazards 7(3):235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas RC, Seguel AG (2014) Condicionantes socio-técnicas de las decisiones políticas. El tsunami del 27F en Chile Socio-technical constraints of political decisions. The Chilean tsunami of 27 Feb 2010

  • Scolobig A, De Marchi B, Borga M (2012) The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: findings from case studies in an Alpine Region. Nat Hazards 63(2):499–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20(2):195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) Flooding risks: a comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Anal 26(4):971–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tagle E, Santana P (2011) El terremoto de 2010 en Chile: respuesta del sistema de salud y de la cooperación internacional. Rev Panamericana Salud Pública 30:160

    Google Scholar 

  • Terpstra T (2011) Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior. Risk Anal 31(10):1658–1675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terpstra T, Lindell MK (2013) Citizens’ perceptions of flood hazard adjustments an application of the protective action decision model. Environ Behav 45(8):993–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachinger G, Renn O, Bianchizza C, Coates T, De Marchi B, Domènech L, Jakobson I, Kuhlicke C, Lemkow L, Pellizzoni L (2010) Risk perception and natural hazards. WP3-Report of the CapHaz-Net Projekt. http://www.caphaz-net.org

  • Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33(6):1049–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partially funded by Chile’s National Science and Technology Commission (Conicyt) through the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Research (Fondecyt, Grant 1130864) and by the National Research Center for Integrated Natural Disaster Management CONICYT/FONDAP/15110017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering Sciences Department, Universidad Andres Bello, Avenida República 237, 837-0146, Santiago, Chile

    Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas

  2. National Research Center for Integrated Natural Disaster Management, CONICYT/FONDAP/15110017, 7820436, Santiago, Chile

    Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas

  3. Centro de Investigación Transdisciplinar en Psicología, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Cuernavaca, Mexico

    Esperanza López-Vázquez

  4. Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Luis A. Cifuentes

Authors
  1. Nicolás C. Bronfman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pamela C. Cisternas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esperanza López-Vázquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luis A. Cifuentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela C. Cisternas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bronfman, N.C., Cisternas, P.C., López-Vázquez, E. et al. Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile. Nat Hazards 81, 307–327 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2080-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2080-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation