IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v26y2006i5p1223-1234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Earthquake Risk Perception in Bucharest, Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Iuliana Armaş

Abstract

The Municipality of Bucharest is one of the capitals with the highest seismic risk in the world. Bucharest is particularly vulnerable to seismic hazard due to: the high density of inhabitants, especially within the residential districts with blocks of flats; the old public utility fund; the out‐of‐date infrastructure; the numerous industrial parks that are undergoing a restructuring process, not to mention the inefficient organization of civil protection and poor education of the population regarding seismic risk. This research was designed to examine the attitudes and perceptions of people living with the risk of an earthquake hazard in Bucharest. We were interested in how attitudes and perceptions differ depending on gender, age, education, residential area and socioeconomic status, characteristics of seismic hazard, degree of risk exposure, degree of danger, and casualty awareness. At the same time, we compare the results of this study with those from a previous and similar enquiry in 1997. The statistical processing has indicated a significant difference between the declared perception of seismic risk and the independent variables of gender, age, level of education, level of attachment to the residential area, and degree to which the subjects consider they may be affected and could retrieve their losses. Due to the continuous decrease of their living standard, the most vulnerable is the aged population. The feelings toward the residential area is another factor of statistical significance for the population's seismic danger perception. A strong affective bond offers a feeling of safety and leads to the neglect and even total denial of the hazard. In the case of independent variables regarding the type of dwelling, its age, and property form, deviations of empiric values from the theoretical distribution are not relevant for the correlation searched for, which indicates that this issue goes beyond the above‐mentioned criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Iuliana Armaş, 2006. "Earthquake Risk Perception in Bucharest, Romania," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1223-1234, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:5:p:1223-1234
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00810.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00810.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00810.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George O. Rogers, 1997. "The Dynamics of Risk Perception: How Does Perceived Risk Respond to Risk Events?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 745-757, December.
    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. D. Johnston & D. Paton & G. Crawford & K. Ronan & B. Houghton & P. Bürgelt, 2005. "Measuring Tsunami Preparedness in Coastal Washington, United States," 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. 35(1), pages 173-184, May.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Veysel Yilmaz & Pınar Guleç & Erkan Ari, 2023. "Impact of climate change information of university students in Turkey on responsibility and environmental behavior through awareness and perceived risk," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 7281-7297, July.
    4. Jae-Eun Lee & Seol-A Kwon, 2021. "A Study on the Public’s Crisis Management Efficacy and Anxiety in a Pandemic Situation—Focusing on the COVID-19 Pandemic in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    6. Blanco, Esther & Baier, Alexandra & Holzmeister, Felix & Jaber-Lopez, Tarek & Struwe, Natalie, 2022. "Substitution of social sustainability concerns under the Covid-19 pandemic," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    7. Ascaryan Rafinda & Timea Gal, 2022. "Covid-19 Pandemic And Its Impact On Household Financial Behavior In Indonesia," Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 7(special), pages 77-85, June.
    8. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan & Bigano, Andrea, 2018. "Policy- v. individual heterogeneity in the benefits of climate change mitigation: Evidence from a stated-preference survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 565-575.
    9. Zahra Asgarizadeh & Robert Gifford, 2022. "Community and psychological barriers to tsunami preparation," 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. 112(2), pages 1321-1336, June.
    10. Maciej Kurowski & Nick Hedley & John Clague, 2011. "An assessment of educational tsunami evacuation map designs in Washington and Oregon," 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. 59(2), pages 1205-1223, November.
    11. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    12. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    13. Yeheng Pan & Yu Xie & Hepeng Jia & Xi Luo & Ruifen Zhang, 2022. "Lower Carbon, Stronger Nation: Exploring Sociopolitical Determinants for the Chinese Public’s Climate Attitudes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-13, December.
    14. Shay-Wei Choon & Hway-Boon Ong & Siow-Hooi Tan, 2019. "Does risk perception limit the climate change mitigation behaviors?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1891-1917, August.
    15. Sarah Hall & Jessica Pettersson & William Meservy & Ron Harris & Diannitta Agustinawati & Jennie Olson & Allayna McFarlane, 2017. "Awareness of tsunami natural warning signs and intended evacuation behaviors in Java, Indonesia," 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. 89(1), pages 473-496, October.
    16. Shihu Zhong & Jie Chen, 2019. "How Environmental Beliefs Affect Consumer Willingness to Pay for the Greenness Premium of Low-Carbon Agricultural Products in China: Theoretical Model and Survey-based Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, January.
    17. Victor Corral-Verdugo & Marc Yancy Lucas & César Tapia-Fonllem & Anais Ortiz-Valdez, 2020. "Situational factors driving climate change mitigation behaviors: the key role of pro-environmental family," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 7269-7285, December.
    18. Alexa Tanner & Ryan Reynolds, 2020. "The near-miss of a tsunami and an emergency evacuation: the post-exposure effects on future emergency preparedness and evacuation intentions," 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. 104(2), pages 1679-1693, November.
    19. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    20. John McClure & David Johnston & Liv Henrich & Taciano Milfont & Julia Becker, 2015. "When a hazard occurs where it is not expected: risk judgments about different regions after the Christchurch 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. 75(1), pages 635-652, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:26:y:2006:i:5:p:1223-1234. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.