Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania

Risk Analysis

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 1223-1234

  Armaş, Iuliana ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BUCHAREST   (Romania)

Author keywords

Bucharest; Disaster vulnerability; Earthquake hazard; Risk perceptions

Indexed keywords

DISASTER VULNERABILITY; EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS; SEISMIC HAZARDS; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS;

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; EARTHQUAKES; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; EDUCATION; SEISMIC PROSPECTING;

RISK PERCEPTION;

EARTHQUAKE; NATURAL HAZARD; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RISK PERCEPTION; VULNERABILITY;

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ACCIDENT; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EARTHQUAKE; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GENDER; HAZARD; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROMANIA; SAFETY; SOCIOECONOMICS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; DISASTERS; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NATURAL DISASTERS; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK; RISK-TAKING; ROMANIA; SAFETY;

BUCHAREST [ROMANIA]; EURASIA; EUROPE; ROMANIA; SOUTHERN EUROPE;

EID: 33750161560     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00810.x     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Alcántara-Ayala, I. (2002). Geomorphology, natural hazards, vulnerability and prevention of natural disasters in developing countries. Geomorphologie, 47, 107-124.
2. Alexander, D. (1993). Natural Disasters. New York: UCL Press and Chapman & Hall.
3. Arion, C., Vacareanu, R., & Lungu, D. (2004). WP10-application to Bucharest, RISK-UE. An Advanced Approach to Earthquake Risk Scenarios with Applications to Different European Towns. Available at ftp.brgm.fr/pub/Risk-UE.
4. Armaş, I., Damian, R., Sandric, I., & Osaci-Costache, G. (2003). Vulnerabilitatea Versanţilor Subcarpatici la Alunecǎri de Teren (Valea Prahovei), Bucharest, Romania: Fundaţiei România de Mâine.
5. Armaş, I., & Neacu, M. (2003). Atitudinea locuitorilor oraşului Bucureşti faţǎ de riscul seismic. An. Univ. Spiru Haret, seria geogr., 6, 115-123.
6. Bãlan, S., Cristesu, V., & Cornea, I. (1982). Cutremurul de Pãmânt din România de la 4 Martie 1977. Bucharest, Romania: Ed. Acad.
7. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters. London, UK: Routledge.
8. Bolin, R., & Stanford, L. (1991). Shelter, housing and recovery: A comparison of U.S. disasters. Disasters, 15(1), 24-34.
9. Bonjer, K. P., Grecu, B., Rizescu, M., Radulian, M., Sokolov, V., Mandrescu, M., Lungu, D., & Moldoveanu, T. (2003). Assessment of site effects in downtown Bucharest by recording of ambient noise, moderate and large intermediate depth earthquakes from Vrancea focal zone. Proceedings of International Conference on Earthquake Loss Estimation and Risk Reduction, Bucharest, Romania October 24-26, 2002.
10. Buckle, P. (2000). Assessing Resilience and Vulnerability in the context of Emergencies: Guidelines. Technical Report, Department of Human Services, Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
11. Constantinescu, L., & Enescu, D. (1884). A tentative approach to possibly explaining the occurrence of the Vrancea earthquakes. Rev Roum. GGG-Geophysique, 28, 19-32.
12. Constantinescu, L., & Enescu, D. (1985). Cutremurele din Vrancea în Cadrul Ştiintific şi Tehnologic. Bucharest, Romania: Ed. Academiei.
13. Cornea, I., & Lǎzǎrescu, V. (1980). Tectonica şi Evoluţia Geodinamicǎ a Teritoriului României. Bucharest, Romania: Centrul de fizica pǎmântului şi seismologie.
14. Cornea, I., & Radu, P. (Eds.) (1979). Seismological Studies on March 4, 1977 Earthquake Bucharest, Romania: ICEFIZ.
15. Davidson, R. (1997). An urban earthquake disaster risk index. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, CA, USA.
16. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
17. Dwyer, A., Zoppou, C., Nielsen, O., Day, S., & Roberts, S. (2004). Quantifying social vulnerability: A methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards. Geoscience Australia Racord 14.
18. EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. Available at http://www.cred.be/emdat. Universite Catholique de Louvain. Brussels, Belgium.
19. Enescu, D., & Enescu, B. D. (1996). Focal mechanism, global geophysical phenomena and Vrancea (Romania) earthquake prediction. A model for predicting these earthquakes. Rev. roum. Géophysique, 40, 11-31.
20. Federal Emergency Management Authority, (1999). HAZUS 99 Technical Manual. Technical Report, Federal Emergency Management Authority Agency (FEMA), U.S. Government, WA, USA.
21. Fellmann, J., Getis, A., & Getis, J. (1992). Human Geography. Landscapes of Human Activities, 3rd ed. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Publishers.
22. Ferrier, N. B. (2000). Creating a Safer City: A Comprehensive Risk Assessment for the City of Toronto. Technical Report, Toronto Emergency Medical Services, Toronto, Canada.
23. Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, P., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
24. Fordham, M. (2000). The place of gender in earthquake vulnerability and mitigation. In Second Euro Conference on Global Change and Catastrophic Risk Management - Earthquake Risks in Europe, Austria, Laxenburg, Austria.
25. Granger, K., & Hayne, M. (2001). Natural Hazards and the Risk They Pose to South-East Queensland. Technical Report, Geoscience Australia, Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
26. Granger, K., Jones, T., Leiba, M., & Scott, G. (1999). Community Risk in Cairns: A Provisional Multi Hazard Risk Assessment. AGSO Cities Project Report No. 1. Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Canberra, Australia.
27. Heijmans, A. (2001). Vulnerability: A matter of perception. In International Conference on Vulnerability in Disaster Theory and Practice (pp. 24-34). London, UK.
28. Hennessy, B. (1985). Public Opinion. Monterrey: Brooks Coole Publishing Company.
29. Jasanoff, S. (1998). The political science of risk perception. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59, 91-99.
30. Johnston, D., Paton, D., Crawford, G. L., Ronan, K., Houghton, B., & Burgelt, P. (2005). Measuring Tsunami preparedness in coastal Washington, United States. Natural Hazards, 35, 173-184.
31. Kates, R. W. (1971). Natural hazard in human ecological perspective: Hypotheses and models. Econ Geogr., 47, 438-451.
32. King, D., & MacGregor, C. (2000). Using social indicators to measure community vulnerability to natural hazards. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 15(3), 52-57.
33. Krimsky, S., & Golding, D. (Eds.). (1992). Social Theories of Risk. New York: Praeger.
34. Lungu, D., Arion, C., Baur, M., & Aldea, A. (2000). Vulnerability of existing building stock in Bucharest. 6ICSZ Sixth International Conference on Seismic Zonation (pp. 837-846). CA, USA, Nov. 12-15.
35. Lungu, D., Cornea, T., Craifaleanu, I., & Aldea, A. (1995). Seismic zonation of Romania based on uniform hazard response. Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Seismic Zonation, October 17-19, 1995, Nice, France.
36. Mândrescu, N., Radulian, M., & Mǎrmureanu, G. (2004). Site conditions and predominant period of seismic motion in the Bucharest urban area. Rev Roum. Géophysique, 48, 37-48.
37. Marans, R. W. (1987). Survey research. In R. B. Bechtel, R. W. Marans, & W. Michelson (Eds.), Methods in Environmental and Behavioural Research. Canada: Macmillan.
38. Moscovici, S. (1986). L'Ere des représentations sociales. In W. Doise & A. Palmonari (Eds.), L'Etude de Représentations Sociales. Paris, France: Delachaux and Niestlé, Neuchâtel.
39. Ngo, E. B. (2001). When disasters and age collide: Reviewing vulnerability of the elderly. Natural Hazards, 2(2), 80-89.
40. NOAA/NESDIS National Geophysical Data Center. Available at www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/earthqk.shtml.
41. O'Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19, 3.
42. Oncescu, M. C., Marza, V. I., Rizescu, M., & Popa, M. (1999). The Romanian earthquake catalogue between 984-1997. In F. Wenzel, D. Lungu (Eds.) & O. Novak (Co-Ed.), Vrancea Earthquakes: Tectonics, Hazard and Risk Mitigation (pp. 43-47). Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
43. Palm, R. (1990). Natural Hazards: An Integrative Framework for Research and Planning. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
44. Pelling, M. (2003). The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.
45. Rǎdulescu, F. (1988). Seismic models of the crustal structures in Romania. Rev. Roum. GGG-Geophysique, 32, 13-17.
46. Radulian, M., Vaccari, F., Mandrescu, N., Panza, G. F., & Moldoveanu, C. L. (2000). Seismic hazard of Romania: Deterministic approach. In G. F., Panza, M., Radulian, & C.-I. Trifu (Eds.), Seismic Hazard of the Circum-Pannonian Region, Pure appl. Geophys. 157, 221-247.
47. Rogers, G. O. (1997). The dynamics of risk perception: How does perceived risk respond to risk events? Risk Analysis 17, 745-752.
48. Rotaru, T., & Iluţ, P. (1997). Ancheta sociologicǎ şi sondajul de opinie. Teorie şi practicǎ. Iaşi, Romania: Polirom.
49. Saarinen, T. F. (1970). Environmental Perception. Washington, DC: NCSS.
50. Sandi, H. (1986). Vulnerability and risk analysis for individual structures and systems. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon.
51. Sandu, D. (1992). Statisticǎ în ştiinţele sociale. Bucharest, Romania: Univ. din Bucureşti, Facultatea de Sociologie, Psihologie şi Pedagogie.
52. Schumm, S. A. (1994). Erroneous perceptions of fluvial hazards. Geomorphology, 10, 129-138.
53. Slovic, P. (1962). Convergent validation of risk-taking measures. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 68-71.
54. Slovic, P. (1987). Perceptions of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
55. Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.
56. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. In H. Jungermann & G. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs (pp. 7-36), Dordrecht: Riedel.
57. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? (pp. 181-214). New York: Plenum Press.
58. Slovic, P., Kunreuther, H., & White, G. F. (1974). Decision processes, rationality and adjustment to natural hazards. In G. F. White (Ed.), Natural Hazards, Local, National, Global (pp. 187-205). New York: Oxford University Press.
59. Sorocovischi, V. (Ed.). (2002). Riscuri şi Carastrofe. Cluj-Napoca: Ed. Casa Cǎrţii de Ştiinţǎ.
60. Tazieff, H. (1966). Când Pǎmântul se Cutremurǎ. Bucharest, Romania: Ed. Ştiinţificǎ.
61. Twigg, J. (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility and Disaster Reduction: A Global Overview. Available at www.bghrg.com/ SSR7893%20conclusions%20&%20recommendations.pdf.
62. U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazard Program. Available at www.earthquake.usgs.gov.
63. Wenzel, F., Oncescu, M. C., Baur, M., Fiedrich, F., & Ionescu, C. (1999). Early warning system for Bucharest. Seismological Research Letters, 70, 2.
64. White, G. F. (Ed.). (1974). Natural Hazards. Local, National, Global. New York: Oxford University Press.
65. World Bank. Romania. Hazard Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project, E837V.1, November 2003. Available at http://www-wds.worldbank.org/ servlet /WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/12/23/000012009.20031223143033/Rendered/ PDF/E8370VOL1010PAPER.pdf.
66. Young, E. (1998). Dealing with hazards and disasters: Risk perception and community participation in management. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 13(2), 14-16.