The seismic risk perception in Italy compared to some hazard, exposure and vulnerability indicators

In the last years, social studies have provided evidence that risk communication is strongly influenced by the public perception of risk. Risk perception is a fundamental element in the definition and the adoption of preventive counter-measures. In order to develop effective information and risk communication strategies, the perception of risks and the influencing factors should be known. Social Sciences still lack a theory for understanding and explaining risk perception; thus risk perception can be analysed only by considering several perspectives: social, psychological, cultural, and their interactions. In 2013 we designed the first online version of the Seismic Risk Perception Questionnaire (SRP-Q) to survey seismic risk by combining the psychometric approach and the Cultural Theory. The SRP-Q is designed by semantic differential method, using opposite terms on a 7-points Likert scale. The questionnaire has been updated in 2014, and it allows obtaining the scores of the main risk indicators: Hazard, Exposure, and Vulnerability, but it also considers some others indicators, such as People and Community and Earthquake Phenomenon. Thus it is possible to compare the seismic risk perception indicators with factual indicators given by seismologists, engineers, and economists. In this paper we present the first results of the Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) survey on seismic risk perception in Italy, conducted by INGV researchers with funding from the National Civil Protection Department (DPC) project. At the beginning of 2015 the CATI survey has been given to more than 35,000 people, to obtain a statistical sample of 4,012 answers. Our results show that risk perception in Italy is generally underestimated for all the components, in particular Vulnerability scores are extremely low. The comparison between perception data and factual risk indicators helped us to design seismic risk reduction communication activities.UnpublishedLisbon3T. Pericolosità sismica e contributo alla definizione del rischiorestricte