Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 269–287 | Cite as

Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta, Romania

  • Iuliana Armaş
  • Eugen Avram
Original Paper

Abstract

For exposed and vulnerable communities, the perception of natural risk is an essential link in the analysis of man–environment coping relationship and also an important parameter in the quantification of complex vulnerability as a central predictive variable in the risk equation. The topic of flood risk in related perception is of considerable interest, as some recently published papers have proven (Messner and Meyer 2005, 2006; Raaijmakers et al. 2008). The aim of the current study is to reveal the conscious and unconscious attitudes towards the flood risk for the inhabitants of the Danube Delta/Romania. These attitudes, defined by different degrees of psychological vulnerability, represent the background for a series of psycho-behavioural patterns that generate certain adjustment mechanisms and strategies. Application of a specially designed questionnaire and the statistical analysis of the results revealed two psychological factors as essential in establishing the psychosocial vulnerability degree of the interviewed subjects: (i) an internal control factor and (ii) an external control factor. The persons characterized by inner control have a significantly reduced general anxiety level in comparison to individuals with the control factor placed externally. As confidence diminishes, it increases the tendency of the individual to rely on the external factors for support and security. The lack of resources (indicating lower resilience) and mistrust in the support given emphasizes non-adaptive behaviours.

Keywords

Natural hazards perception Vulnerability Cognitive dissonance 

References

  1. Armaş I (2006) Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal 26(5):1223–1234. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00810.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armaş I, Avram E (2008) Patterns and trends in the perception of the seismic risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Nat Hazards 44(1):147–161. doi: 10.1007/s11069-007-9147-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow DH (1988) Anxiety and its disorders: the nature and treatment of anxiety and panic. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow DH (2002) Anxiety and its disorders: the nature and treatment of anxiety and panic, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Birkmann J (2005) Measuring vulnerability. Report on the 1st meeting of the expert working group ‘‘Measuring Vulnerability’’ of the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), BonnGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkmann J (2007) Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ Hazards 7(1):20–31. doi: 10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutter S (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog Hum Geogr 20(4):529–539. doi: 10.1177/030913259602000407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cutter S, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 82:242–260. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Day JW Jr, Gunn JD, Folan WJ, Yáñez-Arancibia A, Horton BP (2007) Emergence of complex societies after sea level stabilized. Eos Trans AGU 88(15):169–171. doi: 10.1029/2007EO150001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Silva P (1999) Cultural aspects of post-traumatic stress disorder. In: Yule W (ed) Post-traumatic stress disorders: concepts and therapy. Wiley, Chichester, pp 116–138Google Scholar
  11. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Freedy J, Hobfoll S, Ribbe D (1994) Life events, war and adjustment: lessons for the middle east. Anxiety Stress Coping 7:191–203. doi: 10.1080/10615809408249345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuchs S, Heiss K, Hübl J (2007) Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7(5):495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giosan L, Bhattacharya J (2005) New directions in river delta studies. In: Giosan L, Bhattacharya J (eds) River deltas: concepts, models, case studies. SEPM Special Publication, vol 83, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  15. Giosan L, Donnelly JP, Vespremeanu E, Constantinescu S, Filip F, Ovejanu I, Vespremeanu-Stroe A, Duller GAT (2006) Young Danube Delta documents stable black sea level since middle Holocene: morphodynamic paleogeographic and archaeological implications. Geology 34:9. doi: 10.1130/G22587.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glade T (2003) Vulnerability assessment in landslide risk analysis. Erde 134(2):123–146Google Scholar
  17. Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811. doi: 10.1023/B:RIAN.0000005926.03250.c0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ho CN (1998) The effects of generational status and acculturation on self-reporting of traumatic experiences and symptoms in nonclinical Asian population. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59/09-B, 5086Google Scholar
  19. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) (1982) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Messner F, Meyer V (2005) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception—challenges for flood damage research. UFZ Discussion papers 13/2005. http://www.ufz.de/data/Disk_Papiere_2005-132647.pdf
  21. Messner F, Meyer V (2006) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception—challenges for flood damage research. In: Schanze J, Zeman E, Marsalek J (eds) Flood risk management: hazards, vulnerability and mitigation measures. Springer, New York, pp 149–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morrison DF (1990) Multivariate statistical methods. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Ngo EB (2001) When disasters and age collide: reviewing vulnerability of the elderly. Nat Hazards 2(2):80–89. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2001)2:2(80) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norris FH, Perilla JL, Ibañez GE, Murphy AD (2001) Sex differences in symptoms of post-traumatic stress: does culture play a role? J Trauma Stress 14:7–28. doi: 10.1023/A:1007851413867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phares JE (1976) Locus of control in personality. General Learning Press, MorristownGoogle Scholar
  26. Popa M (2004) Statistică psihologică cu aplicaţii SPSS. Ed. Univ. din Bucureşti, BucureştiGoogle Scholar
  27. Raaijmakers R, Krywkow J, van der Veen A (2008) Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 46(3):307–322. doi: 10.1007/s11069-007-9189-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rashed T, Weeks J (2003) Exploring the spatial association between measures from satellite imagery and patterns of urban vulnerability to earthquake hazards. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci XXXIV 7(W9):144–152Google Scholar
  29. Rotter JB (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr 80:1–28Google Scholar
  30. Sjoberg L (2000) Factors in Risk Perception. Risk Anal 20(1):1–11. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Slovic P (1987) Perception of Risk. Science 236:280–287. doi: 10.1126/science.3563507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Solomon Z, Mikulincer M, Benbenishty R (1989) Locus of control and combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder: the intervening role of battle intensity, threat appraisal and coping. Br J Clin Psychol 28:131–144Google Scholar
  33. Staab JP, Grieger TA, Fullerton CS, Ursano RJ (1996) Acute stress disorder, subsequent posttraumatic stress disorder and depression after a series of typhoons. Anxiety 2:219–225. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-7154(1996)2:5<219::AID-ANXI3>3.0.CO;2-HCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suar D, Mandal MK, Khuntia R (2002) Supercyclone in Orissa: an assessment of psychological status of survivors. J Trauma Stress 15(4):313–319. doi: 10.1023/A:1016203912477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of GeographyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Faculty of PsychologyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations