Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 147–161 | Cite as

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

  • Iuliana Armaş
  • Eugen Avram
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Bucharest city Earthquake perception Trends in the seismic risk perception 

References

  1. 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-UEGoogle Scholar
  2. Armaş I (2006) Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal 26(5):1223–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armaş I, Neacşu M (2003) Atitudinea locuitorilor oraşului Bucureşti faţă de riscul seismic. An Univ Spiru Haret, seria geogr 6:115–123Google Scholar
  4. Boholm A (1996) Risk perception and social anthropology: critique of cultural theory. Ethnos 61:64–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boholm Å (1998) Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J Risk Res 1:135–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brehmer B (1987) The psychology of risk. In: Singleton WT, Hovden J (eds) Risk and decisions. Wiley, New York, pp 25–39Google Scholar
  7. Ciurea AV, Ciubotaru VGh, Avram E (2007) Dezvoltarea managementului in organizaţiile sănătăţii. Excelenţa in serviciile de neurochirurgie. Editura Universitară, BucurestiGoogle Scholar
  8. Crews F (1996) The verdict on Freud. Psychol Sci 7:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross Cult Psychol 22(1):61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: culture and the social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48:21–37Google Scholar
  11. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawes RM (1994) Psychological measurement. Psychol Rev 101:278–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deitz T, Stern PC, Pycroft RW (1989) Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: the case of environmental risk. Sociol Forum 41:47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drottz-Sjöberg BM (1991) Perception of risk. Studies of risk attitudes, perceptions and definitions. Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Risk Research, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 14Google Scholar
  16. Eagley AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TXGoogle Scholar
  17. Falk R, Greenbaum CW (1995) Significance tests die hard: the amazing persistence of a probabilistic misconception. Theory Psychol 5:75–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 9:127–152Google Scholar
  19. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  21. Freudenburg WR, Pastor SK (1992) NIMBYs and LULUs: stalking the syndromes. J Soc Issues 48(4):39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):711–714Google Scholar
  23. Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holdevici I (2004) Psihoterapia de scurtă durată. Dual Tech, BucureştiGoogle Scholar
  25. 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):405–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 51–59Google Scholar
  27. Macmillan MB (1991) Freud evaluated: the completed arc. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  28. Mândrescu N, Radulian M, Mărmureanu Gh (2007) Geological, geophysical and seismological criteria for local response evaluation in Bucharest urban area. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 27:367–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marinescu Ş (2002) Managementul asigurării medicale în condiţii de dezastre. Editura Sylvi, BucureştiGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  31. Ngo EB (2001) When disasters and age collide: reviewing vulnerability of the elderly. Nat Hazards 2(2):80–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 43–47Google Scholar
  33. Paradise TR (2005) Perception of earthquake risk in Agadir, Morocco: a case study from a muslim community. Environ Hazards 6(3):167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. 157:221–247Google Scholar
  35. Renn O, Burns WJ, Kasperson JX (1992) The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical observations. J Soc Issues 48:137–160Google Scholar
  36. Rohrmann B (1995) Risk perception research: review and documentation, programme group men, environment, technology. KFA Research Centre, Julich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  37. Sjöberg L (1979) Strength of belief and risk. Policy Sci 11:39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sjöberg L (1987) Risk and society. Studies in risk taking and risk generation. George Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  39. Sjöberg L (1996) A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 68:219–225Google Scholar
  40. Sjöberg L (1997) Explaining risk perception: an empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decis Policy 2:113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slovic P (1992) Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, Westport, pp 117–152Google Scholar
  43. Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  44. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vicusi WK, Zeckhauser RJ (2006) The perception and valuation of the risks of climate change: a rational and behavioral blend. Clim Change 77:151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of GeographyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations