Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper |

Open Access Discussions Sciences Natural Hazards Hazards Natural and Earth System System and Earth erentiation with the diverse con- ff 3466 3465 This discussion paper is/has beenSystem under Sciences review (NHESS). for Please the refer journal to Natural the Hazards corresponding and final Earth paper in NHESS if available. ception of the threat did not match the long-term risk posed by landslides and floods to volcanic eruptions. Examination ofresponses revealed the that the temporal occurrence and ofception recent geographical locally, and damaging that distribution events the influenced of perception riskmore persisted the per- rapidly longer for for landslides earthquakes and and floods. decreased sequences We justify of the the di risks.the The interviewees main considered cause inappropriate ofment land landslide of management and the territory, flood and risk, climatemeasures change. followed of Comparison by landslide of and illegal the risk floodof construction, perception risk, fatalities, abandon- with including and actual the the mortality number of rates, revealed fatal that events, in the most number of the Italian regions the per- sible threat posed bythe landslides number and of floods victims toconsidered caused important their by to safety, landslides control (iv) or landslidethat general floods, and the knowledge and flood population on on risks of Italy (v) inural fears Italy. the risks, technological The factors risks surveys earthquakes that more revealed were they than considered natural more risks. dangerous Of than the nat- floods, landslides, and strategies. In an attemptmeasure to the perception fill of thisveys landslide were gap, and executed we in flood 2012 have risk andcomputer conducted of 2013, assisted two performing the for telephone national population each interviews. oftistically survey surveys approximately representative Italy. The to 3100 The for samples a sur- national ofwere scale asked the quantitative questions interviewees assessment. designed The to wereenvironmental, interviewees obtain sta- and information technological on their: risks, (i) (ii)the perception direct occurrence of experience of natural, or landslides and general floods knowledge in on their municipality, (iii) perception of the pos- Inundations and landslides are widespreadvere damage phenomena and in pose Italy, where athe they threat population cause to of se- the landslides population.is and Little important floods. is This for known is on the the surprising, successful perception as implementation of an of accurate many perception risk reduction or adaptation Abstract Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/2/3465/2014/ Discuss., 2, 3465–3497, 2014 doi:10.5194/nhessd-2-3465-2014 © Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Perception of flood and landslideItaly: risk a in preliminary analysis P. Salvati, C. Bianchi, F. Fiorucci, P. Giostrella, I.CNR IRPI, Marchesini, and via Madonna F. Guzzetti Alta 126, 06128 Perugia,Received: Italy 21 March 2014 – Accepted: 27Correspondence March to: 2014 P. Salvati – ([email protected]) Published: 15 MayPublished 2014 by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. 5 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | erent risks, ff 3468 3467 orts, little is known on the perception of the population of Italy ff cient information to perform a preliminary evaluation of the perception that ffi The social sciences typically investigate risk adopting a framework that incorporates Research on risk perception attempts to understand the choices made by an indi- In an attempt to fill this gap, in 2012 and 2013, we executed two national surveys technical, psychological, societal, and cultural aspects (Schmidt, 2004). In this frame- and to decide to accepteral (or and not local accept) conditions a and risk,of situations. vary annual Risk largely mortality can depending (e.g., be on1997; individual measured multiple, WBGU, risk, gen- quantitatively, 1998; in Latter, Jonkman terms 1969; et Morgan,event al., may 1997; 2002), occur Cruden or (e.g., defining and societal thement Fell, risk, is probability Fell typical that and of a the Hartford, damaging natural 1997).were sciences. In Quantitative first Italy, risk Guzzetti to (2000) assess- obtain and quantitative Guzzettiand et estimates Salvati al. et of (2004) al. landslide (2010, and 2012) flood updated risk the to estimates. the population, multiple sources, including the media, andet by the al., influence 2001). of peers and others (Morgan vidual, or a group of2005). However, individuals, the to criteria adopted judge, by evaluate, individuals tolerate, to and judge react and evaluate to di risk (Fromm, the individual. Involuntary risks areare associated generated, or typically intensified, to by natural humandepends hazards, actions to or and the the others subjective lack judgment of and(Renn, actions. the Perception 1992, evaluation of of 2004; risk an individual Rohrmannas of and a potentially specific Renn, dangerous risk 2000). (i.e.,risk). However, risky), The what mental another a models person person andevaluate, the perceives may tolerate, psychological and consider mechanisms react safe that toenvironments, people (i.e., risks and use are free are to conditioned complex, of judge, and modulated constantly by revised by culture information and obtained the from social Kasperson et al. (1988)a have argued science that and the anto investigation various expression of risks, risk of some is of culture.(Starr, which at 1969; During are Sunstein, the his/her 1997), voluntarily same or (e.g., life, time are driving) not an and the others individual direct are result is of involuntary a exposed conscious choice made by 2 Backround on risk perception population. We conclude (Sect. 6) summarizing the lessons learnt. to probe the perceptionsurveys of were executed the performing population more than ofvided 3000 Italy su telephone interviews, of and landslide theythe pro- and population flood has risk. of TheIn landslide this two and paper, flood following a risk, briefwe and describe overview its of the geographical concepts content variations, related ofby to in the a risk two Italy. national discussion perception surveys (Sect. of (Sect. 2), of the 3). results the This of is perception followed the of (Sect. surveys, landslide 4) and and (Sect. flood 5) risk by with a comparative known analysis levels of the two risks to the 2011). Despite these e of the risk posedperception by landslides of and the floods. riskor This is adaptation is important strategies. surprising, for because the an successful appropriate implementation of risk reduction Landslide and floods are recurrent anddamage abundant and phenomena pose in a Italy, where threat they to2004). cause the Landslide population (Guzzetti and et flood al.,at 1994; hazards, various Guzzetti and and geographical Tonelli, the(national) scales associated scale. in risk, At have Italy, been theof from determined landslide local the and scale, site flood detailedused specific hazards investigations to and (local) have risks design to produced (“Pianisynoptic defensive the scale, di zonations structures, investigators synoptic Assetto have estimated and Idrogeologico”), theby which to individual landslides and are implement the and collective floods mitigation risk to posed strategies. the At population (Guzzetti the et al., 2005a; Salvati et al., 2010, population of landslide and flood hazards and risks in Italy. 1 Introduction the population. This outcome points to the need to fostering the understanding of the 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | erent group benefits ff ected by the uncertainty ff et al., 1978; Fromm, 2005), ff ects tend to reduce familiarity, whereas ff 3470 3469 ected by a risk knows about the risk and its ff et al., 1978; Slovic, 1987). Cultural theory focuses on the ff ects intensify familiarity. Familiarity is further a ected by a risk, and (iii) the fact that risk is known or unknown. The psy- ff ff ect the perception of the risk. The groups include egalitarians, individualists, hi- ff ects and consequences of the risk (Slovic, 1987). Familiarity and habituation are additional factors that modulate risk perception. Fa- A risk perceived to be distributed fairly (impartially) in a group is more easily accepted Multiple qualitative characteristics influence the perception of risk of an individual, Risk scientists have proposed two general approaches to investigate risk perception. ff miliarity indicates thatconsequences. an Habituation individual means a thatfor an a individual long is period is usedeven attenuated to if (i.e., a perceived the risk. as riskexplain more A remains acceptable) why risk due unchanged a present to known (Slovic habituation, fluenced risk et by is al., time better 1986). andimmediate uncertainty. accepted Familiarity e Delayed and than e an habituation of unknown being risk. exposed, Familiarity or is not in- exposed, to a risk. Individuals that know to be exposed to Bayer and Fitzgerald, 1996). Inthe general, consequences the are least sustained acceptablefrom risks by the are a those (real group for of or which fit people, perceived) are and advantages. a more Also, di risks easilyperspective, the perceived accepted benefits associated than serve to as risks compensation a perceived for bene- the to risk. have little or no benefit. In this to control (and reduce)that a this voluntary is possible risk orthat and not, those its perceived and to consequences, risks be regardless perceived non-controllable.shown However, to of socio-psychological that be studies the have individuals controllable fact are tend(Sjoberg, more to 2000), acceptable overestimate resulting their in(Weistein, ability an 1980). to unrealistic control optimism a and situation the (a tendency risk) tothan deny a a risk risk perceived to be distributed unfairly (unequally) (Davy, 1996; Linnerooth- the risk is imposedthe (Renn, same 1992; or Jungermann similar(chosen) and consequences, risk Slovic, or is 1993). similar generally For probabilitiesbecause more risks individuals of acceptable associate that occurrence, than a have a an voluntaryconsequences risk involuntary voluntary to (imposed) of an risk. the expected This benefit risk. that is balances Further, the an individual beliefs (or is convinced) to be able tion of a risk is reduced when the risk is voluntary (chosen), and it is increased when familiarity, personal experience, and the natural vs. human source of the risk. Percep- et al., 1982) i.e.,rics, quantitative scalings, representations and of statistics. thenumerous, In perception but this of the context, the most the risk,of factors relevant using people controlling factors met- a include: risk (i) perceptionchometric are the paradigm fear can be of usedfactors a to that risk, explain modulate (ii) how the people the perception judge of number a the risk, risk and (Schmidt, whator 2004). are a the group of individualsness, (Oltedal controllability, et distribution al., of 2004). risk These characteristics and include benefits, voluntari- confidence in risk management, cepts, the theory categorizes individualscan in a groups based onerarchists, broad and cultural fatalists biases (Marris that etthe al., psychometric 1998; model, Tansey introduced and in O’Riordan, theattempts 1999). 1970s to Conversely, (Fischho obtain cognitive maps of risk attitudes and perceptions (Slovic, 1987; Slovic e A first approach is basedthropology on (Douglas the and cultural Wildavsky, theoryA 1982; second developed Wildavsky in approach sociology and adopts and thecision Dake, social psychometric research 1990; an- model (Fischho Rippl, developed 2002). inconcept psychology that and risk de- isrisks a and social of construct, criteria and to that judge, each tolerated, social and group has react its to own the set risks. of Based on these con- dividual, or a group ofevaluate, individuals, tolerate, and and influence the reactunderstanding way to individuals of and a a groups risk, risk. judge, includingrisk, The the the individuals impartiality known and or may the perceived addor controllability catastrophic involuntariness of other potential of the the factors of risk, risk, the the in and apparent the their or known, real inferred, voluntariness or perceived short and long term work, multiple individual and social characteristics mold the perception of risk of an in- 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ). The sampling strategy cient to obtain statistically significant ffi 3472 3471 ), a leading Italian company operating in the field www.doxa.it http://www.doxa.it/strumenti/doxabus/ erent for the two surveys. ff erence exists in the perception of natural vs. human induced (e.g., technolog- ff The first survey was conducted in the 19 day period between 12 and 30 January DOXA executed the two surveys using their Computer Assisted Telephone Interview The questionnaires consisted of five questions (Table 1), and were designed to obtain A di (CATI) system. This isterviewers an to interactive ask front-end questions computer over(Ketola the system and phone, designed and Klockars, to to 1999). record helptionnaire The and in- based system organize the on is responses the capableviewees. of answers To execute obtained, adjusting the a and two surveys,sampling pre-defined on DOXA tool ques- information adopted that their on selects general-purpose statistically theat “omnibus” representative individual samples the inter- for national quantitative research scale ( and flood hazards andthe risks second in survey Italy. (inspecifically, We 2013) in modified based the slightly on 2013of the the questionnaire victims questionnaire results the occurred used of question in for thecauses on the influencing first the previous landslide survey five knowledge and years (in flood of was occurrence 2012). the replaced (Table 1). More number by a new question on the and (v) information on the natural and human-induced causes that control landslide To evaluate the perception ofcollaboration natural with risks DOXA in ( Italy, including landslide and flood risk, in behavior, appropriate actions, or by anrisks improved posed knowledge by about natural the hazards risk. (includingare Conversely, landslides and less floods accepted. considered in Individuals,believe this tend that work) the to consequences perceive are natural largelyto independent mitigate hazards on the as their risk. abilities unavoidable, to and cope with or 3 The surveys known than for unknown risks (Hazard and Seidel, 1993). ical) risks (Renn andcepted Rohrmann, than natural 2000). risks. Humanhuman In actions induced (or general, risks the individuals are lack are usually of convinced actions) more that can ac- a be avoided risk or posed mitigated by e.g., by a prudent a risk become familiar with the risk more rapidly. Also, familiarity is more important for the Valle d’Aosta and thewas Trentino-Alto Adige adopted to regions, guarantee a statistically specific significant oversamplingUmbria results. strategy regions For the the Basilicata, size Molise, of and the samples was insu older. The second surveyFebruary 2013, was and executed consisted inolder. in The the 3126 size telephone 18 of day interviews theof period samples of the (approx. adults, from 3100 analysis 15 17 interviews) years atinterviews allowed old January the for or was to the regional proportional segmentation scale. 3 to For the the purpose, number in of each residents region in the the number of region (Table 2). For used a classification basedtribution on of demographic the variables, population including:ucation, in (i) and each the (iv) Italian size occupation. regionselect and The the (Table dis- interviewees 2), sampling randomly (ii) strategy fromfamilies gender exploited a was by a pool di of age, national 15 (iii) database 000 ed- Italian to families. The pool2012, of the and consisted in 3122 telephone interviews of individual adults, 15 years old or landslides and floods in theor the areas surrounding where areas), they (iii) livedand the (i.e., perception floods the of to the municipality the possible of personal threatinterviewees residence, safety on posed of the by the number landslides interviewees, of (iv) victims caused the by general landslides knowledge or of floods the in the recent past, and the number ofavailable interviews to execute in the out polls. two surveys, were conditionedinformation by on: (i) the the resources perceptionthe of direct natural, environmental, experience and or technological general risks, knowledge (ii) of the interviewees on the occurrence of of statistical research and opinionprepared polls, we two designed questionnaires two designed surveys.general For to feelings the help about surveys, we the environmentalstanding and interviewees natural of to risks, landslide consider and first and next their flood their risk. specific The under- number of questions in the questionnaires, 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 2 %, erent ± ff 1 % for + 3 %). Sim- + 7 %), Calabria + ), a second earthquake on 3 %). Campania and Sicilia (Anzidei et al., 2012), con- 1 % for landslides, L + L + M M 5 %), and Marche ( 9 %), Abruzzo ( + + 3474 3473 3 %). + 6 %), Piemonte ( 3 % for earthquakes, + 6 %), and Sicilia (26 %, + + ), and aftershocks exceeding 5.0 7 %), and Lazio ( L erent for earthquakes. The destructive seismic sequence in Emilia- + ff M 33 %), Sardegna ( + 15 %), Calabria (33 %, + 7 %), Sardegna ( The trend was di In 2013, the interviewees felt most exposed to landslides in Valle d’Aosta (39 % “con- The ranking for the natural hazards was the same in 2012, with slightly di + “considerably” and 26 % “somewhat” exposed in Campania, and 10 % “considerably” 29 May 2012 (5.8 ditioned the second (2013)injured survey. people, The and earthquake up causedearthquake to 27 risk 45 fatalities, in 000 at Emilia-Romagna homeless, whereexposed least and to 30 400 raised % earthquake of significantly risk, the the anthe interviewees increase perception perception felt of of of “considerably” 19 landslide % and compared floodthe to risk perception 2012. decreased At in of the the earthquakeposed, region. same Interestingly, time, risk in 2013 increased inwere Abruzzo the (26 regions % where felt the “considerably” interviewees ex- felt more exposed to volcanic risk (25 % felt ilarly, the regions whereto the flood number risk of increased( interviewees in that 2013 felt were “considerably” Valle exposed d’Aosta ( Romagna, with a first earthquake on 20 May 2012 (5.9 siderably” and 17 %26 “somewhat” % exposed) “somewhat” exposed), and and inably” most and Calabria exposed 28 (16 to % % flooding “somewhat”“somewhat” “considerably” in exposed) exposed). and Liguria and The (21 in % regionsfelt “consider- Calabria exposed with to (18 % the landslides were “considerably” smallest PugliaAdige and proportion and and 28 Lombardia, % Lombardia of and (Fig. to interviewees 2).“considerably” floods that were The exposed Trentino-Alto regions to where landslide theValle d’Aosta number risk of ( increased interviewees that in felt 2013 compared to 2012 were exposed to volcanic eruptions (12 %, 4Considering % the “considerably” 2 and % 8 sampling % “somewhat” error,decrease we exposed). in conclude that the the perception 2013 ofception survey landslide revealed of a and earthquake slight flood risk. risk, The and perception a of slight volcanic increase risk in remained the the per- same. and landslides (18 %, 4 % “considerably” and 14 % “somewhat” exposed), and equally to earthquakes (42 %,more 12 exposed % to “considerably” flooding and (27 %, 30 % 6 % “somewhat” “considerably” exposed), and slightly 21 % “somewhat” exposed) 5 % “considerably” and 12 %“considerably” “somewhat” and exposed), 7 % and “somewhat” volcanic exposed). eruptions (12 %, 5 % percentages. A general increase inexposed the to number the of natural intervieweesfloods), hazards that was felt ( paired “considerably” by ato decrease landslide in or the flood total risk numberwhat” (i.e., of exposed). the interviewees Compared sum that to of felt 2013, the exposed in responses 2012 with the “considerably” and interviewees “some- felt slightly less exposed (65 %, of which 29more % exposed “considerably” to and road 36 accidents %what” (65 “somewhat” %, exposed). exposed), of and For which significantly 21 naturalearthquakes % hazards, “considerably” (45 %, and in 44 15 % % 2013flooding “some- “considerably” the (24 and %, interviewees 30 7 % felt % “somewhat” “considerably” most exposed), and exposed followed 17 to % by “somewhat” exposed), landslides (17 %, The first question (Q1posed by in natural Table hazards, 1) including landslides, wastions, floods, formulated earthquakes, against and to the volcanic erup- rank perceptionlution, the of two perception risk human of posed induced2013, the by (technological) people road risks risks. in Italy accidents Results felt more and areically exposed summarized environmental to to technological in pol- environmental than pollution Fig. to natural (67 1.erably” %, risks, In and including exposed specif- 31 and % 36 of %(55 interviewees %, that that 19 % felt felt “considerably” “consid- “somewhat” andin 36 exposed), % 2012, followed “somewhat” with by exposed). the The road ranking interviewees accidents was that the felt same slightly less exposed to environmental pollution with a confidence level of 95 %. 4 Results of the surveys results at the regional scale. DOXA estimated a sampling error of the results of 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | erent ff earthquake hit Basili- W M 3476 3475 ), and where the proportion of interviewees that consid- Belice earthquake in W Sicily, that has caused more than 300 W M Messina and Reggio Calabria earthquake and subsequent tsunamis, that have W M The third question (Q3 in Table 1) was specific for landslide and flood risk, and at- Inundations were considered frequent and likely by interviewees in Sardegna (65 % The interviewees considered earthquakes particularly likely in the Marche (69 % in The second question (Q2 in Table 1) attempted to determine the ability of the in- majority of the interviewees (52 % in 2013, 55 % in 2012) had no direct experience or number of intervieweeslocated considered far a away from volcanic any active eruption volcano, and likely where even volcanictempted risk in to is municipalities determine not present. if theedge interviewees of had the a occurrence direct ofOverall, in experience landslides 2013, or or 27 an floods % indirect in ofand knowl- in the 13 interviewees % the were general of aware areain a of where an 2012) landslide they inundation of (14 lived. (24 % % theslide in in interviewees events 2012), 2012) in responded their occurring that municipality, or in they in their were the vicinities municipality. aware (Fig. Only of 3). 8 both The % result flood (7 indicates % and that the land- inundations were considered (much) moreThis frequent is and despite likely the thanflood fact landslides fatalities that (Fig. and 3). landslide mortality fatalitiesinterviewees (Table and 3). in landslide Volcanic Campania mortality activityThese are (18 was are % larger the considered in two than likely regions 2013, where only volcanic 23 by risk % is known in to be 2012) high. Interestingly, and a small in Sicilia (10 %, 6 %). were Sardinia (1 %, 2at %) low and seismic Valle risk d’Aosta in (9 Italy %, (Slejko 6 et %). al., These 1998). in regions 2013, 71 are % considered in 2012)Veneto and (45 Liguria %, (65 42 %, %), 65 and %),the Toscana followed (41 by interviewees %, Valle in 40 d’Aosta %). (43 Molise %, Conversely, only (8deemed 48 %, a %), frequent 2 small and %) proportion likely considered by of an intervieweesAdige inundation in (27 Valle likely. %, Landslides d’Aosta (39 were 42 %, %), 35 %), and Trentino-Alto Calabria (16 %, 19 %). Interestingly, in most of the regions killed more than 120January 000 1968, people 5.5 in NEfatalities (Boschi Sicily et and al., southerncata 1995). Calabria, and On the 9 and northern September theThe 1998, part 14–15 regions a of where 5.5 Calabria, the causing least moderate number damages, of and interviewees no considered fatalities. an earthquake likely 7.1 (Bertolaso and Borchi, 2007;Romagna region, Boncio northern et Italy, al.,an the earthquake percentage 2007; increased of Cucci from interviewees etquence 48 that % al., considered (Anzidei in 1996). likely et 2012 In – al.,are before the 2012) areas the Emilia- – May–June where to 2012 seismichttp://zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it/ seismic 73 % risk se- in is 2013. known Calabria to and be Sicilia, high southern or Italy, very high (Slejko et al., 1998, 2013, 61 % in57 %), 2012), Umbria Molise (60 (62 %, %,These are 68 51 %), %), the Basilicata regions and(between that (64 Friuli-Venezia %, 1976 have Giulia experienced 63 and %), (59 severe 2009), %, earthquakes Abruzzo and 57 in (68 %) that %, the regions last are decades considered (Fig. at 3). high or very high seismic risk the general area where theyresults lived. of Results are both summarized surveys,scale, in for earthquake Fig. was the 3, the which 20 natural showslikely hazard regions the in that, and their in for 2013, area theeruptions the (41 %), interviewees (2 whole %). felt followed was The by of more ranking flooding Italy.ferent was (30 At in %), the 2012 the same landslides (39 and % (10 national %), earthquakes, theFor 31 and both percentages % surveys, were volcanic floods, 15 only 9 % % slightly of landslides,of the dif- 4 frequent interviewees % felt in volcanic that their eruptions). none area. of the listed hazards was likely ous volcanic areas in Italy i.e.,Neapolitan the area, Vesuvius Volcano in and Campania, the Campi and Flegrei, the in Etna the Volcano great and theterviewees Volcano to Island, in evaluate Sicily. thenatural frequency hazards, including or landslides, the floods, likelihood earthquakes, of and occurrence volcanic of eruptions, the in di and 20 % “somewhat” exposed in Sicily). Campania and Sicilia host the most danger- Calabria, 51 % in 2013be and manifold, 47 including % the in relatively 2012two long regions. in period The without Sicilia). last a The destructive destructive reasons earthquakes earthquake for in in this the the area outcome were can the 28 December 1908, ered likely an earthquake was somewhat reduced (50 % in 2013 and 41 % in 2012 in 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ected by more than ff 16 %) is probably a conse- + 3478 3477 erence between the fear of floods and of landslides ex- ff ), and the related coverage of the events by the media. At erent in 2012, when the women (33 %) felt less threatened than ff 700 million. Similarly, the large increase for Liguria ( http://polaris.irpi.cnr.it/ € Sex and age modified the perception of being threatened by a landslide or a flood In 2013, 41 % of the interviewees considered landslides and floods to be a threat The fourth question (Q4 in Table 1) was designed to determine if the interviewees Inspection of Fig. 3 reveals that for some of the regions where there was an increase to their personal safety (Fig.the 3). increase The in proportion thesonal was number threat lower of (35 in %) people 2013 in thatcaused with 2012. considered a the We landslides total severe explain of and/or eventsple occurred 58 floods ( in fatalities, a 48 the per- injured period people, 2011–2012, and which more than 5000 homeless peo- ing quence of repeated flooding events in the autumn of 2012. considered landslides and floodsviewees a were given threat two to possiblethreat their choices to i.e., personal “yes”, my safety. I personal In considerto safety, 2012, landslides my or or the personal “no”, floods inter- safety. I In are was do 2013, “yes”, the not the question consider interviewees was landslides werefloods, modified, asked or or so to floods both, that specify one are when if option threat the they did response felt not threatened exclude by the landslides, other. in the awarenessof of landslides floods, (i.e., there Vallepercentages was d’Aosta, for a Liguria, Toscana, corresponding Lazio, Veneto,ing decrease and Abruzzo, in Umbria Calabria). in November may The the 2012 be increased awareness in the central result Italy of that the caused serious six flood- fatalities and damage exceed- least once a landslide orpercentage a of flood interviewees (Guzzetti and that Tonelli,largest were 2004). in aware At Valle of the d’Aosta regional an (65 scale, % inundationVeneto the (48 in in %, 2013, their 36 43 %), municipality % Toscana was inpercentage (42 %, of 2012), 29 the followed %), by interviewees and Liguria awarelargest Piemonte (50 of %, in (40 a %, Basilicata 34 landslide %), (49 39 occurring %, %). 16 in Similarly,32 %) %), the their and municipality Marche Molise was (30 (27 %, %,and 40 %), 13 Campania %), and (20 large %, Trentino-Alto in 21 Adige %). Calabria (20 (29 %, %, 31 %), Umbria (20 %, 23 %), This is in contrast withItaly. Guzzetti the et large al. (1994) abundance have and61 identified 000 frequency more landslide of than or 37 landslides 000 flood and sites eventsprovinces floods a in have Italy experienced in recursively in landslides the or8103 73-year floods, period municipalities and 1918–1990. (in of All 1998), the the 6475 total Italian (79.9 number %, of 91 % of the territory) have experienced at indirect knowledge of landslide or flood events occurring in the area where they lived. the men (38 %). Inthreatened 2013, by 45 % landslides of or the floods.to young The 54 interviewees years percentage (34 reduced old), years to old and 42 or to % younger) 37 for felt % the for adults the (35 seniors (55 years old or older). The percentages threat. The geographical distribution of thein population urban in and the sub-urban region, which areas, concentrates also contributes to the reduced(Fig. perception of 4). the In threat. 2013,percentages were the di women (42 %) felt more threatened than the men (40 %). The ceeded 20 % e.g., 31 %in in southern Liguria, Italy 27 % feared in more Veneto,wees landslides and perceived 25 than % flooding floods, in whereas more Sardegna. in dangerouswas Interviewees northern than the Italy landslides region intervie- (Fig. where 3).slides the or Overall, interviewees floods. Lombardia This perceived is theregion. despite least a In history to Lombardia, of be the damagingslides threatened landslide last and by and severe flood land- floods event events in occurred caused7000 this in were severe the November damage 2002, evacuees todamaging and when infrastructures events three land- in and people the building, died most more due recent to than years landslides. can The explain lack the of reduced highly perception of the floods a threat to2012), their followed personal by safety Calabria41 was %), (63 %, largest Veneto in 40 (46 %), %, Liguria12 Basilicata 31 of (66 %), % (79 the %, Valle in 20 d’Aosta 33some 2013, %), Italian (48 of 61 regions %, Campania % these floods 30 (54 in regions %), %, were the and perceived di a Sicilia greater (45 %, threat than 48 %). landslides. In In the regional scale, the percentage of the interviewees that considered landslides or 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | orts are ff in Table 1) 2013 ecting landslide and flood ff 3480 3479 erent in 2012 and 2013 (Table 1). In 2012, the interviewees ff usion process of elementary physics. The individual regions ff usion-based method proposed by Gastner and Newman (2004). ) to evaluate the total number of casualties (dead, injured and miss- ff 2012 Given the poor quantitative understating of the impact of landslides and floods on The fifth question was di their visual interpretation (Gastner and Newman, 2004). we adopted the di This method deforms therived shape and from size the of linearare a deformed di region (stretched, using enlarged, a reduced)ulation numerical in (or such approach the a de- density way that ofUsing the any this density other of method, numerical the a attribute)a pop- region is smaller the with population same is a fortograms) shrunk. larger all that The population the maintain method regions. is the produces geographical expanded, “density-equalizing relationships and maps” between (car- a the region regions, facilitating with optic scale in Italyperform (Guzzetti the et comparison using al., maps 2005a, andare specifically b; maps designed Salvati in cartograms. Cartograms et which the al.,regions sizes 2010, used of 2011) in the our (Table geographic 3). subdivisions, study,lation appear We such (Dorling, in as 1996; proportion the Gastner administrative to and a Newman, numerical 2004). attribute To e.g., deform the the popu- size of the regions, natural cause) the mainand factor especially controlling in landslide Trentino-Alto and Adigemade and flood – resources land risk. are management In invested is to these a mitigate regions geo-hydrological priority, – risks. and e 5 Comparison of perceived and actualIt flood is and worth landslide comparing the risk perceptionsurveys, of to flood and quantitative landslide risk assessments in of Italy probed flood by our and two landslide risk available at the syn- important for landslide andstructed food illegally (i.e., risk. without Indeed, properthe many permits) geo-hydrological houses risk in and southern to Italy,became the buildings increasing population. legal were significantly Later, through con- most specific ofand legislations. these Valle Interestingly, houses in d’Aosta and Trentino-Alto (30 Adige buildings %) (45 the %) respondents considered climate change (i.e., a largely Basilicata, “abusiveness” (illegal constructions) was the single factor considered most the primary cause of landslide and flood risk. In southern Italy, with the exception of abandoning of thechange. territory, In (d) addition, illegal theviewees construction that “do selected (“abusiveness”), not one and or know”priate (e) land more answer management of climate as was the the listed.followed proposed main by cause factors, Of illegal for 28 construction landslide % the (25 and considered %), 94 foodmate % the inappro- risk change abandonment in of of (16 Italy. %). the This the Interestingly, territory was settings only inter- (16 as %), 9 % a and cli- of factor contributing thethat to interviewees the landslide considered and landscape responses floodspondents given risk. in Inspection by northern of and the Fig. central Italy, interviewees 5 considered reveals the varied inappropriate land geographically. management Most of the re- the population, we changedthe this interviewees question, were and in askedcontrol the to or 2013 select condition survey the landslide (Q5 factor(s) andwere that flood asked risk they to in considered select Italy.risk, important More from including to specifically, a the (a) interviewees list inappropriate of land five management, possible (b) factors landscape a characteristics, (c) ing people) caused by landslides andperiod floods from in 2007 Italy in to thetion, 2011. previous the five Of 42 years % all i.e., said the ininterviewees that the interviewees, overestimated they largely only did the 58 total not % numberand know. responded of Analysis floods, to casualties of which caused this the by in ques- responses landslides respondents the revealed estimated that five-year the the period number 2007–2011 ofrange casualties between totaled 201 to 140. and exceed The 400 400 (12 majority (21 %). %), of or the to be in the young interviewees, 40 % oflandslides the or adults, floods. and The 27 latter %and result of the may the be knowledge seniors conditioned of that by the felt familiarity risks threatened and (Slovic by habituation, et al.,were 1986; asked Hazard (Q5 and Seidel, 1993). changed in 2012, but the relative proportions remained the same, with 41 % of the 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | 3482 3481 erent and complementary measures of landslide and ff Inspection of Fig. 7b, d and f and Table 3 reveals that the three metrics used to In Italy, landslide risk to the population is largest in Campania, Piemonte, and For our comparison, we prepared two sets of maps and cartograms. Figure 6 shows Valle d’Aosta, Toscana and Puglia. Thus, only in Liguria and Molise the actual flood Marche, Abruzzo, and Molise (Fig.Sardegna, 7d). Valle Flood mortality d’Aosta, isRomagna, and largest Lombardia, Trentino-Alto in Piemonte, and Adige, Liguria, Molise andflood mortality (Fig. smallest is 7f). very in large In dueThe Abruzzo, Valle to same Emilia- the d’Aosta occurs reduced in and size Basilicata, of where Trentino-Altoand the flood Adige population Sardegna mortality in is the is severe. two Highpopulation. regions. due mortality Inspection in to Liguria of theby Fig. large the 6 number percentage of reveals ofTable the that 1), fatalities interviewees was the largest compared that in considered perception Veneto, to Liguria, floods of Sardegna the a and flood Calabria, personal size and threat risk, large of (Q4 in measured the Piemonte, in evaluate flood risk(Fig. to 7a, the c and population e).large The of in number of Toscana, Italy and fatal is are flood smallestfatalities events less is is in largest largest Abruzzo consistent in in and Piemonte Piemonte than Molise and and (Fig. Sicilia, for Sicilia, large 7b). is in The landslides Liguria number and of Toscana, and flood smallest in ation and familiarity (Hazard andwhere Seidel, the 1993). Conversely, perception in of Basilicatamoderate. and We the Calabria attribute risk the wassevere result fatal very to consequences high, – the that several landslide haveIn landslide occurred risk the in events the regions to – two where fortunately the regions landslide inities without population risk the (e.g., is last was Molise, few low, years. in Puglia, termslow. Lazio), of In the mortality Friuli-Venezia perception and Giulia, of the wherelandslides the number the a of risk proportion personal fatal- was threat of intermediate, was the lowest and interviewees (7 not %, that Fig. considered 7), landslide risk is moderately low. (in terms of mortality,perception number of of the fatalities, risk and wasnificant, number also high of the (Fig. fatal perception 6). events, of In Fig.Adige, the Liguria, 7) where where risk landslide and landslide was risk mortality the also to iswas significant. sig- the moderate In population (Trentino-Alto Adige) is Piemonte high or and (Fig. low Trentino-Alto 7), (Piemonte). the This perception can of be the a risk result of habitu- abria, and large in the Marche region. Thus, only in Campania landslide risk is high a threat to their safety (Q4 in Table 1), was largest in Campania, Basilicata and Cal- the perception of landslide andgeographical flood distribution risk of in Italy, di flood and risk the to cartograms the in population Fig. of 7 Italy. give the Trentino-Alto Adige (Fig. 7,ble Table 2), 3). landslide Due mortality toLiguria is landslide also the mortality large reduced is in significant sizeto Valle as of d’Aosta the a and size result the significant of of population the inlandslide the (Ta- number Basilicata. risk, population. of In measured Visual fatalities by compared inspection the of percentage Fig. of 6 interviewees reveals that that considered landslides the perception of (C) and flood (D)in fatalities, the and 50 (iii) yearper the period 100 average 000 1964–2013. landslide people Mortality (E)deforming (Guzzetti is the and et regions flood the based al., (F) yearly onthe 2004). mortality cartograms the average The in size number Fig. of cartograms of 6 the in give population. deaths a Fig. Collectively, quantitative the 7 overview maps of were and the obtained geographical distribution of with the regions deformed basedAs on a the size result, of the the mostand population populated of regions the each (e.g., least region Lombardia, (Table 2). Lazio, populatedreduced. Campania) Cartograms regions are E larger, (e.g., (for Vallebut landslides) d’Aosta, were and obtained Molise, F deforming (for Basilicata, the floods)and Umbria) regions show coloring on are the each the same percentage region information, we of based show the on the respondents geographical the to distributionby size Q4, of (i) of landslide the the and number the of population fatal flood in landslide risk the (A) in and region. Italy flood In measured (B) Fig. events, (ii) 7 the number of landslide the geographical distribution of the responses2013 given survey. to Maps question A 4 and (Q4 Bbased in in Table on 1), Fig. the in 6 percentage the portray of the(B) the (non-deformed) a interviewees Italian that threat regions considered colored to landslidessame their (A) information safety. using and Cartograms the floods same C legend (for and color landslides) scheme and used D for maps (for A floods) and B, show but the 5 5 25 15 20 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | erences ff , 2004. erence to the ff 10.4401/ag-3371 erent hazards (Guzzetti et al., ff 3484 3483 ected repeatedly by flood (and landslide) events in the recent ff The surveys were conducted with the financial support of the Italian na- erent consequences and frequency of the risks (Slovic et al., 1986; Slovic, 1987; Comparison of the perception of the risks with metrics of actual landslide and flood Inappropriate land management was considered the main cause for landslide and We conclude that, with a few exceptions (e.g., Campania for landslides and Liguria an integrated analysis ofCampotosto minor area, earthquake Ann. sequences Geophys.-Italy, 47, and 1723–1742, structural doi: data in the Amatrice- Res., 1, 135–163, 1998. Catalogo Dei Forti Terremoti in Italia dal 41 a.C. al 1980, ING-SGA, Bologna, 1995. of May–June 2012: preliminary data and results, Ann. Geophys.-Italy, 55, 515–842, 2012. ff vealed that the perceptionmatch necessarily of the the risk threatThis posed points posed to by by the landslides geo-hydrologicalunderstanding need and that events for the floods does population renewed of to actions not Italyrisks the to has (Morgan of population foster et the the al., of geo-hydrological 2001). hazards knowledge Italy. and and their improve the Italy, inappropriate land managementand was flood considered risk, in the most primary ofconsidered southern cause most Italy “abusiveness” important of (illegal to constructions) landslide control is the the factor risk. risk, including the number of fatal events, the number of fatalities, and mortality, re- mate change. However, the responses varied geographically. If in northern and central food risk in Italy, followed by illegal construction, abandonment of the territory, and cli- earthquakes, followed by floods, landslides,agreement and with volcanic the eruptions. societal This2005b; risk Salvati is levels et in posed al., general by 2012). Analysis thethe of responses di the indicated temporal that and the theof occurrence geographical the of variations recent risks, of events and influences thatand the the perception floods, perception and of the persisteddi risks longer decreased for more rapidly earthquakes.Hazard for and We landslides Seidel, attribute 1993). the di slide and floodphone risk calls in approximately Italy. 3100the The adults, using responses surveys pre-defined showed were questionnaires. that(environmental performed Analysis pollution people interviewing of and in through car Italy(Renn tele- accidents) and feel Rohrmann, than more 2000). to exposed Of natural the to natural risks. technological risks, This people risks in was Italy expected feel more exposed to for floods) the perception ofnecessarily the the threat actual posed risk bymortality, landslides to and and the by floods the population does number of of not Italy, landslide match measured and by flood landslide fatalities (Figs. and 6 flood and6 7, Table 3). Conclusions In 2012 and 2013, we executed two surveys to investigate the perception of land- risk (Fig. 6). Inbetween the the actual other flood regions risk (Fig. therethat 7) exists some and – the of perception more the ofLiguria, or the regions Veneto) threats less were where (Fig. a significant 6). the We –years. perception note di of flood risk was highest (Campania, risk (large for Liguria and very low for Molise, Fig. 7) matches the perception of the Boncio, P.,Lavecchia, G., Milana, G., and Rozzi, B.: Seismogenesis in Central Apennines, Italy: Bohlm, A.: Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research, J. Risk Boschi, E., Ferrari, G., Gasperini, P., Guidoboni, E., Smirglio, G., and Valensise, G. (Eds.): tional Department of theand Civil by Protection a (DPC). grant CBof of and the PG natural supported Fondazione disasters Generali byPoR-FESR in in a 861, the grant Italy. 2012. of framework FF the of supported DPC, a project by to a evaluate the grant costs of theReferences Umbria Region, under contract Anzidei, M., Maramai, A., and Montone, P. (Eds.): The Emilia (northern Italy) seismic sequence Acknowledgements. 5 5 20 25 15 10 25 15 20 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | , 2004. , 2005a. , 1999. 10.1073/pnas.0400280101 , 2002. , 1996. , 2000. 3486 3485 10.1007/s00267-003-0257-1 , 1992. , 1988. usion-based method for producing density-equalizing ff , 2003. 10.1093/fampra/16.2.179 10.4401/ag-3995 10.1080/13669870110042598 , B., Bostrom, A., and Atman, C. J.: Risk Communication: A Mental ff eld, 1993. 10.1016/S0013-7952(00)00047-8 ffi , B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., and Combs, B.: How safe is safe enough? ff 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01949.x 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x 10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00283-2 tion of risk: theoreticaldoi: foundations and empirical applications, J. Soc. Issues, 48, 137–160, Cultural Theory, Rotunde Publikasjoner, Trondheim, 2004. and Golding, D., Westport, CT. Praeger, London, 53–79, 1992. Res., 5, 147–165, doi: Models Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001. Geological Survey of Canada, 1991. Landslide Risk Assessment,285–295, edited 1997. by: Cruden, D. M. and Fell, R., Balkema, Rotterdam, perception, comparison with the psychometric paradigm, Risk Anal., 18, 635–647, 1998. vor Gesundheitsschäden durch Radon,rand, in: K., Umweltbelastungen Hazard, B., und and Ängste, Tretter, F., edited Westdeutscher Verlag, by: Opladen, Au- 113–132, 1993. Health, Safety and Environment, 7, 119–134, 1996. hazards in Italy, in: Landslideand Risk Eberhardt, Management, E., edited Taylor & by: Francis Hungr, Group, O., London, Fell, 381–389, R., 2005b. Couture, R., maps, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 7499–7504, doi: 89–107, doi: of Italy, Environ. Manage., 36, 15–36, doi: doi: Family Practice, 16, 179–183, doi: nomics, 2005. tive risk measuresdoi: for loss of life and economicstruct, edited damage, by: J. Bayerische-Reuch, Knesebeck, Hazard. Muenchen, 58–102, Mater., 1993. A99,Ratick, 1–30, S.: The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework, Risk Anal., 8, 177–187, Geography, 59, Geo Books, 69 pp., 1996. by: Cruden, D. M. and Fell, R., A. A. BalkemaA Publisher, psychometric Rotterdam, 51–109, study 1997. of127–152, 1978. attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sci., 9, and Environmental Dangers, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1983. central and southern ApenninesGeophys.-Italy, 39, (Italy): 603–618, doi: modeling of fault-related landscape features,and Ann. Environment, 7, 99–108, 1996. Press, She shop on Landslide Risklisher, Assessment, Rotterdam, Honolulu, 1997. 19–21 February 1997, A. A. Balkema Pub- Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., and Slovic, P.: The social amplifica- Renn, O.: Perception of risks, Geneva Pap. Risk Ins., 29, 102–114. 2004. Rippl, S.: Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement, J. Risk Renn, O.: Concepts of risk: a classification, in: Social Theories of Risk, edited by: Krimsky, S. Oltedal, S., Moen, B., Klempe, H., and Rundmo, T.: Explain Risk Perception, an Evaluation of Morgan, M. G., Fishho Morgan, G. C.: A regulatory perspective on slope hazards and associated risks to LIFE, in: Morgan, G. C.: Quantification of Risks from Slope Hazards, Open File Report No. 1992–15, Marris, C., Langford, I., and O’Riordan, T.: A quantitative test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Hazard, B. and Seidel, G.: Informationsbedingte und psychosoziale Ursachen für die Angst Mamadouh, V.: Grid-group cultural theory: an introduction, GeoJ. Lib., 47, 395–409, 1999. Linnerooth-Bayer, J. and Fitzgerald, K. B.: Conflicting views on fair siting processes, Risk: Guzzetti, F., Salvati, P., and Stark, C. P.: Evaluation of risk to the population posed by natural Latter, J. H.: Natural disasters, Adv. Sci., 25, 362–380, 1969. Ketola, E. and Klockars, M.: Computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) in primary care, Guzzetti, F.: Landslide fatalities and the evaluationGuzzetti, F., of Stark, C. landslide P., and risk Salvati, P.: in Evaluation of Italy, flood Eng. and landslide Geol., risk 58, to the population Gastner, M.T and Newman, M. E. J.: Di Fromm, J.: Risk Denial and Neglect: Studies in Risk Perception, Stockholm School of Eco- Jonkman, S. N., van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., and Vrijling, J.Kasperson, K.: R. E., An Renn, O., overview Slovic, P., Brown, of H. S., quantita- Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., and Fischho Jungermann, H. and Slovic, P.: Characteristics of individual risk perception, in: Risk – A Con- Fell, R. and Hartford, D.: Landslide risk management, in: Landslide Risk Assessment, edited Dorling, D.: Area Cartograms: Their Use and Creation. Concepts and Techniques in Modern Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. B.: Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical Douglas, M.: In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers, JSOT Davy, B.: Fairness as compassion: towards a less unfair facility siting policy, Risk: Health, Safety Cucci, L., D’Addezio, G., Valensise, G., and Burrato, P.: Investigating seismogenic faults in Cruden, D. M. and Fell, R. (Eds.): Landslide Risk Assessment, Proceedings International Work- 5 5 30 25 20 15 30 10 20 25 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | , ∗ , 1987. , 2010. 10.1111/0272-4332.0000 10.2307/1698637 , 277–292, 2012. 10.5194/nhess-10-465-2010 3487 3488 , 1982. , 1980. , 1998. , B., and Lichtenstein, S.: The psychometric study of risk perception, in: , B., and Lichtenstein, S.: Why study risk perception?, Risk Anal., 2, 83–93, ff (e) road accident, (f) environmental pollution?(3) Possible little answers: (1) exposed, considerably (4) exposed, not (2)Quanto exposed. somewhat pensa exposed, di essere espostovulcanica, a (e) ciascuno di incidente questi stradale,poco, rischi: (4) (f) (a) per inquinamento frana, niente. (b) ambientale? inondazione, Possibili (c) risposte: terremoto, (d) (1) eruzione most molto, frequent (2) or most abbastanza, likely(2) (3) to flood, occur (3) in earthquake, the (4)Tra municipality questi volcanic where eventi eruption, you naturali (5) live (a) none or frana,frequente of nearby? (b) o Possible these, inondazione, answers: il (6) (c) (1) I più terremoto, landslide, (d) don’t(2) probabile eruzione know. inondazione, che vulcanica, (3) avvenga quale terremoto, nel (4) crede comune essere eruzione dove il vulcanica, lei più (5) vive nessunomunicipality o di where questi, nelle you (6) vicinanze? live non Possibili or so. Lei risposte: nearby? Possible è (1) answers: venuto frana, (1) yes, a aun’alluvione conoscenza landslide, avvenuta diretta, (2) nel yes, territorio perché a comunale coinvolto,si flood, dove o alluvione, (3) lei (3) yes, indiretta, risiede, both, si, perché o (4) entrambe, nelle ne no. (4) vicinanze? ha no, Possibili nessuna avuto risposte: notiza. notizia, (1)safety? si di Possible answers: frana, in (1) (2) una yes,the (2) frana other). no. o If di yes, (1a)Lei yes, ritiene a che landslide, (1b) eventilumità yes, idrogeologici a personale? quali flood Possibili le (one risposte: frane optionentranbe (1) do e le si, not opzioni). le exclude (2) alluvioni no.Do possano Se you essere think si, una that (1a) minaccia infloods si, reale the have una alla last been: frana, five sua (1) years (1b) inco- 400, in between si, (5) Italy 10 I una victims don’t and alluvione caused know. 100,Lei (sono by ritiene (2) geo-hydrological possibili che events, between negli includind 100 ultimi landslidessiano and cinque and state: anni 200, (1) in tra (3) Italia 10In between le e your 200 vittime opinion, 100, which causate and (2) of da tra 400, theinappropriate eventi 100 following (4) idrogeologici land factors e have quali management, more 200, the le (b) most (3) than landscape frane influence tra(“abusiveness”), characteristics, e in (e) 200 the (c) le climate e occurrence abandoning alluvioni change, of 400, the landslides (f) (4) territory,Secondo and I (d) oltre floods: lei, don’t illegal 400, (a) quale construction know. (5) tra nontione i so. del seguenti territorio, fattori (b) influisce caratteristichementi maggiormente del climatici, nel territorio, (f) verificarsi (c) non abbandono di so. del frane territorio, ed (d) alluvioni: abusivismo (a) edilizio, errata (e) cambia- ges- ff 10.4401/ag-4327 http://www.iahs.info/bluebooks/SP010.pdf 2012 2013 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806 Questions listed in the questionnaires used to determine the perception of flood and ? Q5 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x 4, 41–60, 1990. 820, doi: Forum, 8, 173–180, 1997. 1999. German Advisory Council on Global Change, Springer, 1998. Risk Evaluation and Management,Plenum edited Press„ by: 3–24, Covello, 1986. V. T., Menkes, J., and Mumpower, J., doi: in Vavilov Centers, With athesis, Special Vienna, Focus 2004. of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), Ph.D. 2000. 183–214, doi: Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 465–483, doi: Risk in Europe, editedavailable at: by: Kundzewicz, Z., IAHS Special Publication 10, IAHS Press, UK, Risk Perception Research, edited53, by: 2000. Renn, O. and Rohrmann, B., Kluwer, Dordrecht, 11– 2012 2013? ? Question Q1? How much do you feel exposed to ? each of these risks: (a) landslide, (b) flood, (c) earthquake, (d) volcanic Q2 eruption, ? Among these natural events (a) landslide, ? (b) flood, (c) earthquake, (d) volcanic eruption, which you believe Q3 to? be Do you ? have direct knowledge, because involved, or indirect information of Q4 a landslide or a? flood occurred in the Do you think that geo-hydrological events such as landslides and floods can be Q5 a real threat to your personal Table 1. landslide risk insymbol Italy, indicates in the 2012 questions posed and in 2013. 2012 The and 2013. original questions in Italian are in italic. The Wildavsky, A. and Dake, K.: Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why?, Daedalus, Weistein, N. D.: Unrealistic optimism about future life events, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 39, 806– WBGU: World in Transition, Strategies for Global Environmental Risks, Annual Report of the asy J.Tansey, and O’Riordan, T.: Cultural theory and risk: a review, Health, Risk & Society, 1, 71–90, Starr, C.: Social benefit vs.Sunstein, technological C. risk, R.: Science, A 165, note 1232–1238, on 1969. “voluntary” vs. “involuntary” risks, Duke Environmental Law & Policy Slovic, P., Fischho Slovic, P., Fischho Slovic, P.: Perception of risk, Science, 236, 280–285, doi: Sjöberg, L.: Factors in risk perception,Slejko, D., Risk Peruzza, L., Anal., and 20, Rebez, A.: 1–11, Seismic doi: hazard maps of Italy, Ann. Geophys.-Italy, 41, Schmidt, M.: Investigating risk perception: a short introduction, in: Loss of Agro-Biodiversity Salvati, P., Bianchi, C., Rossi, M., and Guzzetti, F.: Societal landslideSalvati, and flood P., risk Bianchi, in C., Italy, Nat. Rossi, M., and Guzzetti, F.: Flood risk in Italy, in: Changes of Flood Rohrmann, B. and Renn, O.: Risk perception research – an introduction, in: Cross-Cultural 5 30 25 20 15 10 Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Interviewees Population 3490 3489 ) marks regions for which the number of interviews ∗ [#] [%] [#] [%] [#] % Events Fatalities Mortality Events Fatalities Mortality ) marks regions where oversampling was performed to obtain † ) TAA 85 2.7 73 2.3 1.030 1.7 † ) VDA 93 3.0 87 2.8 0.127 0.2 † ) BAS 39 1.2 45 1.4 0.578 1.0 ∗ ). A cross ( ) UMB 49 1.6 49 1.6 0.883 1.5 ) MOL 25 0.8 21 0.7 0.313 0.5 ∗ ∗ cient to obtain statistically significant results. Total number and percentage of telephone interviews performed in each region, for Total number of fatal events and of fatalities caused by landslides and floods in the 20 ffi Italy 3122 100 3126 100 59.394 100 RegionPiemonteValle d’Aosta ( LombardiaTrentino Alto Adige ( VenetoFriuli Venezia Giulia PIELiguriaEmilia 230 FVG LOM Romagna (2012)Toscana 496 63 7.4Umbria ( 15.9Mare 200 EMR 2.0 VEN 514 (2013)Lazio 223 6.4 249 77Abruzzo 16.4 LIG 7.1 4.358Molise 8.0 9.701 ( 2.5 TOSCampania 77 229 (2012) 7.3 255 16.3 Puglia 220 1.218 7.3Basilicata 8.2 2.5 ( 7.0 2.1 Calabria 4.341 MAR 4.854 86 202Sicilia ABR LAZ 90 7.3 8.2 Sardegna 60 CAM 2.8 226 6.5 2.9 242 1.567 7.2 3.668 1.9 82 7.8 PUG 2.6 275 6.2 68 212 CAL 279 2.6 8.8 113 6.8 SAR 2.2 8.8 SIC 1.541 5.500 71 3.6 161 1.306 5.764 259 2.6 9.3 115 5.2 2.2 2.3 9.7 8.3 3.7 4.050 72 236 1.958 6.8 7.5 2.3 3.3 5.000 1.638 8.4 2.8 Italy 412 1354 0.089 437 781 0.037 RegionPiemonteValle d’AostaLombardiaTrentino Alto AdigeVeneto VDA TAA PIEFriuli Venezia Giulia 12 50Liguria 50 FVG LOMEmilia Romagna 39 8Toscana 25 351 134Umbria EMR Landslides VENMare 118 2 11 24Lazio 0.800 0.423 0.062 LIGAbruzzo 0.027Molise TOS 16 71 49 26 4 64 0.018Campania 28 UMBPuglia 26 8 37Basilicata 16 32 MAR 130 0.034 64 0.025 5Calabria ABR LAZ 8 35Sicilia Floods 6 CAM 31 15 15 21 MOL 11Sardegna 0.043 0.060 0.077 87 0 0.039 9 BAS 0.085 0.008 PUG 24 34 8 25 15 5 0.051 6 0.038 293 CAL 49 0 18 SAR 88 SIC 9 0.013 0.010 10 0.012 88 0.008 15 0.106 12 0.013 20 37 8 14 0.000 22 14 0.101 3 14 67 0.051 0.049 0.006 1 27 0.037 10 29 5 7 15 0.035 0.021 10 0.027 1 0.011 0.014 31 0.011 30 13 66 28 0.008 45 0.006 130 0.016 0.043 0.028 0.061 0.054 Italian regions in thethe 50 year period period are 1964–2013. also Average given. landslide and flood mortality rates in Table 3. the 2012 andthe the percentage 2013 of surveys. the Right population two in each columns Region give (source: the istituto total Italiano population di Statistica, (millions) ISTAT, and Table 2. http://www.istat.it statistically significant results. An asterisk ( was insu Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper |

27 cient to obtain ffi 28 S) is also given. Black (red) +

3492 3491

Figure 2 Figure 677 677 ) marks regions for which the number of interviews was insu ∗

Figure 1 Figure

Answers to Question 1 (Q1: How much you feel exposed to each of these risks: (a) Answers to Question 1 (Q1: How much you feel exposed to each of these risks: (a) 676 676 ) marks regions where oversampling was performed to obtain statistically significant results. † Fig. 2. landslide, (b) flood), pershow region percentage and of for interviewees Italy, that“little” and responded or for to (N) the be “not” (C) 2012that exposed “considerably”, and responded to (S) the to landslides “somewhat”, be 2013 or (L) “considerably” surveys. floods. or Colours The “somewhat” cumulated exposed percentage (C of interviewees Fig. 1. landslide, (b) flood, (c)pollution?), earthquake, at (d) the volcanic national scale, eruption,the and percentage (e) for of road the interviewees that accident, 2012 respondedtle”, and (f) to or the environmental be (N) 2013 (C) “not” surveys. “considerably”, exposed Horizontal (S)(EQ), to “somewhat”, bars and natural (L) show hazards, volcanic “lit- including eruptions landslides (VE),Black (LS), to (red) floods road (FL), arrows accidents earthquakes show (RA), a andSee reduction to Table (increase) environmental 1 pollution in for (EP). the the questions percentages and in the 2013, compared list to of 2012. the possible answers. arrows show a reduction( (increase) in theAn percentages asterisk in ( 2013,statistically compared significant results. to See Table 2012. 1 for A the questions cross and the list of the possible answers. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | ) marks ∗

30 ) marks regions where † 29

cient to obtain statistically significant ffi 3494 3493

Figure 3 Figure

678 678

4Figure Answers to Question 2 (Q2: Among these natural events: (a) landslide, (b) flood, (c) Bar charts show percentage of answers “yes” and “no” to Question 4 (Q4: Do you think 679 679 that geo-hydrological events such as landslidessafety?), and per floods sex can and be age, ato for real the 54 threat years 2012 to old). and your 2013 Senior personal possible surveys. (55 answers. Young years (15 old to or 34 years older). old). See Adult Table (35 1 for the question and the list of the Fig. 4. oversampling was performed to guarantee statistically significant results. An asterisk ( Fig. 3. earthquake, (d) volcanic eruption, whichin you the believe municipality to where be you mostbecause live, frequent involved, or or or nearby?), most Question indirect likely 3 towhere information (Q3: occur of you Do a you live, have landslide orsuch direct or as nearby?), knowledge, a landslides and flood and Question floods occurredItaly, for can 4 in the be 2012 (Q4: the a and municipality Do real thelandslide; 2013 threat you F, surveys. to flood; Colours think E, your show earthquake; personal that percentage V, safety?), ofand volcanic geo-hydrological per the eruption; floods; events responses. region N, Y, Legend: and None; yes; L, for D, N, I no; don’t know; YL, F/L, yes landslides landslides; YF, yes floods. A cross ( regions for whichresults. the See number Table 1 of for the interviews questions and was the insu list of the possible answers. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper |

31

32 erent considered factors. Map ff ) marks regions for which the number of ∗ 3496 3495 ) marks regions where oversampling was performed to † cient to obtain statistically significant results. See Table 1 for the question

Figure 6Figure

ffi 681 681 Answers to Question 5 (Q5: In your opinion, which of the following factors have the Geographical distribution of the responses to Question 4 (Q4: Do you think that geo-

Figure 5Figure

680 680 Fig. 6. hydrological events such as landslides andfor floods landslides can (shades be of aof real brown) threat colours and to portray floods your the personal (shadesin percentage safety?) of of each blue), the in region respondents theregions. (in that Cartograms 20 felt 2013). (C) Italian threated and Maps regions. by (D)in landslides Shade (A) prepared each or deforming and region floods, the (in (B) regions 2013).percentage based Cartograms show of on (E) the the the and respondents total true (F) that population on prepared felt size deforming the threated the and size by regions landslides of shape based or thethe on floods of population 20 the (in Italian in the 2013), regions, each and 20 for region coloured reference. (in Italian 2013). Map G gives the true size and shape of most influence in the occurrencesurvey. of Table shows landslides the and percentage floods), per of region the and responses for for Italy, the for the di 2013 Fig. 5. shows the factors with the largestmatch percentage colours of in responses, the for table. each Consideredpropriate region. factors: land Colours (a) management, in illegal the (c) construction map climate (“abusiveness”),the (b) change, territory, inap- (d) (f) landscape I characteristics, don’tguarantee (e) statistically know. abandoning significant A results. cross An ( asterisk ( interviews was insu and the list of the possible answers. Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper | Discussion Paper |

33 3497 Figure 7 Figure

682 682 Cartograms showing landslide and flood risk in the 20 regions in Italy, measured by the Fig. 7. number of fatal landslidefatalities, and (A) the and average landslide flood (E) andSee (B) flood Table events, (F) 3. mortality, the in Cartograms the number preparedin 50-year of period deforming each 1964–2013. the landslide region regions (C) (in basedreference. and on 2013). flood the Map (D) size G of gives the the population true size and shape of the 20 Italian regions, for