Seismic Risk Perception and Seismic Adjustments in Vaslui City, Romania

Natural multi-hazard risk perception and educational insights among Geography and Tourism students and graduates amid the Covid-19 pandemic

“…[ 142 ] show that students who have participated in hazard-related education programs are more likely to implement household preparedness measures and to be knowledgeable about safe behaviours. This is also supported by the findings concerning the enhanced knowledge about earthquakes of the people who participated in organized evacuation exercises, and the better survival skills of the people who were provided with official information about earthquakes [ 42 ]. Thus, educating the population about the manifestation of natural hazards and about the preventive measures that ensure safety and minimise damage is a prerequisite of the safety culture, and it is needed at all levels of education.…”

“…The preparedness for crisis situations associated with natural hazards is influenced by multiple socio-economic and cultural factors [ [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] ], as well as by the previous experience of such events [ [45] , [46] , [47] ]. Risk perception is vital for adequate preparedness [ 46 , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] ], but there is also a risk perception paradox: people who have a high risk perception may choose not to prepare for natural hazards [ 52 ], due to various reasons.…”

Motivators and impediments to seismic retrofit implementation for wood-frame soft-story buildings: A case study in California

“… (1) Rabinovici (2012); (2) Nguyen (2020); (3) Egbelakin and Wilkinson (2008); (4) Egbelakin et al (2014); (5) Egbelakin et al (2017); (6) Kashani et al (2019); (7) Taylen (2015); (8) Albulescu et al (2021). The “x” means that the factor is identified to influence decisions for seismic retrofit. …”

“…Taylen (2015) assessed the dependency between retrofit adoption and owner’s beliefs and socioeconomic status using the binary logistic regression analysis and path analysis. Albulescu et al (2021) evaluated the correlation between retrofit implementation and owner’s attitudes and experience with hazard preparedness, mitigation, and recovery using the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and the Mann–Whitney U test. Inspired by those studies, this article develops predictive models for retrofit probability, accounting for economic, social, regulatory, and individual factors.…”

“… (1) Rabinovici (2012); (2) Nguyen (2020); (3) Egbelakin and Wilkinson (2008); (4) Egbelakin et al (2014); (5) Egbelakin et al (2017); (6) Kashani et al (2019); (7) Taylen (2015); (8) Albulescu et al (2021). The “x” means that the factor is identified to influence decisions for seismic retrofit. a Financial incentive options include grants, property tax rebates, fee waivers, low interest rate loans, tax deductibility, subsidies, and tax credits. b Perceived responsibility includes the perceived responsibility of federal and local governments, agencies or organizations, and homeowners. c Observable benefits include improved life and property safety, loss reduction, quick business recovery, and societal loss reduction. d Intangible benefits include reducing worries, avoiding potential guilt or regret in the future, fulfilling a moral duty, and maintaining consistency of ownership. e Ownership types include individual, joint ownership (two or three family members named as co-owners), trust, partnership (a formal corporate entity or investment partnership), university-related institutional (e.g.…”