IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v106y2021i1d10.1007_s11069-020-04494-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk perception in Unión Juárez, Chiapas, Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Ana B. Ponce-Pacheco

    (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Col. Ciudad Universitaria)

  • David A. Novelo-Casanova

    (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Col. Ciudad Universitaria)

  • Ivonne N. Agustin-Ortíz

    (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Col. Ciudad Universitaria)

  • Ana B. Garduño-González

    (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Col. Ciudad Universitaria)

Abstract

The proximity to the Tacaná volcano, to the subduction zone between the Cocos and North America plates, to the Mexican coast, and to the active geologic Polochic-Motagua fault makes the population of Union Juarez (UJ), Chiapas, Mexico, exposed to many natural hazards including hurricanes, earthquakes, landslides, and volcanic eruptions. We assessed the risk perception of UJ, and our findings indicate that the community has moderate level of risk perception according to the scale of the National Center for Disaster Prevention of Mexico. The UJ’s risk perception is mainly dependent on gender and religion because females unlike males in case of disasters and emergencies: (1) believe that it is necessary to improve their preparedness; (2) trust the local civil protection authorities; (3) would know how to respond; (4) would follow the established protocols; and (5) would not relocate. On the other hand, non-religious people know better the protocols to follow in the event of disasters than the religious population. Besides, the community of UJ reasonably perceives earthquakes and extreme rains as the main hazards that they are exposed to, while volcanic hazards are considered less important although the town is located very close to the Tacaná volcano that has been active during the last 30 years. The local population lacks of proper knowledge and resources to develop adequate disaster mitigation plans. Surprisingly, the work of the local civil protection is considered poor. Our results can be used for local authorities as a tool to strength the disaster prevention actions in UJ.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana B. Ponce-Pacheco & David A. Novelo-Casanova & Ivonne N. Agustin-Ortíz & Ana B. Garduño-González, 2021. "Risk perception in Unión Juárez, Chiapas, Mexico," 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. 106(1), pages 855-879, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:106:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04494-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-020-04494-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-020-04494-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-020-04494-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    2. Ming‐Chou Ho & Daigee Shaw & Shuyeu Lin & Yao‐Chu Chiu, 2008. "How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 635-643, June.
    3. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    4. Messner, Frank & Meyer, Volker, 2005. "Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception - challenges for flood damage research," UFZ Discussion Papers 13/2005, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    5. David French & Stephen Sutton & Ann Louise Kinmonth & Theresa Marteau, 2006. "Assessing Perceptions of Risks due to Multiple Hazards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 657-682.
    6. Gene Rowe & George Wright, 2001. "Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 341-356, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    3. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.
    5. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Tijs Neutens & Wouter Vanneuville & Philippe De Maeyer, 2011. "An Analysis of the Public Perception of Flood Risk on the Belgian Coast," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(7), pages 1055-1068, July.
    6. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    7. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    8. Reeko Watanabe & Tsunemi Watanabe & Kyohei Wakui, 2021. "Acceptance of Main Power Generation Sources among Japan’s Undergraduate Students: The Roles of Knowledge, Experience, Trust, and Perceived Risk and Benefit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-22, November.
    9. Anamaria Bukvic, 2015. "Integrated framework for the Relocation Potential Assessment of Coastal Communities (RPACC): application to Hurricane Sandy-affected areas," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 264-278, June.
    10. Cees J. H. Midden & Nicole M. A. Huijts, 2009. "The Role of Trust in the Affective Evaluation of Novel Risks: The Case of CO2 Storage," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 743-751, May.
    11. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    12. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    13. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    14. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    15. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    16. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    17. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    18. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    19. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.
    20. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.

    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:spr:nathaz:v:106:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11069-020-04494-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.