Geo-hydrological risk perception: A case study in Calabria (Southern Italy)

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdrr

Geo-hydrological risk perception: A case study in Calabria (Southern Italy) a,⁎

a

b

Loredana Antronico , Roberto Coscarelli , Francesco De Pascale , Francesco Muto a b c

MARK

c

Research Institute for Geo-Hydrological Protection, National Research Council, Rende, CS, Italy Department of Languages and Educational Sciences, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende, CS, Italy Department of Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Calabria, Arcavacata di Rende, CS, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Perception Natural risks Awareness Communication Resilience Calabria (Italy)

Risk perception is a cognitive process whose aim is to guide people's behaviour in ordinary activities to reduce the impact of extreme events. In fact, the analysis of risk perception can be considered as a part of risk reduction strategies and adaptation measures. In this paper, the perception of the geo-hydrological risk by the population living or working in a stretch of the Tyrrhenian coast of Calabria (Southern Italy) is analysed. The study area has recently been affected by debris flow events, with damages to private and public facilities, as well as infrastructures. In particular, the study, based on a questionnaire survey, considers: i) general knowledge and personal experience of geo-hydrological phenomena; ii) awareness of risk exposure; iii) information and preparedness to geo-hydrological risks of the territory; iv) levels of safety. The results reveal that population consider the anthropic actions as a relevant cause of geo-hydrological phenomena. Moreover, the citizens of the study area, although showing a high civic sense, did not positively assess the actions of the local authorities, both in terms of territory management and people's education and/or information.

1. Introduction and background At a global scale, there is no country that is immune from natural events; in particular, these events become disasters when they have serious impacts on the population both in terms of human and economic losses and contribute to worsen the quality of life. Great effort has been made by the scientific community to assess the causes and effects of these events on the environment and population, and the authorities have invested considerable financial resources to cope with and/or minimize the negative impacts of extreme physical phenomena. Nevertheless, both population growth and unsustainable economic rise have caused population expansion in areas at high risk. However, this increased risk has not been matched by an increase in risk perception by communities [1,2]. Risk perception can be considered as a cognitive process capable of guiding people's behaviour in ordinary activities with the aim of reducing the impact of uncertain events [3]. Pidgeon et al. [4] define risk perception as "people's beliefs, attitudes, judgments and feelings, as well as the broader social or cultural values that people adopt against the risks, and their benefits”. Risk perception cannot be assessed uniquely and objectively, because it depends on the individual judgment and the specific risk for which it is estimated [5–7]. Many aspects (social, psychological, cultural), often correlated with each other, can influence the perception assessment [8,9]. Two general approaches

⁎

have been proposed by scientists to investigate risk perception. The first [10–12] derives from a sociological and socio-anthropological point of view. The second approach [13,14], based on a psychometric model, was developed in the areas of psychology and decision-making. Referring only to the European territory, there is a large number of studies on the different aspects of knowledge, perception and preparedness to natural hazards and the role of authorities in terms of risk communication and reduction. These surveys, applied at different spatial scales (local, regional and national), are based on questionnaires that use face-to-face surveys or telephone interviews. In fact, the questionnaire is universally recognized as the most suitable tool for collecting, analysing and interpreting social data for specific topics, regardless of the selected delivery mode [15,16]. Wachinger et al. [17], through a systematic review of the European studies published after 2000, analyse the factors that determine the perception of individual risk in relation to natural hazards. Another recent review [18] examines the factors that determine the level of perception of flood risk and the role of individual and public involvement in reducing flood risk in the central and eastern EU States. As for the perception of landslide and flood risk for European citizens, the main findings of recent studies concerned: i) the role of risk perception in catastrophe preparedness and the choice of individual action to face the events [19]; ii) the feeling of safety and trust between residents and structures and institutions responsible for managing geo-hydrological risk, and how

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Antronico), [email protected] (R. Coscarelli), [email protected] (F. De Pascale), [email protected] (F. Muto).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.022 Received 9 June 2017; Received in revised form 12 September 2017; Accepted 12 September 2017 Available online 14 September 2017 2212-4209/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

Fig. 1. a) Municipalities included in the survey. b) Digital terrain model of the study area with the locations of the shallow landslides triggered by the 2009–2011 rainfall events. Legend: 1) 2011 shallow landslide and mappable debris flow; 2) 2010 shallow landslide and mappable debris flow; 3) 2009 shallow landslide and mappable debris flow; 4) alluvial fans activated during the 2009–2011 period; 5) alluvial fans not affected by depositional events; 6) buildings in 2008; 7) roads; 8) railway; 9) contour line (25-m interval); 10) drainage network. From Antronico et al. [27].

private and public facilities, and infrastructures. The area, in fact, in spite of recording numerous alluvial fans, has experienced extensive urban development over the past 50 years [27].

residents evaluate the various types of risk reduction measures [20]; iii) to what extent personal experience, locations, age influence risk awareness and how perceptions differ between experts and non-experts [21,22]; iv) temporal and spatial variations of risk perception at a national scale [23]. The analysis of risk perception can improve communication among citizens, experts and decision-makers [14] and can be considered as part of risk reduction strategies and adaptation measures [24]. Therefore, improved communication, awareness of the complexity of the risk and achievement of an adequate level of people's preparedness would contribute to enhancing the resilience of a territory, i.e. the ability to use system resources in response to the event, both in the pre-event and in the post-event phases. In fact, while vulnerability, temporally placed before the disaster occurrence [25], takes into account anything that is exposed to the possibility of being hit or damaged, resilience has a transversal position, from a temporal point of view, throughout the whole phase of risk management [26]. This paper analyses the perception of the geo-hydrological risk of the population living or working in a stretch of the Tyrrhenian coast of Calabria (Southern Italy). In this work, as geo-hydrological risk we intend the risk due to landslides and floods. The local perception analysis of geo-hydrological risk, assessed by means of the application of a methodology based on face-to-face interviews, represents a novelty for Calabria. In particular, the goals of this survey are to analyse: i) general knowledge and personal experience of geo-hydrological phenomena; ii) awareness of risk exposure; iii) information and preparedness to the geo-hydrological risk of the territory; iv) level of safety. The study area was chosen because, between 2009–2011, it had been affected by debris flows and hyperconcentrated flows, resulting in damage to

2. Materials and methods 2.1. The study area The research has been carried out in the municipalities of Tropea, Parghelia and Zambrone (Vibo Valentia Province) with a total population of about 10,000 inhabitants (2011 Italian Census) and a total area of about 28 km2. The selected municipalities are located along the Tyrrhenian coast of Calabria (Southern Italy) where a set of alluvial fans developed on the narrow coastal plain (Fig. 1a). From a geological point of view, the study area is characterized by the outcropping of granitoid rocks of the Palaeozoic basement, covered by discontinuous remnants of Miocene transgressive arenaceous deposits [28]. Both on the Palaeozoic basement and on Miocene sediments, Pleistocene marine terrace deposits crop out. Intense weathering processes, increasing progressively towards the top of the slopes, affect the granitoid rocks outcropping in the area. The morphology of the study area, conditioned by Quaternary tectonic uplift [29] and cyclic sea-level changes, consists of a series of narrow elongated marine terraces, which extend parallel to the coastline. Narrow and deep canyons, linked to fault systems that crossed the outcropping rocks, dissect the steep slopes. At the mouths of the canyons a set of alluvial fans extends on the narrow coastal plain. These fans consist of debris-flow deposits, therefore they are to be linked with phases of increase in the landsliding activity within their feeder basin. In fact, the slopes are characterized 302

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

Fig. 2. Examples of the debris flow damage caused by the 2009–2011 events. a, b, c) Damages to hotels built on the alluvial fans. The red arrow indicates the maximum level reached by the flow during the event; d) Provincial road SP 20 obstructed by the debris flow. Photo c from PSC (Piano Strutturale Comunale), Municipality of Parghelia [37].

Volcano (Aeolian Islands). For this reason, in December 2002 an eruption of the mentioned volcano triggered a landslide that caused a tsunami, whose waves slowly reached even the coasts of northern Sicily and southern Calabria [34], including the study area. As reported in Antronico et al. [27], notwithstanding the population of three main municipalities of the study area decreased from 1951 to 2011, the study area shows an increase in the building surface from 1955 to 2008, equal to approximately 1 km2. In addition to the increase in private buildings often used only seasonally, started in the mid ‘50 s, between 1980 and 1990, following an increase in tourist demand, many hotels, amusement parks, bathing establishments and related infrastructures were built on or near the alluvial fans along the coast, without considering that those areas were prone to debris flows and inundations. As happened in many other southern regions of Italy [35,36], during this intense urban development the study area has witnessed a real urban planning and building disorder which, in some cases, has led i) the construction without following the urban planning regulations and with obvious violations of the zoning plan and ii) the consequent urban expansion also in areas exposed to debris flows and inundations. In January 2009, October 2010 and March 2011, rainfall events caused many shallow landslides and debris flows along the narrow and deep canyons dissecting the study area, producing serious damages on the coastal area of the municipalities of Tropea, Parghelia and Zambrone [27], Fig. 1b. Debris flows inundated most of the alluvial fans present at the mouth of the canyons emerging on the coastal plain, and consequently the buildings located on the fans were partly buried and damaged. In particular, the detrital material invaded the lower floors, the gardens and parking areas of many hotels and resorts built near the apical and/or the distal area of the fans (Fig. 2a, b, c). Furthermore, the extremely high sediment load into the streams

by high slope instability: rock falls and topples involved the Miocene arenaceous deposits while shallow slide-flows involved the slopes, where weathered and fractured granitoid rocks crop out. Based on acquired documentation on past debris flow and flood events, Antronico et al. [27] found that the alluvial fans present along the coastal plain of the study area can be considered inactive from 1955 to 2008. The relatively long period of absence of hazardous events on fans in the recent past has led to the intense urbanization of the area, without taking into account the presence of alluvial fans. Nevertheless, this stretch of Calabria's coastline is famous for its natural beauty and, consequently, it is home of several tourist facilities. Because of its geographic position and mountainous nature, the Calabria region, where the study area is located, is characterized by a highly variable climate, known as Mediterranean climate, with typically dry subtropical summers. In particular, the study area is currently interested by air currents coming from West and often by high-intensity orographic precipitation. The yearly amount of precipitation ranges within 300–600 mm [30], much lower than the average regional value (about 1100 mm), [27]. In the map of the seismic classification of Italian territory, the study area falls into the Zone 1, that is the most dangerous area, where major earthquakes may occur, [31]. Indeed, high-magnitude earthquakes have affected this area of southern Calabria; among these, the seismic sequence of 1783 and the earthquakes in 1905 and 1908 stand out. In particular, for the study area the 1905 earthquake resulted in a high level of destruction in the municipality of Parghelia [32,33]. Recently, in September 2016 an earthquake, with its epicentre in the area of Vibo Valentia, was distinctly perceived by the population of the study area, as resulted in the forced evacuation of offices and schools. Regarding the “tsunami” risk, the study area, located along the southern Tyrrhenian coast of Calabria, is not far from the Stromboli 303

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

work; iv) information on the geo-hydrological risk of the territory, as well as individual and community preparedness to cope with damaging events; v) the role of communication; vi) feeling of safety. For the survey, we chose a non-proportional quota sampling. Moreover, in this work both quantitative and qualitative analyses were employed so as to obtain a broader perception of the hydrogeological risk of the area. To this end, some thematic sheets and a travel journal of the interviewees have been collected and they have been an “active part” of the observation. In Autumn 2016 the questionnaire was submitted, for a period of about 30 days, to 300 people; 100 for each of the three municipalities considered, giving preference to people living in the areas and involved in the 2009–2011 events. The interviewer-researcher discovered that citizens displayed the need to be taken into account by local authorities also in terms of participation in the public life of their towns. Moreover, the choice of submitting the questionnaire under the form of an interview aimed at giving citizens greater awareness of the risk. It was not by chance that, at the end of the interview, showed interest and appreciation towards the work done. Moreover, since the study area is the location of several touristic structures – most of which were built on the alluvial fans – people working in these activities, but residing in different municipalities, were also included in the sample. Every interview lasted 15–20 min on average. Most of the respondents, though manifesting some mistrust for the interviewer at the beginning, were more collaborative and active in answering the questions at the end of the interview. Prior to it, each participant had received a communication explaining the scientific purposes of the questionnaire and that no respondent could have been identifiable through the publication of the results. All participants gave their voluntary and informed consensus before the interviews.

caused the obstruction of underpasses and tunnels, which resulted in overflow of the materials that inundated the road network (Fig. 2d). For the mentioned damages and for the several landslides that blocked the roads in several points, the transit was interrupted and some hamlets were isolated. On the occurrence of these events, although fortunately no victims were recorded, some safety measures were adopted by the Majors including the evacuation of more than 250 inhabitants and tourists. 2.2. Development and submission of the questionnaire This research was carried out through a structured questionnaire designed by taking into account previous analogous questionnaires focussing on public knowledge and perception of natural hazards [24,38]. The questionnaire was initially pre-tested on 20 people living in the study area, through face-to-face interviews. Generally, this pilot phase is useful for detecting: a) the suitability of the questionnaire to the task for which it has been designed; b) if the questions are comprehensible by the interviewees and c) the time needed for the interview [16,39,40]. In this case study, during the pilot investigation, we faced some problems as for the technical terminology included in some questions, such as "alluvial fan" and "debris flow". Considering that alluvial fans are areas of hazard, as regards debris flow and sheet flow inundation, we decided to replace the term "debris flow" with the more common term "landslide", to include the term “flood” and to delete the term “alluvial fan”, because it was completely unknown to the population investigated and difficult to explain to the layman. The final questionnaire consists of 58 questions with different response formats: close questions (yes/no, multiple-choice, five-point scale) and open-ended questions. The questions can be grouped in seven sections (Table 1). One section includes socio-demographic questions such as age, gender, educational level, occupation, household structures, social and personal networks and place of work/residence. The remaining six sections explore: i) the level of knowledge of geo-hydrological phenomena; ii) the involvement of respondents in past geohydrological events and their behaviour; iii) the perception of exposure to geo-hydrological risk on the territory where the interviewees live or

3. Results The aim of the questionnaire was to study a wide range of issues related to geo-hydrological risk, from memories of past geo-hydrological events to people's feelings towards the place where they live. The paper will focus only on some of these aspects and Table 2 shows the queries listed in the questionnaire and analysed in this survey.

Table 1 Detailed questionnaire structure. Section

Study objectives

Type of question

Knowledge

Level of knowledge of geo-hydrological phenomena Main triggering factors

Dichotomous questions, multiple choice questions

Experience

Historical memory of the past geo-hydrological events Experience in the recent events Personal loss and behaviour

Dichotomous questions, multiple choice questions

Awareness of exposure

Awareness of living in an area with high geo-hydrological risk Level of worry and probability of occurrence of possible effects

Scaled questions, multiple choice questions

Preparedness and information

Individual and community preparedness to cope with damaging events Information on public initiatives, geo-hydrological risk prevention and protection measures

Scaled questions, multiple choice questions, open-ended questions

Role of communication

Satisfaction degree about public communication by the local authorities

Multiple choice questions

Trust/Safety

Feeling of safety in case of emergency Possible protection actions against the hydro-geological risk by the local administrations

Scaled questions, multiple choice questions

Socio-demographic characteristics

Gender Age Educational level Occupation Place research location Place of work/residence Household structures Social and personal networks

Dichotomous questions, multiple choice questions, openended questions

304

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

Table 2 Queries of the questionnaire analysed in this paper. KNOWLEDGE OR AWARENESS OF GEO-HYDROLOGICAL PHENOMENA Q.1 Do you know what is a landslide?

- Yes/No

Q.2 Do you know what is a flood?

- Yes/No

Q.3 Your personal knowledge about landslide and floods derives from…..

-

Personal experience Experience from relatives or friends Personal initiative Organisations and/or associations initiative Other (specify……)

Q.4 In your opinion, landslides and floods are events ..[multiple responses allowed]

-

Foreseeable Unforeseeable Caused by a divine punishment Natural Caused by man

Q.5 In your opinion, what are the factors that mostly influence landslides and floods? [multiple responses allowed]

-

Climate change Territory natural characteristics Illegal building Territory management Abandonment of agriculture Absence of protection works Disinterested public administrations Low interest of citizens

EXPERIENCE OF GEO-HYDROLOGICAL PHENOMENA QQ.6 Do you know if a landslide occurred in the place where you live/work?

- Yes/No

Q.7 Do you know if a flood occurred in the place where you live/work?

- Yes/No

Q.8 In 2009, 2010, and 2011 in...[name of municipality]......occurred several debris flows and inundations. Were you (or your relatives) involved in these events?

- Yes/No - I don’t remember these events

Q.9 If you answered “yes” to the previous question, what type of damage have you suffered? [multiple responses allowed]

-

Q.10 Your behaviours during the events were……..[multiple responses allowed]

- I tried to get information about the situation through TV, social network, internet, radio, neighbours - I tried not to panic - I tried to help close people - I accepted it as an inevitable situation - I trusted in God - I remained indifferent

Physical injuries Damages to properties Damages to main roads Facility interruptions

AWARENESS OF THE EXPOSURE TO DAMAGING EVENTS AND/OR TO RISK Q.11 How much do you feel exposed to each of these events in… [name of municipality]?

-

earthquake flood landslide environmental pollution car accident tsunami volcanic eruption terrorist attacks

Q.12 Are you aware of living in a high seismic risk area?

- Yes/No - I don't know

Q.13 In your opinion, the probability that in the place where you live or work a geo-hydrological event occur is…

Five point scale

Q.14 If you imagine the occurrence of a geo-hydrological event (landslide, flood) how worried are you about the possible consequences in terms of……

-

Q.15 How do you assess the probability of damages to people and/or property in the case of a geo-hydrological events in ….. [name of municipality]?

Five point scale

physical injuries building damages damages at work psychological problems family stresses people stresses

(continued on next page)

305

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

Table 2 (continued) Q.16 If you estimate “high” the probability of damages to people and/or property in the case of a geo-hydrological events, can you explain why?

Open-ended questions

INFORMATION AND PREPAREDNESS TO GEO-HYDROLOGICAL RISK Q.17 Presently, how you rank your information level about geo-hydrological risk in the place where you live or work?

Five point scale

Q.18 What are your main information sources about the geo-hydrological risks? [multiple responses allowed]

-

Newspapers and magazines TV and radio public administrations Friends and family Internet and social network Civil protection University and research institutions School

Q.19 In your opinion, the responsibility for education and information in case of events such as landslides and floods is….

-

only mine mainly mine mine and of the institutions mainly of the institutions only of the institutions I don't know

Q.20 If a geo-hydrological event should take place in the place where you live or work, how well prepared do you feel to face it?

Five point scale

Q.21 If you think this about your personal preparedness, can you explain why?

Open-ended questions

FEELING OF SAFETY Q.22 If a geo-hydrological event should take place in the place where you live or work, whom would you rely upon to decide what to do?

Table 3 Socio-demographic characteristic of the respondents (n =300).

Gender Female Male Age class 18–39 40–59 > 60 Education level Degree Secondary education Middle school education Primary education No title Occupation Unemployed Student Retired Housewife Employee (in private company or public institution) Entrepreneur, freelancer, manager, merchant, artisan, farmer Other

Police Fire fighters Civil Protection Public administrations Voluntaries Friends, neighbours, colleagues Family and relatives

than 1% had no qualifications at all. The interviewees without occupation were 12%, while most of the employed were office worker (28%), followed by entrepreneurs, freelancers and manager (16%) and merchants, artisans, farmers (10%). 18% were retired workers, 6% were students and 6% housewives. For the result discussion, the answers including a 5 point scale, from 1 (min) to 5 (max), were grouped into three categories (1 + 2 = low; 3 = medium; 4 + 5 = high). For this answer typology, the "I do not know" option was also considered. In addition, the responses to open-ended questions were aggregated into different categories.

The sample interviewed was organized as follows: 49% women and 51% men; 31% people aged 18–39, 36% people aged 40–59% and 33% people aged 60 and over (Table 3). The questionnaire highlighted a high level of education: 71% of respondents possessed a university degree or a secondary education diploma, while less

Socio-demographic characteristic

-

Percentage (%)

3.1. Knowledge of geo-hydrological phenomena

49 51

In order to test respondents’ level of knowledge about geo-hydrological phenomena, we firstly asked them if they knew what a landslide and/or a flood was. The responses to this question showed that almost all the 300 respondents (99%) knew what a landslide or a flood are. Among those who claimed to know these geo-hydrological phenomena, 43% derived their knowledge from direct experience, 26% from experience communicated by relatives or friends, 22% from personal initiatives aimed at knowing more about the subject. Only 4% knew the problem through initiatives promoted by organisations or associations. Fourteen respondents chose the option "more", the source of their knowledge being their studies (school and/or university) as well as the information derived from TV/newspapers. "Caused by man" was the most frequent answer (222 out of 300) to the multiple-choice question: “According to you, landslides and floods are events …" followed by, in descending order, "natural", "foreseeable", "unforeseeable". Most interviewees who answered that landslides and

31 36 33 23 48 22 7 0 12 6 18 6 28 16 10 4

306

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

As for the multiple-choice question about the type of damage suffered by respondents during the 2009–2011 events, the most frequent response from those who were directly or indirectly involved in the events was "damages to main roads" (63 replies) and, in descending order, "damages to properties" and "facility interruptions". Thirteen respondents indicated, among other things, "home damages" and only 5 had "physical injuries". These results confirm the findings of Antronico et al. [27]. In fact, the damages recorded following the events of the period 2009–2011 mainly concerned the tourist facilities located on the alluvial fans. The population, on the contrary, mainly suffered from the consequences of such events, in terms of disruption due to the interruption of major communication roads, as well as of essential services such as water, electricity and telephone lines. The most frequent answer (from the respondents involved in the 2009–2011 events) to a multiplechoice question about their behaviours during the events was "I tried not to panic" (49 answers), followed by "I tried to get information about the situation through … "(39 answers)," I tried to help close people "(30 answers), and "I trusted in God" (12 answers).

Fig. 3. Answers to the question Q.5.

floods are "unforeseeable" events had a good educational level and they were between 31 and 60. Only 9 people thought that these events are "caused by a divine punishment": almost all of them were over 60 and all retired. Continuing with the assessment of geo-hydrological phenomena, we asked the respondents (by means of a multiple-choice question) to indicate the factors that they considered most influencing in triggering landslides and floods. For this work, the eight factors indicated in the answers (excluding the answer "I do not know") were grouped into two clusters: natural influences and anthropic ones. As Fig. 3 shows, the anthropic factors were considered the most influencing. In particular, the most frequent answers focus on the illegal construction, as well as the territory management (214 out of 300). However, also the response "the disinterest of public administrators" obtained a high score (184). Of the respondents who answered “illegal construction”, “territory management” and “disinterest of public administrators”, 73% had a good educational level (High School Diploma or University Degree), 55% were between 30 and 60 years, and 58% had a job. Among the natural factors, climate changes were perceived more important than the geological and morphological features of the territory.

3.3. Awareness of the exposure to damaging events and/or to risk We also examined to what extent the population of the area perceives the level of exposure to both natural (landslides, floods, earthquakes, tsunami and volcanic eruptions) and man-made events (environmental pollution, car accidents and terrorist attacks). We used a 4level scale (in no way, low, high, I do not know), Fig. 4a. 77% of respondents perceived the level of exposure to earthquakes as “high”. High percentages of "high perception" are also recorded for flood (70%), landslide (66%) and environmental pollution (54%). The percentage of respondents who perceived as "low" or "in no way" the levels of exposure to events such as terrorist attack, volcanic eruption, and tsunami was high. It is to be noted, however, that the perception of "tsunami" was high for a fair number of respondents (42%). The "car accident" event presented almost the same percentages for both low and high perception. The data on the perception of the level of exposure to earthquakes is mainly related to a precious historical memory. The data is also confirmed by the answers given to the question "Are you aware of living in a high seismic risk area?", to which almost all respondents (96%) gave a positive answer. As for the question about the probability estimate that in the place where respondents live or work geo-hydrological events occur, 45% considered “high” the probability of landslides or floods, while only 26% and 18%, respectively, considered the same probability as “low”, on a 4-level scale (low, medium, high, I do not know). Respondents were also asked to evaluate their fears about the possible consequences of a geo-hydrological event. Fig. 4b shows the main concerns of respondents, on a 4-level scale (in no way, low, high, I do not know). The answers "Personal physical injuries and/or injuries to someone of the family" (71%), "stress/tension among the people of the village" (68%), "damages to homes and/or property (63%)" scored the highest percentages of high concern, followed by "Family stress/tension" (58%), "workplace damages" (50%) and

3.2. Experience of geo-hydrological phenomena Since the study area was interested by significant geo-hydrological events which have caused severe damages, as shown in the previous sections, we initially asked respondents whether they knew that in their territory landslides and/or floods had occurred in the past. 68% are aware of both landslide events and flood events that occurred in the past, 13% are aware only of floods, 9% only of landslides, while 10% of the population was not aware of either landslides or floods. In particular, referring to the major geo-hydrological events that occurred in the three-year period 2009–2011, 29% of respondents claimed to have been affected by such events (personally or for their family members or relatives), 64% affirmed they had not been involved, while only 7% of respondents maintained they did not remember the events of the abovementioned period (2009–2011). Data showed that respondents had a good knowledge of the territory where they live or work, although the percentage of respondents who claimed to have been involved in recent events was not high.

Fig. 4. (a) Answers to the question Q.11 and (b) Q14.

307

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

Fig. 5. Answers to the question Q18.

preparedness to “personal knowledge/experience”, or to their being “members of local associations” or to the fact that they “live in a safe area”.

"personal psychological problems" (49%). It should also be noted, however, that both the concerns of “workplace damages” and "personal psychological problems" were perceived as “low” or “in no way” by a discrete percentage of respondents (about 45%). With regards to a potential future landslide or flood event, we asked respondents to estimate the probability of damages to people and/or property on a 5level scale merged into 3 categories (low, medium, high). More than half of the respondents (54%) estimated this probability as “high”, 25% and 19% as “medium” and “low”, respectively, while only 1% did not know how to estimate it. The main reasons provided by the 162 respondents who estimated the above-mentioned probability as “high” were connected to: lack of appropriate protection interventions (98); housing construction in risk areas (86); lack of information (53); unforeseeability of the events (37).

3.5. Feeling of Safety In order to explore the level of safety of respondents, we asked them on whom they would rely if a geo-hydrological event occurred in their municipality. Fig. 6 shows that on a 5-level scale merged into 3 categories (low, medium, high), the response “family and relatives” obtained the maximum score of highest reliability (66.7%), followed by fire fighters (64.7%), civil protection (60%), police (55%), and, friends/neighbours/ colleagues (50.3). Data shows that more than a half of the respondents did not trust public administrations (55%). 1.3% would only rely on themselves and their own capabilities.

3.4. Information and preparedness to geo-hydrological risk

4. Discussions

We examined how respondents felt themselves informed about the geo-hydrological risk in the area where they lived and worked. On a 5level scale, merged into 3 categories (low, medium, high), 62% of respondents provided the answer “low”, while only 16% thought they were well informed. Moreover, a further multiple-choice question focused on the source of information: most people maintained they had acquired information through radio and/or TV (198 respondents), Internet and social networks (177), newspapers and magazines (107). The low values recorded for civil protection (51), public administrations (37) and school (21) underlined, unfortunately, the lack of information and preparedness provided by the institutions (Fig. 5). As for the responsibility for education and information in case of events such as landslides and floods, almost half of the respondents (46.7%) thought that such a responsibility is both personal and institutional, while 30% and 11.3% considered the institutions as the main responsible and the sole responsible respectively. We asked respondents to evaluate, on a 5-level scale merged into 3 categories (low, medium, high), their personal preparedness to face a geo-hydrological event. 60% of the people did not feel prepared enough to face such an event, 23% define “medium” their level of preparedness, only 14.7% thought they were well prepared. By means of an open-ended question, we asked respondents about the reasons for their evaluation of preparedness. The main answer provided by those who did not feel prepared enough was “lack of information and awareness-raising from the institutions”, followed by “unpredictability of these events” and "panic reactions”. On the contrary, those who felt prepared attributed their

The results obtained show that in the study area all the interviewees know the meaning of the words “landslide” or “flood”. Their knowledge is mainly due to direct experience, friends’/relatives’ information, or self-education about the phenomena. Just a few people link their knowledge to the information activities of competent authorities and/ or associations. An explanation for these results is that the population involved in the questionnaire has often experienced geo-hydrological events, even if of mild intensity. As for the events of the period 2009–2011, most of the respondents remember these events, even if not directly involved, and in spite of the 5 years and more that have passed since their occurrence. The population interviewed, especially highly-educated people, consider anthropic actions (such as illegal construction and territory management), as the main causes of geo-hydrological phenomena. Our results about the answer related to the potential factors influencing landslides and floods agree with the data presented by Salvati et al. [23], who, in a survey about the perception of flood and landslide risk in Italy, showed that both at the national and regional scale, anthropic factors get the highest percentages. In particular, as for illegal constructions, the results confirmed a very peculiar “perception of people living in southern Italy”: the presence of “abusive” (illegal) constructions is considered as the most important factor for landslides and floods [23]. In this paper, the remarkable weight given to the territory management as well as to the disinterest of public administrations as 308

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

Fig. 6. Answers to the question Q22.

flood, training for preparedness and training for flood response activities, and providing information on flood shelters and for post rehabilitation (by means of pamphlets, posters and other materials). The result analysis of this study also showed the respondents’ high perception of their exposure to extreme physical phenomena. In particular, the perception of the seismic risk is due to the presence of a precious historical memory of past earthquakes. We should also consider that for the present study the interviews were submitted in the weeks following two special events: the 2016 seismic events in Central Italy, which had a strong emotional impact on the whole country, as well as the earthquake of September 2016, with its epicentre in the area of Vibo Valentia, indicated in Section 2.1. Our data deviate from the results contained in the national scale survey by Salvati et al. [23], which pointed out that environmental pollution, car accidents and seismic risk (45%) are the most perceived risks by Italians. For Calabria only, in the same survey, Salvati et al. [23] detected the following as the most perceived risks: car accidents (62%), earthquakes (61%), environmental pollution (51%), floods (46%) and landslides (42%). The high perception of the “tsunami” risk exposure detected in the present study is most likely due to the experience lived by the population in December 2002, as indicated in Section 2.1. The results of the survey on the historical memory, the knowledge of the territory and the experience personally lived or told by family members and/or relatives, i.e. all factors creating in the respondents the awareness of the potential risk to be involved in geo-hydrological events with consequent damages to persons and things, are consistent with what reported in other studies [18,20,38]. Among others, Wachinger et al. [17] by means of a review of several studies on risk perception evidenced that negative personal feelings associated with previous experience decrease trust in official protection measures and increase risk perceptions. On the contrary, positive feelings increase trust in authorities and decrease risk perception. However, it should be pointed out that this awareness is based, according to the interviewees, on the lack of protection measures against the phenomena, as well as on the housing construction in risk areas and in the lack of information. The latter, in particular, is also confirmed by the perception of the lack of information on the territory risks from both local and regional institutions. It is not by chance, in fact, that most of the people interviewed, during the recent events, tried to obtain information from the mass media or the neighbours, showing a good level of self-control (“they didn’t panic”) and a strong feeling of

the cause of geo-hydrological phenomena is a clear sign of the negative judgement that citizens have about the politics concerning the geohydrological risk. Moreover, several citizens, even experts in the field, criticized the interventions carried out on torrent beds; they felt there was a gap between the resources available for the effective implementation of the measures for risk reduction and the extent to which such measures actually reduced the risk. This is due to the fact that the capacity of local Authorities to prevent a risk and face disasters depends on wider social and political conditions encompassing: action planning, the legal/institutional situation, the chain of responsibilities and the inadequate punishment for those who do not comply with the planning and construction regulation. Understanding the link among those several aspects is of paramount importance to understand how the risk is generated, re-produces and faced by local communities. The above aspects and the ability of local authorities to reduce the risk of catastrophes (or the lack of it) have been also highlighted by Ruiz-Rivera and Melagarejo-Rodriguez [41], in a case study in Mexico, and by Merlinsky and Tobias [42] in a paper on floodings in Buenos Aires. Handmer and Dovers [43] spoke about “institutional vulnerability”, which should be considered as the bulk of factors that protect communities and allow agents (organisations or individuals) for the generation of both preventive and reactive responses to disasters from different point of views: knowledge, coordination and training, laws, and customs. Even Hernández-González et al. [44], in a study on floods in Austria pointed out that institutional issues are very often potential hindrances to the resilience towards flooding risks in a given area; Thaler e Hartmann [45] underlined that flooding risk management plans implemented in Austria, featuring a top-down approach and managed by experts, led to a technocratic decision-making process, which set aside local actors and stakeholders involved in the governance of flooding risks. As pointed out by Choudhuri and Haque [46], in a study on the resilience to the flash floods in Bangladesh, institutions could be the key that can transform coping capacity into adaptive capacity to mitigating climate-induced disaster risk. It is noteworthy mentioning what was done in Sweden [47] where local municipalities began considering floods and other climate related events in the climate adaptation efforts, even where climate changes did not seem to occur. Also in Nepal [48], some NGOs, by means besides government efforts, have started different programs to raise awareness within the community through different activities such as immediate response during 309

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

provided that the latter is the social organisation of people originating from their living together, rather than the “physical” space were a city is located.

solidarity (“they tried to help the neighbours”). The survey has also revealed that social media represent one of the main sources of information about the territory risk for people. The social media, in fact, have recently acquired a remarkable weight/importance worldwide: many organisations (local, national and international) make use of the social media to spread information both in peacetime and during emergencies and disasters [49]. At the same time, however, considering the nature of social media, it is also possible to detect false or incorrect information [50]. In addition, it must be taken into account that older people do not use this source of information [51]. One of the most important data revealed by the survey is the lack of information and awareness-raising from the institutions, which results in a low preparedness to face a geo-hydrological event. Different result emerged in a work regarding preparedness for flood disasters and risk perception of people living in an area of northern Italy conducted by [52] where respondents answered that they were prepared to deal with any future emergencies. In our study, the few people who, conversely, affirmed to be prepared were those who had already experienced a landslide or a flood (sometimes because of their job), those who had acquired self-information, those who lived in a safe area and finally those endowed with a strong resilience (willpower, agility, survival instinct and common sense). Those who felt ready to face a danger are the same who were not afraid of possible psychological problems as a consequence of a geo-hydrological event. The issue, on the contrary, is very serious for the elderly, not only because they do not feel ready to face such events but also because they are particularly anxious. Among the elderly interviewed, we report the commentary of a hotel owner who told to have a recurrent nightmare in which his hotel is devastated by a flood. Among the elderly, psychological problems are very likely to arise, along with stress and tension/anxiety, even in family life. Lin et al. [53], in a study conducted in Taiwan, highlighted how risk perception and social economic status are positive predictors for mitigation intentions, whereas psychological vulnerability is a negative predictor. Other data is worth to be recorded: most people affirmed that the responsibility to get citizens prepared and informed, in case of landslide or flood, falls within the institutions’ remit. This shows that the population of the study area have a high civic sense: they feel responsible for their preparedness and education. This is in close agreement with Garcia's [54] remarks within the most effective implementation of Integrated Early Warning Systems in mountain areas. Finally, the poor trust in the public administrations is probably a common consequence of the inadequate actions/efforts made by the local institutions in order to communicate in a simple and reliable way, even out of the emergencies. However, similar results were also obtained by AlcántaraAyala and Moreno [24] in a survey carried out in Teziutlán (Puebla – Mexico) on people's common understanding and perception of landsliding associated with past events. Generally, all administrations (local, regional, national) must strive and work to regain their reliability, as well as their role in being certified reference points for their communities. This can be achieved by providing data and information, even using the new technologies, which are very spread, as well as loved, among the population. Only the coexistence of aware citizens, who are able to play their part, and institutions which are regularly committed in people's education and information, can increase territorial and individual resilience level [55–57], so that citizens will be ready to adopt correct behaviour during catastrophic events and to apply adequate prevention measures in peacetime. Moreover, by listening to citizens in this study, it was noted that a governance model characterized by a “participated and democratic state of emergency” is present in the study area; this shows that the administration of towns and villages cannot be anymore a process starting from the top, but a communication with the local community through a bottom-up approach is needed. It is, thus, important to regain what Henri Lefebvre [58] defined the “right to the city”, which encompasses the right to take part and play a proactive role in the development of urban areas which – in turn – gives rise to a sense of “appropriation” of the urban space,

5. Conclusion The present study shows the results of a survey on risk perception in a specific area of Calabria, which has recently been affected by geohydrological events. It is well known that risk perception can vary according to the territory and the survey scale used. What emerges in this survey is that the population, although endowed with a high civic sense, does not evaluate the actions of the local institutions positively, both in the fields of territory management and people's education and/ or information. For these reasons, the people interviewed, in particular those with high levels of education, consider the anthropic actions as a relevant cause of the geo-hydrological phenomena. Among these actions, the main role is played by illegal constructions which were and still are a serious and alarming issue. Forgetting the damages that illegal construction has produced in the past excludes the possibility of treasuring those experiences and, consequently, planning a different “response” in case of new events. However, it is known that illegal construction has a double reason: on the one hand, there are citizens who do not respect the rules, on the other hand there are public administrations which do not carry out a correct territory control. Consequently, continuous monitoring and territory control by the appointed institutions must parallel continuous and adequate education and information of the population, even by means of the social media, which are very used nowadays. In fact, the questionnaire submitted as a face to face interview also aimed at having the citizens acquire more awareness of geo-hydrological risk. It is not a case that many citizens, at the end of the interview, showed gratification and approval for the survey. This important signal indicates that the communities have become aware of the risks and are asking the institutions to be listened and to take part in the public life of their municipalities. The questionnaire, then, has been designed to give voice to people's needs, doubts, and fears about the risks of the territory where they live or work. This shows how resilience must be developed along three time dimensions: in a short term, - through alerting actions; in a medium term, - monitoring the phenomena, compiling emergency plans and realising adequate protections; in a long term, - working on the urban and territory factors that affects the environment vulnerability, as well as developing adequate policies aiming at knowing the territory and educating the citizens, since school age. Undoubtedly, all these actions aimed to improve resilience in a territory are very expensive but they also produce lots of benefits for the population. On the other hand, the potential investments on prevention activities are certainly lower than the costs linked to the damages or to the actions necessary to face the post-event phase. Anyway, only through these actions it is possible to reduce the vulnerability of the studied area and, consequently, the risks of this territory that, for its morphological structure, is exposed to high impact events.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank participants who gave their approval before the interviews. The Authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their critical comments and suggestions that were constructive and useful to improve the quality of the manuscript. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. F. De Pascale performed the data collection, L. Antronico and R. Coscarelli analysed the data and interpreted the results, all authors contributed to the discussions and conclusion.

310

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 25 (2017) 301–311

L. Antronico et al.

[32] A. Tertulliani, L. Cucci, Clues to the identification of a seismogenic source from environmental effects: the case of the 1905 Calabria (Southern Italy) earthquake, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 9 (2009) 1787–1803. [33] P. Galli, D. Molin, Il terremoto del 1905 in Calabria: revisione della distribuzione degli effetti e delle ipotesi sismogenetiche, Ital. J. Quat. Sci. 22 (2) (2009) 207–234. [34] F.L. Chiocci, C. Romagnoli, P. Tommasi, A. Bosman, The Stromboli 2002 tsunamigenic submarine slide: characteristics and possible failure mechanisms, J. Geophys. Res. 113 (B10102) (2008), http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JB005172. [35] D. Di Martire, M. De Rosa, V. Pesce, M.A. Santangelo, D. Calcaterra, Landslide hazard and land management in high-density urban areas of Campania region, Italy, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12 (2012) 905–926. [36] L. Antronico, L. Borrelli, R. Coscarelli, G. Gullà, Time evolution of landslide damages to buildings: the case study of Lungro (Calabria, southern Italy), Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 74 (2015) 47–59. [37] Comune di Parghelia, P.S.C Quadro Conoscitivo. 〈http://www.regione.calabria.it/ ambiente/allegati/vas/procedimentiincorso/vas/Pargheria%20PSC/Allegat %202%20Quadro%20conoscitivo%20PCS.pdf〉 (Accessed 20 March 2017). [38] B. De Marchi, A. Scolobig, G. Delli Zotti, M. Del Zotto, Risk Construction and Social Vulnerability in an Italian Alpine Region, Country Report T11-06-12 of FLOOD site Integrated Project, European Commission 6th Framework Programme, 2007, p. 344. [39] D. Bird, D. Dominey-Howes, Testing the use of a “questionnaire survey instrument” to investigate public perceptions of tsunami hazard and risk in Sydney, Aust., Nat. Hazards 45 (99) (2008) (122-2008). [40] P.M. McGuirk, P. O'Neill, Using questionnaires in qualitative human geography, in: I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, Oxford University Press, Don Mills, Canada, 2016, pp. 246–273. [41] N. Ruiz-Rivera, C.R. Melgarejo-Rodríguez, Political inequality and local government capacity for disaster risk reduction: evidence from Mexico, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 24 (2017) 38–45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.05.024. [42] M.G. Merlinsky, M.A. Tobías, Analysing the institutional component in the social construction of risk. A case study of flooding in Buenos Aires” (Inundaciones en Buenos Aires. Cómo analizar el componente institucional en la construcción social del riesgo), L’Ordin. Des. Amériques 218 (2015) 1–16. [43] J.W. Handmer, S. Dovers, The Nature of Policy and Institutions, Handbook of Disaster Policies andInstitutions: Improving Emergency Management and Climate Change Adaptation, 2nd ed., Routledge/Earthscan, New York, 2013, pp. 37–56. [44] Y. Hernández-González, M.G. Ceddia, E. Zepharovich, D. Christopoulos, Prescriptive conflict prevention analysis: an application to the 2021 update of the Austrian flood risk management plan, Environ. Sci. Policy 66 (2016) 299–309, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.09.007. [45] T. Thaler, T. Hartmann, Justice and flood risk management: reflecting on different approaches to distribute and allocate flood risk management in Europe, Nat. Hazards 83 (1) (2016) 129–147. [46] M. Choudhury, C.E. Haque, Adaptive capacity and resilience of wetland community to flash flood disasters in Bangladesh, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 19 (2016) 145–158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.004. [47] V. Norén, B. Hedelin, L. Nyberg, K. Bishop, Flood risk assessment – practices in flood prone Swedish municipalities, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 18 (2016) 206–217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.07.003. [48] T.H. Dewan, Societal impacts and vulnerability to floods in Bangladesh and Nepal, Weather Clim. Extrem. 7 (2015) 36–42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2014.11. 001. [49] M. Basua, S. Ghoshb, A. Janad, S. Bandyopadhyaya, R. Singhe, Resource mapping during a natural disaster: a case study on the 2015 Nepal earthquake, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 24 (2017) 24–31. [50] B.R. Lindsay, Social Media and Disasters: Current Uses, Future Options, and Policy Considerations, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [51] P. Karanikola, T. Panagopoulos, S. Tampakis, M.I. Karantoni, Perception and knowledge about natural disasters in the Sporades Islands of Greece, J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 16 (2) (2015) 498–509. [52] R. Miceli, I. Sotgiu, M. Settanni, Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: a study in an alpine valley in Italy, J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (2008) 164–173. [53] S. Lin, D. Shaw, M.C. Ho, Why are flood and landslide victims less willing to take mitigation measures than the public? Nat. Hazards 44 (2008) 305–314. [54] C. Garcia, Designing and implementing more effective Integrated Early Warning Systems in mountain areas: a case study from Northern Italy (URL), J. Alp. Res./ Rev. De. Géogr. Alp. 100 (2012) 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/rga.1679 (URL), 〈http://rga.revues.org/1679〉. [55] F. De Pascale, M. Bernardo, F. Muto, Hazardscape, Territorial and individual resilience in an interdisciplinary study: the case of Pollino, Southern Italy, in: G. Lollino, et al. (Ed.), Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, Education Professional Ethics and Public Recognition of Engineering Geology, 7 Springer, Cham, 2014, pp. 109–113, , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09303-1_21. [56] F. De Pascale, M. Bernardo, F. Muto, V. Tripodi, Geoethics and seismic risk perception: the case of Pollino area, Calabria, Southern Italy and comparison with communities of the past, in: S. Peppoloni, G. Di Capua (Eds.), Geoethics: the Role and Responsibility of Geoscientists, Lyell Collection (special publications), 419 Geological Society of London, 2015, pp. 87–102. [57] F. De Pascale, M. Bernardo, F. Muto, et al., Resilience and seismic risk perception at school: a geoethical experiment in Aiello Calabro, southern Italy, Nat. Hazards 86 (2) (2017) 569–586, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2696-z. [58] H. Lefebvre, Le Droit à la ville, Anthropos, Paris, 1968.

References [1] S. Peppoloni, Convivere con i rischi Naturali, Il Mulino, Bologna, 2014. [2] F. De Pascale, M. Bernardo, F. Muto, A. Ruffolo, V. Dattilo, Geoethics, neogeography and risk perception: myth, natural and human factors in archaic and postmodern society, in: S. D’Amico (Ed.), Earthquakes and their impact on society, Springer Natural Hazards, Springer, Cham, 2016, pp. 665–692. [3] M. Crescimbene, F. La Longa, R. Camassi, N.A. Pino, The seismic risk perception questionnaire (Special Publications), in: S. Peppoloni, G. Di Capua (Eds.), Geoethics: the Role and Responsibility of Geoscientists, 419 Geological Society, London, 2015, pp. 69–77. [4] N. Pidgeon, C. Hood, D. Jones, B. Turner, R. Gibson, Risk perception, in: G. Royal Society Study (Ed.), Risk: Analysis, Perception, and Management, The Royal Society, London, 1992, pp. 89–134. [5] O. Renn, Concepts of risk: a classification, in: S. Krimsky, D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Praeger, Westport, CT, 1992, pp. 53–79. [6] O. Renn, Perception of risks, Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. 29 (1) (2004) 102–114. [7] B. Rohrmann, O. Renn, Risk perception research – An introduction, in: O. Renn, B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception research. A survey of empirical studies, Springer, US, 2000, pp. 11–54. [8] M. Schmidt, Investigating risk perception: a short introduction. Loss of agro-biodiversity in Vavilov centers, with a special focus of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). (Dissertation Ph. D. Thesis) Vienna, 2004. [9] G. Wachinger, O. Renn, Risk Perception and Natural Hazards, CapHaz-Net WP3 Report, DIALOGIK Non-Profit Institute for Communication and Cooperative Research, Stuttgart, 2010. [10] M. Douglas, A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: an Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1983. [11] A. Wildavsky, K. Dake, Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus 4 (1990) 41–60. [12] S. Rippl, Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement, J. Risk Res. 5 (2002) 147–165. [13] B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, B. Combs, How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sci. 9 (2) (1978) 127–152. [14] P. Slovic, Perception of risk, Science 236 (1987) 280–285. [15] D. Kelly, D.J. Harper, B. Landau, Questionnaire mode effects in interactive information retrieval experiments, Inf. Process. Manag. 44 (1) (2008) 122–141. [16] D.K. Bird, The use of questionnaires for acquiring information on public perception of natural hazards and risk mitigation –a review of current knowledge and practice, J. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., Copernic. Publ. 9 (2009) 1307–1325. [17] G. Wachinger, O. Renn, C. Begg, C. Kuhlicke, The risk perception paradox – Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards, Risk Anal. 33 (6) (2013) 1049–1065. [18] P. Raška, Flood risk perception in Central-Eastern European members states of the EU: a review, Nat. Hazards 79 (2015) 2163–2179. [19] A.Y. Lo, F. Chan, Preparing for flooding in England and Wales: the role of risk perception and the social context in driving individual action, Nat. Hazards (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2870-y. [20] M. Calvello, M.N. Papa, J. Pratschke, M.N. Crescenzo, Landslide risk perception: a case study in Southern Italy, Landslides 13 (2) (2016) 349–360. [21] A. Bosschaart, W. Kuiper, J. van der Schee, J. Schoonenboom, The role of knowledge in students' flood-risk perception, Nat. Hazards 69 (3) (2013) 1661–1680. [22] A. Damm, K. Eberhard, J. Sendzimir, A. Patt, Perception of landslides risk and responsibility: a case study in eastern Styria, Austria, Nat. Hazards 69 (1) (2013) 165–183. [23] P. Salvati, C. Bianchi, F. Fiorucci, P. Giostrella, I. Marchesini, F. Guzzetti, Perception of flood and landslide risk in Italy: a preliminary analysis, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14 (9) (2014) 2589–2603. [24] I. Alcántara-Ayala, A.R. Moreno, Landslide risk perception and communication for disaster risk management in mountain areas of developing countries: a Mexican foretaste, J. Mt. Sci. 13 (12) (2016) 2079–2093. [25] B.L. Turner, R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarth, R.W. Corell, L. Christensen, C. Polsky, A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100 (14) (2003) 8074–8079. [26] N. Tecco, Educazione geografica, resilienza e catastrofi naturali, in: C. Giorda, M. Puttilli (Eds.), Educare al Territorio, Educare il Territorio, Geografia per la formazione, Carocci, Roma, 2011, pp. 308–320. [27] L. Antronico, L. Borrelli, R. Coscarelli, Recent damaging events on alluvial fans along a stretch of the Tyrrhenian coast of Calabria (southern Italy), Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0922-2. [28] L. Amodio-Morelli, G. Bonardi, V. Colonna, D. Dietrich, G. Giunta, F. Ippolito, V. Liguori, S. Lorenzoni, A. Paglionico, V. Perrone, G. Piccarreta, M. Russo, P. Scandone, E. Zanettin-Lorenzoni, A. Zuppetta, L’Arco Calabro-Peloritano nell’orogene appennino-maghrebide, Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital. 17 (1976) 1–60. [29] G. Tortorici, M. Bianca, G. De Guidi, C. Monaco, L. Tortorici, Fault activity and marine terracing in the Capo Vaticano area (southern Calabria) during the middle–late Quaternary, Quat. Int. 101/102 (2003) 269–278. [30] E. Ferrari, T. Caloiero, R. Coscarelli, Influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation on winter rainfall in Calabria (southern Italy), Theor. Appl. Climatol. 114 (2013) 479–494. [31] Dipartimento della Protezione Civile Nazionale, Classificazione sismica al. 〈http:// www.protezionecivile.gov.it/resources/cms/documents/class2012_02prov.pdf〉, 2017 (Accessed 10 September 2017).

311