Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: the historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania

Abstract

Social vulnerability is as much a part of risk as building damage, hazard magnitude, and economic loss. Social vulnerability refers to the capacity of a human community exposed during the impact of a natural hazard event (in this case, an earthquake) to resist, cope with, and recover from that impact. In the perspective of the 3rd millennium, we come to understand that the most efficient and accessible way to reduce the pressure of natural risks is to reduce the vulnerability level of the human communities exposed to that certain hazard. This study aims to test, in an exposed and vulnerable area, the relationship between social vulnerability and the perception of the seismic risk. The research focuses only on the first level of social vulnerability, defined as the ability of an individual within a household to recover from a natural hazard impact (Dwyer et al. 2004). A prevailing assumption was that social vulnerability influences the level of perception of the seismic risk, in an exposed, vulnerable area. To this end, two samples were used, different under the aspect of social vulnerability, in the context of the same residential area. Social vulnerability was computed as a normalized composed index that includes the poverty ratio and the demographic vulnerability ratio (depending on the age, gender, and education level indicators). The statistical processing has indicated a significant difference in the high perception level for the two samples that were compared, in the sense that in the context of an increased level of social vulnerability, people generally better acknowledge the seismic risk.

The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: re-evaluating the international literature

“…In locations as diverse as the US, Turkey, Romania, Japan and Morocco, females and minority groups perceive themselves to be more at risk of being affected by earthquakes than men and majority groups, respectively (Armas, 2008;Armas and Avram, 2008;Dooley et al, 1992;Karanci and Aksit, 1999;Kohiyama et al, 2008;Lai and Tao, 2003;Lindell and Prater, 2000;Mulilis, 1999;Palm, 1998;Paradise, 2006;Spittal et al, 2008;Turner et al, 1986). This confirms predictions made by cultural cognition and system justification theory.…”

Earthquake awareness and perception of risk among the residents of Istanbul

“…Factors associated with the perception of various risks include area of residence or actual hazard risk level (Davis et al 2005;Fişek et al 2003;Lindell and Prater 2000), personal experience of a hazard (Davis et al 2005;Lin et al 2008;Lindell and Prater 2000;Weinstein 1989) or post-traumatic stress symptoms (Davis et al 2005;Fişek et al 2003;Lindell and Prater 2000), characteristics of a hazard or its impact Lindell 1994;Paton et al 2001) and gender (Armaş 2008). Mileti and Fitzpatrick (1992) stated that risk communication factors such as salience and the style and frequency of messages are also important factors in the perception of risk.…”

Social vulnerability assessment of natural hazards on county-scale using high spatial resolution satellite imagery: a case study in the Luogang district of Guangzhou, South China

“…Some pioneering investigations have been done in different countries on different types of hazards, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tropical cyclones, volcanic eruptions, coastal hazards, and landslide, etc. (Dibben and Chester 1999;Dixon and Fitzsimons 2001;Armas 2008;Marfai and King 2008;Uzielli et al 2008). Most of them concentrated on the physical vulnerability, but few of them on social vulnerability.…”