Natural Hazards

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 307–327 | Cite as

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

  • Nicolás C. Bronfman
  • Pamela C. Cisternas
  • Esperanza López-Vázquez
  • Luis A. Cifuentes
Original Paper


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.


Natural disasters Risk preparedness Trust Risk perception Risk profile 



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.


  1. Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A Psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14(6):1085–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcury TA, Christianson EH (1990) Environmental worldview in response to environmental problems Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environ Behav 22(3):387–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrientos S (2007) Earthquakes in Chile. In: Moreno T, Gibbons W (eds) The geology of Chile. Geological Society of London, London, pp 263–287Google Scholar
  4. 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):215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bichard E, Kazmierczak A (2012) Are homeowners willing to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change? Clim Change 112(3–4):633–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronfman NC, Cifuentes LA (2003) Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile. Risk Anal 23(6):1271–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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):755–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bronfman NC, Jiménez R, Arévalo PC, Cifuentes LA (2012) Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energy Policy 46:246–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burningham K, Fielding J, Thrush D (2008) ‘It’ll never happen to me’: understanding public awareness of local flood risk. Disasters 32(2):216–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Centro Sismológico Nacional (2014) Sismos Importantes y/o Destructivos (1570 a la fecha).
  11. Dilley M (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. World Bank Publications, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Earle TC, Cvetkovich G (1995) Social trust: toward a cosmopolitan society. Greenwood Publishing, Westport, CTGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 10–04Google Scholar
  14. Espluga J, Prades A, Gamero N, Solà R (2009) El papel de la “confianza” en los conflictos socioambientales. Política y sociedad 46(1):255–273Google Scholar
  15. 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 9:127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1998) Understanding public attitudes to technology. J Risk Res 1(3):221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Funk RL, Figueroa P (2010) Coyunturas críticas de un desastre: El caso del 27F. Estado, Gobierno y Gestión Pública (15–16), pp 69/93Google Scholar
  18. Gardner GT, Gould LC (1989) Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Anal 9(2):225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 116:179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gregory R, Mendelsohn R (1993) Perceived risk, dread, and benefits. Risk Anal 13(3):259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haynes K, Barclay J, Pidgeon N (2008) Whose reality counts? Factors affecting the perception of volcanic risk. J Volcanol Geoth Res 172(3):259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (2013a) Censo de Población 2012.
  25. Kellens W, Terpstra T, De Maeyer P (2013) Perception and communication of flood risks: a systematic review of empirical research. Risk Anal 33(1):24–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734Google Scholar
  27. 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):164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ONEMI (1994) Fenómenos que afectaron al país entre 1990 y Septiembre de 1993Google Scholar
  29. ONEMI (2014a) Chile Preparado—Campañas.
  30. Paton D (2008) Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: how trust influences its effectiveness. Int J Glob Environ Issues 8(1):2–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paton D, Smith LM, Johnston D (2000) Volcanic hazards: risk perception and preparedness. N Z J Psychol 29(2):86–91Google Scholar
  32. 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 101–108Google Scholar
  33. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2005) Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Anal 25(1):199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raudsepp M (2001) Some socio-demographic and socio-psychological predictors of environmentalism. TRAMES J Humanit Soc Sci 5(55/50):355–367Google Scholar
  35. Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan/James & James, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 175–218Google Scholar
  37. 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):235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 2010Google Scholar
  39. 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):499–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20(2):195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) Flooding risks: a comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Anal 26(4):971–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 30:160Google Scholar
  45. Terpstra T (2011) Emotions, trust, and perceived risk: affective and cognitive routes to flood preparedness behavior. Risk Anal 31(10):1658–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Terpstra T, Lindell MK (2013) Citizens’ perceptions of flood hazard adjustments an application of the protective action decision model. Environ Behav 45(8):993–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.
  48. 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):1049–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolás C. Bronfman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pamela C. Cisternas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Esperanza López-Vázquez
    • 3
  • Luis A. Cifuentes
    • 4
  1. 1.Engineering Sciences DepartmentUniversidad Andres BelloSantiagoChile
  2. 2.National Research Center for Integrated Natural Disaster Management, CONICYT/FONDAP/15110017SantiagoChile
  3. 3.Centro de Investigación Transdisciplinar en PsicologíaUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de MorelosCuernavacaMexico
  4. 4.Industrial and Systems Engineering DepartmentPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations