Skip to main content
Book cover

Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 7 pp 69–75Cite as

What’s the Seismic Risk Perception in Italy?

Abstract

Risk perception is a fundamental element in the definition and the adoption of preventive counter-measures. In order to develop effective information and risk communication strategies, the perception of risks and the influencing factors should be known. This paper presents preliminary results of the first survey on seismic risk perception in Italy. The research design combines a psychometric and a cultural theoretical approach. More than 5,000 on-line questionnaires have been compiled from January 23rd till July 25th, 2013. The data collected show that seismic risk perception in Italy is strongly underestimated; 86 out of 100 Italian citizens, living in the most dangerous zone (namely Zone 1), do not have a correct perception of seismic hazards. From these observations we deem that extremely urgent measures are to be taken in Italy to find effective ways to communicate seismic risk.

Keywords

  • Risk perception
  • Seismic hazard
  • Hazard communication
  • Seismic risk

This study has benefited from funding provided by the Italian Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri—Dipartimento di Protezione Civile (DPC). This paper does not necessarily represent DPC official opinion and policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09303-1_13
  • Chapter length: 7 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-09303-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 13.1
Fig. 13.2
Fig. 13.3
Fig. 13.4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Research on risk perception has identified a range of perception patterns that relate to key characteristics of the risk itself or the context in which the risk is taken. These patterns are called semantic risk images. The semantic images allow individuals to classify various risks on the basis of a few salient characteristics. Reducing complexity by creating classes of similar phenomena is certainly a major strategy for coping with information overload and uncertainty (for further details see Renn 2008).

References

  • Barke RP et al (1997) Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Soc Sci Q 78:167–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Crescimbene M (2008) Un test sulla percezione del rischio vulcanico. http://hdl.handle.net/2122/4678

  • Crescimbene M et al (2013) Seismic risk perception test. EGU 2013, Poster Session. http://hdl.handle.net/2122/8704

  • Dake K (1991) Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J Cross Cult Psychol 22:61–82

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dake K (1992) Myths of nature: cultural and social construction of risk. J Soc Issues 48(4):21–37

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M, Wildavsky AB (1983) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B et al (1978a) Fault trees: sensitivity of assessed failure probabilities to problem representation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 4:330–344

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B et al (1978b), How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg MR, Schneider DF (1995) Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed vs non-stressed environments. Risk Anal 15:503–511. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00343.x

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gruppo di Lavoro MPS (2004) Redazione della mappa di pericolosità sismica prevista dall’Ordinanza PCM 3274 del 20 marzo 2003. Rapporto Conclusivo per il Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, INGV, Milano-Roma, pp 65 + 5 appendici

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson PE (1998) Gender Differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological erspectives. Risk Anal 18:805–811. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01123.x

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lave TR, Lave LB (1991) Risk Anal 11(2):255–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Likert R (1932) Technique for the measure of attitudes. Arch Psycho 22(140):1–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK (1994) Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 12(3):303–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK, Perry RW (2000) Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: a review of research. Environ Behav 32:590–630

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood CE et al (1957) The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters E, Slovic P (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J Appl Soc Psychol 26(16):1427–1453

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Plapp T, Werner U (2006) Understanding risk perception from natural hazards: Examples from Germany by institute for finance, banking and insurance/postgraduate programme natural disasters. Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2008) Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan, London, p 110

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann B (1999) Community-based fire preparedness programs: an empirical evaluation. Austral-Asian J Disaster and Trauma Studies, 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage I (1993) Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Anal 13:413–420. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00741.x

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000b) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20:713–719

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M et al (2000c) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal 20:353–362

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2000a) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20:1–11

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2000b) The methodology of risk perception research. Qual Quant 34:407–418

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1992) Perceptions of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, London, pp 117–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stucchi M et al (2011) Seismic Hazard Assessment (2003–2009) for the Italian building code. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(4):1885–1911. doi:10.1785/0120100130

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Szalay LB, Deese J (1978) Subjective meaning and culture : an assessment through word associations. L. Erlbaum Associates; distributed by the Halsted Press Division, Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M et al (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachinger G, Renn O (2010) Risk perception and natural hazards. CapHaz-Net WP3 Report. In: DIALOGIK non-profit Institute for Communication and Cooperative Research. Stuttgart (available via http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP3_Risk-Perception.pdf)

  • Zacchi MC, Crescimbene M (2010) Mind quakes: visualizzare la percezione del rischio sismico per la prevenzione. http://hdl.handle.net/2122/6819

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INGV, Via Di Vigna Murata 605, 00143, Rome, Italy

    Massimo Crescimbene & Federica La Longa

  2. INGV, Via Donato Creti 12, 40128, Bologna, Italy

    Romano Camassi

  3. INGV-Osservatorio Vesuviano, Via Diocleziano 238, 80124, Naples, Italy

    Nicola Alessandro Pino

  4. OGS, Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/C, 34010, Sgonico, Trieste, Italy

    Laura Peruzza

Authors
  1. Massimo Crescimbene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Federica La Longa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Romano Camassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicola Alessandro Pino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Peruzza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimo Crescimbene .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst. for Geo-hydrological Protection, National Research Council (CNR), Turin, Italy

    Giorgio Lollino

  2. Inst. for Geo-hydrological Protection, National Research Council (CNR), Turin, Italy

    Massimo Arattano

  3. Department of Earth Sciences, Turin University, Turin, Italy

    Marco Giardino

  4. COBA, Lisbon, Portugal

    Ricardo Oliveira

  5. National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, Roma, Italy

    Silvia Peppoloni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Crescimbene, M., La Longa, F., Camassi, R., Pino, N.A., Peruzza, L. (2014). What’s the Seismic Risk Perception in Italy?. In: Lollino, G., Arattano, M., Giardino, M., Oliveira, R., Peppoloni, S. (eds) Engineering Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09303-1_13

Download citation