Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social vulnerability is as much a part of risk as building damage, hazard magnitude, and economic loss. Social vulnerability refers to the capacity of a human community exposed during the impact of a natural hazard event (in this case, an earthquake) to resist, cope with, and recover from that impact. In the perspective of the 3rd millennium, we come to understand that the most efficient and accessible way to reduce the pressure of natural risks is to reduce the vulnerability level of the human communities exposed to that certain hazard. This study aims to test, in an exposed and vulnerable area, the relationship between social vulnerability and the perception of the seismic risk. The research focuses only on the first level of social vulnerability, defined as the ability of an individual within a household to recover from a natural hazard impact (Dwyer et al. 2004). A prevailing assumption was that social vulnerability influences the level of perception of the seismic risk, in an exposed, vulnerable area. To this end, two samples were used, different under the aspect of social vulnerability, in the context of the same residential area. Social vulnerability was computed as a normalized composed index that includes the poverty ratio and the demographic vulnerability ratio (depending on the age, gender, and education level indicators). The statistical processing has indicated a significant difference in the high perception level for the two samples that were compared, in the sense that in the context of an increased level of social vulnerability, people generally better acknowledge the seismic risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We are aware that in economic developed countries, with tradition in risk mitigation activities, the level of perception influences also the social vulnerability.

References

  • Annan K (2003) Message for the international day for disaster reduction 8 October 2003, available at http://www.unisdr.org/eng/public_aware/world_camp/2003/pa-camp03-sg-eng.htm

  • 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-UE

  • Armaş I (2006) Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal 26(5):1223–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armaş I, Neacşu M (2003) Atitudinea locuitorilor oraşului Bucureşti faţă de riscul seismic. An Univ Spiru Haret, seria geogr 6:115–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkmann J (2005) Danger need not spell disaster—but how vulnerable are we?, Research Brief (1). United Nations University, Tokyo

  • Birkmann J (ed) (2006) Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards. Towards disaster resilient societies. United Nation University Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogardi J, Birkmann J (2004) Vulnerability assessment: the first step towards sustainable risk reduction. In: Malzahn D, Plapp T (eds) Disaster and society—from hazard assessment to risk reduction. Logos Verlag, Berlin, pp 75–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohle HG (2001) Vulnerability and criticality: perspectives from social geography, in IHDP Update, Newsletter of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, Bonn, pp 1–7

  • Boholm Å (1998) Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J Risk Res 1:135–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolin R, Stanford L (1991) Shelter, housing and recovery: a comparison of U.S. disasters. Disasters 15(1):24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer B (1987) The psychology of risk. In: Singleton WT, Hovden J (eds) Risk and decisions. Wiley, New York, pp 25–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckle P (2000) Assessing resilience and vulnerability in the context of emergencies: guidelines. Technical report, Department of Human Services, Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

  • Cioflan CO, Apostol B, Moldoveanu CL, Panza GF, Mărmureanu G (2003) Deterministic approach for the seismic microzonation of Bucharest. Pure Appl Geophys 160:249–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Cliff N (1992) Abstract measurement theory and the revolution that never happened. Psychol Sci 3:186–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross JA (2001) Megacities and Small towns: different perspectives on hazard vulnerability. Environ Hazards 3(2):63–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson R (1997) An urban earthquake disaster risk index. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, California, USA

  • Davidson DJ, Freudenburg AW (1996) Gender and environmental concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes RM (1994) Psychological measurement. Psychol Rev 101:278–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Leon JCV (2006) Vulnerability. A conceptual and methodological review, studies of the university: research, counsel, education—Publication Series of UNU-EHS 4

  • Dillman DA (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg B-M (1991) Perception of risk. Studies of risk attitudes, perceptions and definitions. Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm

  • Dumitrache L, Armaş I (1998) Health state of the Romanian population during the transition period. GeoJournal 44(2):151–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumitrache L, Armaş I (1999) Starea de sănătate a populaţiei României—diferenţieri urban/rural. Comunicări de Geografie 3:431–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumitrache L, Armaş i (2000) Health and health care in post-communist Romania. Post-communist Romania: geographical perspectives. Liverpool Hope Press, pp 75–88

  • 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 14, available at http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA4267.pdf

  • Eagley AH, Chaiken S (1993) The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman G (1961) Some aspects of psychophysical research. In: Rosenblith WA (ed) Sensory communication. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Enescu D, Enescu BD (1996) Focal mechanism, global geophysical phenomena and Vrancea (Romania) earthquake prediction. A model for predicting these earthquakes. Rev Roum Géophys 40:11–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk R, Greenbaum CW (1995). Significance tests die hard: the amazing persistence of a probabilistic misconception. Theory Psychol 5:75–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:127–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Austria

  • Freudenburg WR, Coleman C-L, Gonzales J, Hageland C (1996) Media coverage of hazard events: analyzing the assumptions. Risk Anal 16:31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche AW (1995) The role of the unconscious in the perception of risks. Risk Health Safety Environ 6:15–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger K, Jones T, Leiba M, Scott G (1999) Community risk in cairns: a provisional multi hazard risk assessment. AGSO Cities Project Report No. 1. Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra, Australia

  • Groves RM (1989) Survey errors and survey costs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijmans A (2001) Vulnerability: a matter of perception. In: International conference on vulnerability in disaster theory and practice. London, UK, pp 24–34

  • Hopkins WG (2000) Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sport Med 30(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (1998) The political science of risk perception. Reliability Eng Syst Saf 59:91–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston D, Paton D, Crawford GL, Ronan K, Houghton B, Burgelt P (2005) Measuring Tsunami preparedness in coastal Washington, United States. Nat Hazards 35:173–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson R (2005) Human vulnerability to global environmental change: the state of research. Presentation at the fifth annual IIASA-DPRI forum integrated disaster risk management, innovations in science and policy, September 2005, Beijing, pp 14–18

  • Kates RW (1971) Natural hazard in human ecological perspective: hypotheses and models. Econ Geogr 47:438–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King D, MacGregor C (2000) Using social indicators to measure community vulnerability to natural hazards. Aust J Emerg Manage 15(3):52–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavell A (1996) Degradación Ambiental, Riesgo y Desastre Urbano. Problemas y Conceptos: Hacia la Definición de una Agenda de Investigación. In: Fernandez MA (ed) Ciudades en Riesgo. USAID, La Red, pp 12–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis J (1999) Development in disaster-prone places: studies of vulnerability. Intermediate Technology Publications, London

  • 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, Norwich

  • Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.albatrosedizioni.it/arcadiscienza/documenti.pdf/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf

  • Moldoveanu CL, Panza GF, Cioflan CO, Radulian M, Mărmureanu G (2003) A new seismic microzonation of Bucharest. Studii şi Cercetări de Geofizică 41:65–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngo EB (2001) When disasters and age collide: reviewing vulnerability of the elderly. Nat Hazards 2(2):80–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oncescu MC, Marza VI, Rizescu M, Popa M (1999) The Romanian earthquake catalogue between 984–1997. In: Wenzel F, Lungu D, Novak O (eds) Vrancea earthquakes: tectonics, hazard and risk mitigation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 43–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelling M (2003) The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan Publications, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Burns WJ, Kasperson JX (1992) The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical observations. J Soc Issues 48:137–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrmann B (1995) Risk perception research: review and documentation, programme group men, environment, technology. KFA Research Centre, Julich, Germany

  • Sjöberg L (1979) Strength of belief and risk. Policy Sci 11:39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1987) Risk and society. Studies in risk taking and risk generation. Allen & Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1994) Perceived risk vs. demand for risk reduction (Rhizikon: Risk Research Report No. 18). Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm

  • Sjöberg L (1996) A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiat Prot Dosim 68:219–225

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman L, Jordan B (1990). Interactional troubles in face-to-face interviews. J Am Stat Assoc 85:232–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone LL (1928) Attitudes can be measured. Am J Sociol 33:529–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, Luers A, Martello ML, Polsky C, Pulsipher A, Schiller A (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8074–8079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2005) Hyogo framework for action 2005–2015: building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. World Conference on Disaster Reduction, 18–22 January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo. Available at http://www.unisdr.org/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-for-action-english.pdf

  • Van Ginkel H (2005) Introduction speech regarding the expert workshop “Measuring Vulnerability”, 23–24 January, Kobe, in UNU-EHS Working Paper (1), UNU-EHS, Bonn

  • White GF (ed) (1974) Natural hazards. Local, national, global. Oxford University Press, New York

  • White P, Pelling M, Sen K, Seddon D, Russell S, Few R (2005) Disaster risk reduction. A development concern. DFID

  • Young E (1998) Dealing with hazards and disasters: risk perception and community participation in management. Aust J Emerg Manage 13(2):14–16

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, 70111, Romania

    Iuliana Armaş

Authors
  1. Iuliana Armaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iuliana Armaş.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Armaş, I. Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Nat Hazards 47, 397–410 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9229-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9229-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation