Objective and Perceived Risk in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at an Urban Scale

Eliana Fischer, Alessio Emanuele Biondo, Annalisa Greco, Francesco Martinico, Alessandro Pluchino and Andrea Rapisarda
Additional contact information
Eliana Fischer: Department of Physics and Astronomy “Ettore Majorana”, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 64, 95123 Catania, Italy
Alessio Emanuele Biondo: Department of Economics and Business, University of Catania, Corso Italia, 55, 95129 Catania, Italy
Annalisa Greco: Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 64, 95123 Catania, Italy
Francesco Martinico: Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 98, 95123 Catania, Italy
Alessandro Pluchino: Department of Physics and Astronomy “Ettore Majorana”, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 64, 95123 Catania, Italy
Andrea Rapisarda: Department of Physics and Astronomy “Ettore Majorana”, University of Catania, Via Santa Sofia, 64, 95123 Catania, Italy

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 15, 1-24

Abstract: The assessment of seismic risk in urban areas with high seismicity is certainly one of the most important problems that territorial managers have to face. A reliable evaluation of this risk is the basis for the design of both specific seismic improvement interventions and emergency management plans. Inappropriate seismic risk assessments may provide misleading results and induce bad decisions with relevant economic and social impacts. The seismic risk in urban areas is mainly linked to three factors, namely, “hazard”, “exposure” and “vulnerability”. Hazard measures the potential of an earthquake to produce harm; exposure evaluates the size of the population exposed to harm; and vulnerability represents the proneness of considered buildings to suffer damages in case of an earthquake. Estimates of such factors may not always coincide with the perceived risk of the resident population. The propensity to implement structural seismic improvement interventions aimed at reducing the vulnerability of buildings depends significantly on the perceived risk. This paper investigates the difference between objective and perceived risk and highlights some critical issues. The aim of the study is to calibrate opportune policies, which allow addressing the most appropriate seismic risk mitigation options with reference to current levels of perceived risk. We propose the introduction of a Seismic Policy Prevention index (SPPi). This methodology is applied to a case-study focused on a densely populated district of the city of Catania (Italy).

Keywords: seismic vulnerability; urban areas; objective risk; perceived risk (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9380/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9380/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9380-:d:877075

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().