Advertisement

Introduction – Living with Perils in the Twenty-First Century

  • Tiziana Rossetto
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research book series (NTHR, volume 33)

Abstract

This chapter introduces some of the questions that spurred the writing of this book, particularly whether there are underlying commonalities in beliefs about natural hazards across the globe, and whether links can be drawn between people’s perceptions or representations of their risk from natural hazards on the one hand, and the actions they take to mitigate against these hazards on the other. The book brings together a number of risk perception/representation studies that traverse several countries and hazards and are authored by academics from a diverse set of disciplines. Challenges and gaps are identified in relation to the risk perception field, and it is argued that cross-cultural, multi-disciplinary studies are required to answer the questions raised in the chapter.

Keywords

Risk Perception Natural Hazard Disaster Risk Disaster Risk Reduction Multiple Hazard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander D (1999) Natural disasters. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander D (2000) Confronting catastrophe: new perspectives on natural disasters. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (2003) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. EM-DAT (2012) EM-DAT: the OFDA/CRED international disaster database. www.emdat.be. Accessed 25 Oct 2012
  5. Guha-Sapir D, Hargitt D, Hoyois P (2004) Thirty years of natural disasters 1974–2003: the numbers. Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Louvain-la-NeuveGoogle Scholar
  6. Joffe H, Solberg C, Rossetto T, O’Connor C (2013) Social representations of earthquakes: a study of those living in three highly seismic areas. Earthquake SpectraGoogle Scholar
  7. Khan ME (2005) The death toll from natural disasters: the role of income, geography and institutions. Rev Econ Stat 87(2):271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lindell MK, Prater CS (2003) Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Nat Hazards Rev 4(4):176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nellemann C, Hain S, Alder J (eds) (2008) In dead water: merging of climate change with pollution, over-harvest, and infestations in the world’s fishing grounds. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, ArendalGoogle Scholar
  10. Palm R, Carroll J (1998) Illusions of safety. Culture and earthquake hazard response in California and Japan. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  11. Rossetto T, Solberg C, Joffe H (2011) A different view on human vulnerability to earthquakes: lessons from risk perception studies. In: Spence RJ, So E, Scawthorn C (eds) Human casualties in earthquakes: progress in modeling and mitigation, vol 29. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Solberg C, Rossetto T, Joffe H (2010) The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: re-evaluating the international literature. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(8):1663–1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. World Bank (2011) The world bank supports Thailand’s post-floods recovery effort. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/2011/12/13/world-bank-supports-thailands-post-floods-recovery-effort. Accessed 18 Oct 2012

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EPICentre, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations