IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9380-d877075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Objective and Perceived Risk in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at an Urban Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Eliana Fischer

    (Department of Physics and Astronomy “Ettore Majorana”, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 64, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Alessio Emanuele Biondo

    (Department of Economics and Business, University of Catania, Corso Italia, 55, 95129 Catania, Italy)

  • Annalisa Greco

    (Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 64, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Francesco Martinico

    (Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 98, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Alessandro Pluchino

    (Department of Physics and Astronomy “Ettore Majorana”, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 64, 95123 Catania, Italy
    INFN Sezione di Catania, Via Santa Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy)

  • Andrea Rapisarda

    (Department of Physics and Astronomy “Ettore Majorana”, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 64, 95123 Catania, Italy
    INFN Sezione di Catania, Via Santa Sofia 64, 95123 Catania, Italy
    Complexity Science Hub, 1080 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

The assessment of seismic risk in urban areas with high seismicity is certainly one of the most important problems that territorial managers have to face. A reliable evaluation of this risk is the basis for the design of both specific seismic improvement interventions and emergency management plans. Inappropriate seismic risk assessments may provide misleading results and induce bad decisions with relevant economic and social impacts. The seismic risk in urban areas is mainly linked to three factors, namely, “hazard”, “exposure” and “vulnerability”. Hazard measures the potential of an earthquake to produce harm; exposure evaluates the size of the population exposed to harm; and vulnerability represents the proneness of considered buildings to suffer damages in case of an earthquake. Estimates of such factors may not always coincide with the perceived risk of the resident population. The propensity to implement structural seismic improvement interventions aimed at reducing the vulnerability of buildings depends significantly on the perceived risk. This paper investigates the difference between objective and perceived risk and highlights some critical issues. The aim of the study is to calibrate opportune policies, which allow addressing the most appropriate seismic risk mitigation options with reference to current levels of perceived risk. We propose the introduction of a Seismic Policy Prevention index (SPPi). This methodology is applied to a case-study focused on a densely populated district of the city of Catania (Italy).

Suggested Citation

  • Eliana Fischer & Alessio Emanuele Biondo & Annalisa Greco & Francesco Martinico & Alessandro Pluchino & Andrea Rapisarda, 2022. "Objective and Perceived Risk in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at an Urban Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-24, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9380-:d:877075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9380/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9380/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lovreglio, Ruggiero & Fonzone, Achille & dell’Olio, Luigi, 2016. "A mixed logit model for predicting exit choice during building evacuations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 59-75.
    2. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bard & Ann Fisher, 1999. "Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 461-471, June.
    3. L. Gerardo F. Salazar & Tiago Miguel Ferreira, 2020. "Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historic Constructions in the Downtown of Mexico City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Tiago Miguel Ferreira & Hugo Rodrigues & Romeu Vicente, 2020. "Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Urban Centers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Sheila Jasanoff, 1993. "Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 123-129, April.
    6. Dowling, Grahame R & Staelin, Richard, 1994. "A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 119-134, June.
    7. Yeudy F. Vargas-Alzate & Nieves Lantada & Ramón González-Drigo & Luis G. Pujades, 2020. "Seismic Risk Assessment Using Stochastic Nonlinear Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, February.
    8. Michael K. Lindell & David J. Whitney, 2000. "Correlates of Household Seismic Hazard Adjustment Adoption," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 13-26, February.
    9. Iuliana Armaş, 2006. "Earthquake Risk Perception in Bucharest, Romania," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1223-1234, October.
    10. Savage, Ian, 1993. "An Empirical Investigation into the Effect of Psychological Perceptions on the Willingness-to-Pay to Reduce Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 75-90, January.
    11. Gordana Pavić & Marijana Hadzima-Nyarko & Borko Bulajić & Željka Jurković, 2020. "Development of Seismic Vulnerability and Exposure Models—A Case Study of Croatia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    12. Iuliana Armaş & Eugen Avram, 2008. "Patterns and trends in the perception of seismic risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 44(1), pages 147-161, January.
    13. Yongmei Zhai & Shenglong Chen & Qianwen Ouyang, 2019. "GIS-Based Seismic Hazard Prediction System for Urban Earthquake Disaster Prevention Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-12, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guoliang Shi & Zhansheng Liu & Dengzhou Xian & Rongtian Zhang, 2023. "Intelligent Assessment Method of Structural Reliability Driven by Carrying Capacity Sustainable Target: Taking Bearing Capacity as Criterion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-18, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Grazia Filomena & Bruno Pace & Massimo De Acetis & Antonio Aquino & Massimo Crescimbene & Marina Pace & Francesca Romana Alparone, 2023. "Play to Learn: A Game to Improve Seismic-Risk Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, March.
    2. Dingde Xu & Zhuolin Yong & Xin Deng & Yi Liu & Kai Huang & Wenfeng Zhou & Zhixing Ma, 2019. "Financial Preparation, Disaster Experience, and Disaster Risk Perception of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence From the Wenchuan and Lushan Earthquakes in China’s Sichuan Province," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Manqing Wu & Guochun Wu, 2020. "An Analysis of Rural Households’ Earthquake-Resistant Construction Behavior: Evidence from Pingliang and Yuxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Eliana Fischer & Giovanni Barreca & Annalisa Greco & Francesco Martinico & Alessandro Pluchino & Andrea Rapisarda, 2023. "Seismic risk assessment of a large metropolitan area by means of simulated earthquakes," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 118(1), pages 117-153, August.
    5. Dingde Xu & Chen Qing & Xin Deng & Zhuolin Yong & Wenfeng Zhou & Zhixing Ma, 2020. "Disaster Risk Perception, Sense of Pace, Evacuation Willingness, and Relocation Willingness of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, January.
    6. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    7. Ruud Zaalberg & Cees Midden & Anneloes Meijnders & Teddy McCalley, 2009. "Prevention, Adaptation, and Threat Denial: Flooding Experiences in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1759-1778, December.
    8. Daniela Ionescu & Claudia Iuliana Iacob & Eugen Avram & Iuliana Armaș, 2021. "Emotional distress related to hazards and earthquake risk perception," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(3), pages 2077-2094, December.
    9. Tim Harries, 2012. "The Anticipated Emotional Consequences of Adaptive Behaviour—Impacts on the Take-up of Household Flood-Protection Measures," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(3), pages 649-668, March.
    10. Xiaoming Lei & Limin Sun & Ye Xia & Tiantao He, 2020. "Vibration-Based Seismic Damage States Evaluation for Regional Concrete Beam Bridges Using Random Forest Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-18, June.
    11. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    12. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    13. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    14. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    15. Yadav, Manjit S. & de Valck, Kristine & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Hoffman, Donna L. & Spann, Martin, 2013. "Social Commerce: A Contingency Framework for Assessing Marketing Potential," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 311-323.
    16. Meents, S. & Verhagen, T. & Vlaar, P.W.L., 2011. "How sellers can stimulate purchasing in electronic marketplaces: Using information as a risk reduction signal," Serie Research Memoranda 0014, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    17. Dutta, Sujay & Pullig, Chris, 2011. "Effectiveness of corporate responses to brand crises: The role of crisis type and response strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 1281-1287.
    18. Muhammad Rizwan & Hamna Sultan & Sadia Parveen & Shumaila Nawaz & Samreen Sattar & Maryam Sana, 2013. "Determinants of Online Shopping and Moderating Role of Innovativeness and Perceived Risk," Asian Journal of Empirical Research, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 3(2), pages 142-159, February.
    19. Jae Young Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2020. "Perceived Environmental Threats and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Investigating the Role of Political Participation Using a South Korean Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Jesús J. Cambra‐Fierro & J. Alfredo Flores‐Hernández & Lourdes Pérez & Guadalupe Valera‐Blanes, 2020. "CSR and branding in emerging economies: The effect of incomes and education," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 2765-2776, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9380-:d:877075. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.