Earthquake Risk Perception in Bucharest, Romania

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of inhabitants, especially within the residential districts with blocks of flats; the old public utility fund; the out-of-date infrastructure; the numerous industrial parks that are undergoing a restructuring process, not to mention the inefficient organization of civil protection and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.

Social vulnerability assessment using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SEVI model) and the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI model) – a case study for Bucharest, Romania

“…The paper builds on previous research (Armas , , 2006;Armas , and Avram, 2008;Armas , , 2008b; (Fekete, 2009) and the social attribute in particular (Gall, 2007). The general issues concerning the scales of analysis for vulnerability Turner et al, 2003;Fekete et al, 2010) and related indicators were discussed in detail in studies regarding river floods in Germany (Fekete, 2009;Fekete et al, 2010;Fekete, 2010) and alpine hazards (Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2011).…”

“…After the 1989 revolution the city's development froze, and only slight alterations were made to the city plan. In the new period, the population vulnerability is considered to originate from the indifference of the population to earthquake risks, local tensions, poor living conditions in terms of the external appearance of buildings and building management, poor management of the communal or public areas by the city's administration, development of segregation once the barriers of communist doctrine became loose, and an increase in number of people that required social assistance (Armas , , 2006(Armas , , , 2008bMionel, 2011). The vulnerability resulted as a combination of rapid changes and a slow adaptation of the population to the socio-economic transformations, population used to respond to a centralized system of coordination and leadership.…”

The Insurance Market of Natural Hazards for Residential Properties in Italy

“…It influences people to take proper actions when dealing with natural hazards, including their decision in respect of buying insurance coverage. For instance, people who perceive a risk as "high" where they live are more likely to take suitable countermeasures, adapt strategies and sustain proper institution actions even if this requires new efforts [33] [34].…”

Maximum macroseismic intensity map of Greece for the time period 1953–2011

“…This evaluation is based on the observed damages -effects in a limited area (Grünthal, 1998). The knowledge of macroseismic intensities and the visualization of their spatial distribution are of great importance for earthquake hazard analysis and seismic risk studies (Armas, 2006;Godermatz et al, 2003;Simeonova et al, 2006). To evaluate the occurrence of large earthquakes and associated seismic risk, appropriate maps have been published for several countries across the world.…”