Cerase, Andrea

Studies of risk perception examine the judgments that people make when they are asked to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies (Slovic, 1987). Risk perception is a cognitive process involved in several daily activities that orients people’s behaviors on the impact of uncertain events. This process is both individual and collective; it selects and interprets signals related to direct observations or information received from others. Some researches highlighted that in many cases there is a difference between subjective risk perception and objective evaluation (Slovic, 1992, 2000). To understand risk perception it is necessary to consider a number of social, psychological and cultural ambits, as well as interaction among them (Wachinger & Renn, 2010). In our opinion, in agreement with the constructivist approach, seismic risk perception does not depend on the actual value of the seismic risk but there are others factors influencing it. In the specific case of seismic risk, the role of people perception is very important, especially in the absence of clear communication strategies. The clarity of the language used by mass media, scientists and decision-makers in communicating seismic risk to people is essential for a proper knowledge and awareness. This paper presents the results of the research on seismic risk perception in Italy, started by INGV researchers on funding by the DPC 2012-2015. In 2013, we built a questionnaire to assess seismic risk perception, with a particular attention to compare hazard assessed by scientific data and methodology, then translated into a national law. The Seismic Risk Perception Questionnaire (SRP-Q) is designed by semantic differential method, using opposite terms on a Likert scale to seven points. The questionnaire allows to obtain scores for five risk indicators: Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability, People and Community, Earthquake Phenomenon. In 2015, a CATI survey was conducted on a statistical sample of the Italian population (N=4,012), its results represent a benchmark for the seismic risk perception in Italy. At the same time, from 2013 to today, we have gathered on the web more than 9,800 responses to the SRP-Q (www.terremototest.it) and these data allow us to make comparisons for year and for different reference periods, also on the basis of the seismic phenomena that have occurred. The questionnaire is given by web on a random sample since 2013, January 21th, to April 2018, collecting over 9,800 answers. In this contribution we compare and discuss data collected during the last six years (2013-2018) trying to investigate if and how the occurrence of strong and damaging earthquakes (in particular those occurred in Central Italy in 2016) has changed the seismic risk perception in some regions of Italy. We hope that the analysis of risk perception data is able to produce useful indications to design seismic risk reduction activities and address risk communication strategies.

According to a deep-rooted conviction, the occurrence of a tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea would bevery rare. Unfortunately, this belief is definitely false: at least 2,000 of the 80,000 victims of the great earthquakein Messina (1908) were due to the tsunami that followed earthquake (Boschi et al. 1995). In 1956, a 7.7 magnitudeearthquake close to the Cycladic island of Amorgos (Greece) triggered large waves that also hit coasts of Amorgos,Astypalaia and Folegandros, with run-up values of 30, 20, and 10 mt(Okal et al., 2009).More recently, in 2003 a relatively small tsunami caused by a 6.9 magnitude earthquake in Boumerdes (Algeria)hit the Western Mediterranean coast causing damage properties in at least eight harbours in Balearic Islands (Velaet al. 2011) and two little tsunamis occurred in Dodecanese respectively in 2016 and 2017.Such events, that are just a little part of the over 290 historically known events occurred in the Mediterranean(Maramai, Brizuela & Graziani, 2014) should remind geoscientists that 1) tsunami hazard is everything butimpossible and 2) tsunami come in all shapes and colours, and even a small event can result in serious damagesand loss of lifes. In such a scenario, risk communication about Mediterranean Tsunami is a challenging enterprise.According to Astarte project, which investigated people’s knowledge, preparedness and attitudes to cope withTsunami within six test sites across different nations, people have little knowledge about tsunamis, are likely tounderestimate both probability and consequences of such events, and their understanding is significantly affectedby media coverage (and social imagery) of big events such as the 2004 Sumatra Tsunami and the 2011 TohokuTsunami (Astarte, 2014).In such a scenario, where low probability and high uncertainty match with poor knowledge and familiaritywith tsunami hazard, risk communicators should avoid undue assumptions about public’s supposed attitudesand preparedness, that may results in serious consequences for the exposed population, geoscientists, and civilprotection officers. Hence, scientists must carefully shape their messages and rely on well-researched principledpractices rather on good intuition (Bostrom, & Löfstedt, 2003).For these reasons, the Centro Allerta Tsunami of the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, to ground aneffective science communication strategy, promoted a survey to investigate tsunami’s risk perception in two pilotregions of southern Italy, as to represent about 3.2mln people living in 183 coastal municipalities.The research is based on a sample of > 1000 people, organized into six main sections: socio-demographic dataand information on respondents’ territory; knowledge and sources of information on tsunami risk; contextualperception of risk posed by tsunamis; social representations of tsunami; role of cultural attitudes and worldviews; messages and channels to be used for tsunami early warning.Interviews will be administered within the end of February 2018, first data will be presented and discussed in this session.

In late 2017 and early 2018 the Tsunami Alert Centre of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (hereinafter CAT-INGV) has put in place a pilot research on tsunami risk perception and understanding, first aimed at improving both risk and scientific communication strategies and activities. The research arises from a decennial debate on risk communication failures, which started by an in-depth analysis of the L’Aquila earthquake wrong predictions issued during the 2009 seismic crisis and the following trial, that started by 2010 (Cocco et al. 2015; Amato, Cerase and Galadini, 2015). The notorious L’Aquila case shocked the community of geo-scientist across the world, thus demonstrating that “good intuitions” are very likely to turn into “undue assumptions” and then in “risk communication failures” or worse, in “communication disasters”. According to a well - established ethical principle, delivering untested risk communication should be considered as an unacceptable practice, as well as delivering an untested drug (Fischhoff & Morgan, 1993: 199), and any effective and sustainable risk communication strategy should be grounded on well-researched principles instead of “good” intuitions (Bostrom and Löfstedt, 2003). As a consequence, the lack of knowledge about the way complex phenomena such as tsunamis are perceived and understood by coastal population may result in serious misunderstandings and even in rising outrage towards both tsunami early warning and risk governance systems, implicating the risk for scientist to be targeted by harsh criticism and / or to have a serious reduction of the intended effectiveness of risk mitigation measures. Our pilot research foresees a sample of > 1000 interviews to be administered in two tsunami-prone regions of Southern Italy - Calabria and Apulia - and data collection is nowadays ongoing. Although research is not yet completed at the time we write, evidence from first 374 interviews provides an amount of relevant implications about the ways demands placed on risk reduction strategies both at local and regional level. Along with the investigation of risk awareness, risk cultures and tsunami mental models, the research enlists some questions aimed at investigating knowledge and preferences of respondents regarding Tsunami Early Warning systems operations, the media most frequently used to get information on a daily basis and the most appropriate channels to spread timely and effective early warning messages. Research was also intended to identify the most appropriate message and channels to effectively spread both risk communication and alert messages: as Science pointed out “warnings often fail to travel the ‘last mile’ to people living in areas, often remote, that are at risk of being swamped” (Science, 2014). Although Italy coastal setting and tsunami exposition could not be compared to Indonesia or Japan ones, overcoming the last mile still remains a big challenge for risk and crisis communication Despite commonplaces and stereotypes people appear being not so misinformed on tsunamis as one may suppose, and they also have high expectations regarding authorities, civil protection and research institutions capabilities to face tsunami risk and manage with early warning issues. In addition, some target categories (e.g. elder women) would like to be getting early warnings through "traditional" broadcast media and sirens rather than receiving information by SMS or smartphone apps, hence suggesting the need of modulating EWS from actual conditions of recipients (age, education, media channels availability and literacy etc.).

This work is intended as a short introduction to social science literature, with the aim of critically analyzing some of the main theoretical paradigms, the most important concepts and research themes and their relevance in the context of policy making processes. The consolidation of the risk studies paradigm as well as the emergence of risk governance as an autonomous and multidisciplinary field of research owes much to the fundamental contribution of social sciences, which is the subject of this paper. The international scientific community has recognized the role of social sciences for some time, stressing that the connection and comparison between different knowledge is essential to achieve a single objective, namely the protection of human health, the environment and the communities and social groups exposed to risks. The strong overlap between the physical and material dimensions of risk and social, psychological and political dimensions inevitably entailed the need to overcome the impasse of reductionist explanations and the idea of self-sufficiency in the individual disciplines [Horlick Jones & Sime, 2004], which has also been the subject of epistemological reflection for some time in other fields [Morin, 2000]. However, one should point out that this extension of the field of risk analysis, today including social science and humanities [SSH] has not always been easy, nor bloodless. The full acceptance of social sciences in risk assessment, management and communication issues has required a laborious recognition of the limitations of rationalist paradigm in resolving or mediating social conflicts - sometimes dramatic - linked to the emergence of "new" risks, especially those related to nuclear energy, pollution and health. Numerous major catastrophic events, such as the fire at the Sellafield nuclear power plant in 1957, the foetal malformations caused by Talidomide in the early 1960s, the terrible consequences of methylmercury pollution in Minamata Bay in Japan at the end of the same decade, the evacuation of Love Canal from toxic waste, but above all, the nuclear accidents on Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 have created a climate of widespread and justified public concern, which has often been accompanied by growing hostility towards science and technology, as these are increasingly seen as a source of incalculable, irreversible and catastrophic risks. In addition, disasters such as Vajont disaster in 1964, the Tangshan earthquake in 1976, the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the Japan earthquake in 2011 showed that the extent of the damage was in many cases linked to wrong human decisions, making the distinction between anthropogenic and natural risks much more fades and conventional. In such a context, the need to provide organic and consistent responses to risks has made it necessary to integrate several disciplines, both in terms of multidisciplinarity (in which each discipline deals with a particular aspect of the problem in cooperation with the others) and transdisciplinarity (which integrates in a single approach theoretical and methodological elements of the different disciplinary knowledge) [Horlick Jones & Sime, 2004]. This dialogue, which presupposes a reflection on the epistemological foundations of the different disciplines, and the attempt to integrate concepts and definitions, is fundamental for assessing and informing political decisions on risks [Althaus, 2005], as well as the need to reconcile the scientific cultures of the so-called hard science (engineering, physics, epidemiology) with those of soft scienze as SSH + (anthropology, sociology, psychology) [Jasanoff, 1993]. In this context it emerged the new concept of risk studies: this term, which began to appear in the early 1980s, associated with research into the location of nuclear sites, was used in the early 1990s to identify a specific theoretical - disciplinary field aimed at analysing the social, political, economic and legal problems associated with risks [Krimsky, 1992]. Risk studies, which are nowaday characterized as a multidisciplinary and autonomous field that integrates different knowledge, are born precisely as a response to the emergence of risk perception as a social problem [Burgess, 2016], taking concrete form in the United States in the birth of different research groups with a strong multidisciplinary vocation.

The Italian Tsunami Alert Centre of the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (Centro di Allerta Tsunami, hereinafter CAT-INGV) supported a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey to investigate tsunami risk perception in two pilot regions of southern Italy. The survey was carried out on a stratified sample of 1021 interviewees representing about 3.2 million people living in 183 coastal municipalities of the two regions, namely Calabria and Apulia. The main goal of this research is to verify whether and how people’s perception of tsunami hazard com- pares to the results of (PTHA) – probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment (TSUMAPS-NEAM project; Basili et al., 2018). As shown by the results of this project, both investigated regions are characterized by high tsunami hazard. Nonetheless, the long return time of such events could lead people to con- sider the occurrence of a tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea to be very unlikely. The survey results reveal that people’s risk perception is low: for almost half of the whole sample the occurrence of a tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea is considered quite un- likely, with a clear difference between Apulia and Calabria. In the latter region the risk perception is much higher than in the former, probably due to the shorter time elapsed since the last event. Also, belonging to different coastal areas appears to have a significant influence on the way tsunami hazard is conceived, having a stronger effect on risk characterization: the interviewees of Tyrrhenian Calabria are indeed more likely to associate tsunami risk with volcanoes than the Ionian citizens. This is coherent considering the presence of active volcanoes and related tsunami precedents in the Tyrrhenian. For the purposes of this paper, the term “coastal area” refers to the part of the coastline defined by both seas and regions’ limits, according to current geographical conventions. Tyrrhenian Calabria indicates the coastal region between the municipalities of Tortora and Scilla, Ionian Calabria spans from Reggio Calabria to Rocca Imperiale; Ionian Apulia from Ginosa to Castrignano del Capo, and Adriatic Apulia from Gagliano del Capo to Chieuti. Television emerged as the most relevant source of knowledge for almost 90% of the sample, and the influence of media also results in the way tsunami risk is characterized. In particular, the survey showed that people’s perception and understanding of tsunamis are affected by media accounts of large events, such as the 2004 Sumatra and the 2011 Japan tsunamis. At the same time, it is evident that the risk posed by smaller events is underrated. Furthermore, the survey’s results show that the word “tsunami” occupies a different semantic space in comparison to the Italian traditional head- word maremoto, with differences among sample strata. In other words, the same physical phenomenon would be understood in two different ways by younger, educated people and elders with a low education level. The results of this study, although limited to two regions, provide a first assessment of tsunami risk perception in Italy, also entailing important consequences for both risk communication practice and mitigation policies.

The Tsunami Alert Centre of the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (CAT-INGV) has been promoting, since 2018, the study of tsunami risk perception in Italy. Between 2018 and 2021 a semi-structured questionnaire on the perception of tsunami risk was administered to a sample of 5842 citizens residing in 450 Italian coastal municipalities, representative of more than 12 million people. The survey was conducted with the computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) methodology, described in Cerase et al. (2019), who published the results of the first pilot survey (about 1000 interviews). The large sample and the socio-demographic stratification give an excellent representation of the resident population in the surveyed Italian coastal municipalities. Moreover, in 2021 an optimized version of the questionnaire was also administered via Telepanel (a tool for collecting proportional and representative opinions of citizens) that was representative of the Italian population and included 1500 people distributed throughout the country. In this work we present the main results of the three survey phases, with a comparison among the eight surveyed regions and between the coastal regions and some coastal metropolitan cities involved in the investigations (Rome, Naples, Bari, Reggio Calabria, and Catania). Data analysis reveals heterogeneous and generally low tsunami risk perception. Some seaside populations, in fact, show a good perception of tsunami risk, while others, such as in Apulia and Molise, reveal a lower perception, most likely due to the long time elapsed since the last event and lack of memory. We do not find relevant differences related to the socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender) of the sample, whereas the education degree appears to affect people's perception. The survey shows that the respondents' predominant source of information on tsunamis is the television and other media sources (such as newspapers, books, films, internet), while the official sources (e.g., civil protection, local authorities, universities and research institutes) do not contribute significantly. Also, we find an interesting difference in people's understanding of the words tsunami and maremoto, the local term commonly used in Italy until the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman event, which should be taken into account in scientific and risk communication. The Telepanel survey, based on a nationwide sample, highlights a lower level of tsunami risk perception in comparison to average risk perception levels found in the coastal-municipality sample. Our results are being used to drive our communication strategy aimed at reducing tsunami risk in Italy, to activate dissemination and educational programs (data driven), to fill the data gap on tsunami risk perception in the North-Eastern Atlantic, Mediterranean and connected seas (NEAM) area, and to implement multilevel civil protection actions (national and local, top-down and bottom-up). Not least, outputs can address a better development of the UNESCO Tsunami Ready program in Italy.

In the aftermath of a large earthquake, media system plays a crucial role, fulfilling different social and psychological functions, which, both exposed communities and society at large, need to cope with disasters. The urge to make sense of the event results in a genuine appetite for scientific knowledge (Wein et al. 2010), stressing the role of journalistic mediation in science communication, and its ability to provide steady and authoritative point of references to the public. The comparative analysis of news media coverage of Emilia (2012) and Central Italy's earthquakes investigates the relationship between physical events and media representation of expert knowledge, highlighting key trends and some significant signs of change in the frames used to assess and communicate seismic risk.

We present the results of an ongoing research for assessing tsunami risk perception in southern Italy. The study is motivated by the need of addressing a sound communication strategy for tsunami risk reduction, related to the activities of the Tsunami Alert Centre (CAT) of INGV, operating within the framework of the Italian civil protection system. The area of the second step of this study includes five regions of Italy (Basilicata, Calabria, Molise, Puglia, Sicily), facing on Adriatic, Ionian and Tyrrhenian seas, located in one of the most hazardous areas of the Mediterranean. In all the area the memory of relevant tsunamis is loose, since the last destructive event dates back to 1908 (due to the Messina-Reggio Calabria M~7 earthquake). The main goal of this study is to verify how people’s perception of tsunami risk compares with the hazard assessed by scientific data, and which are the main factors controlling people’s knowledge and awareness. We analysed a sample of more than 1,600 interviewees representing about 4 million people living in the coastal municipalities of the five considered regions. Results show that risk perception appears to be generally low, with significant differences among different areas, likely due to the the time elapsed since the last events. The survey results for the first two investigated regions (Calabria and Puglia, see Cerase et al., NHESS, 2019) showed that people’s perception and understanding of tsunamis are affected by media accounts of the mega-tsunamis of Sumatra 2004 and Japan 2011. At the same time, the risk posed by small tsunamis is basically underrated or neglected, posing some critical questions for risk mitigation strategies, particularly in touristic areas. Furthermore, the survey’s results show that for lay people the word ‘tsunami’ has a different meaning with respect to the Italian traditional word ‘maremoto’, implying that the same physical phenomenon would be understood in two different ways by younger, educated people and elders with low education level. In addition, people have high expectations from authorities, CPAs, research institutions about warnings. Moreover, living in different coastal areas appears to have a significant influence on the way tsunami hazard is perceived: Interviewees of Tyrrhenian Calabria are more likely to associate tsunami risk to volcanoes with respect to those living in the Ionian coastal areas, coherently with the presence of Aeolian volcanic islands and feared submarine volcanoes in the Tyrrhenian. A somehow unexpected result is that TV emerges as the most relevant source of knowledge for 90% of the sample. Some categories declared to prefer getting early warnings through broadcast media and sirens rather than receiving by SMS or apps, suggesting the need for redundancy and modulation of EW messages. We will present an update of the survey which is presently ongoing, related to the five regions. These results could help in addressing risk communication and mitigation policies.

Il processo di accentuazione – proprio della nostra epoca – della “crisi discontinuità” nella “trama delle relazioni complesse che i sistemi storici hanno instaurato con i sistemi naturali” (Beato, 1993) ha determinato rilevanti modificazioni nella natura stessa dei rischi che, combinandosi con i processi di differenziazione sociale e individuale degli stessi rischi, hanno profondamente modificato il rapporto tra individui, sistemi sociali e ambiente, ridefinendo radicalmente le condizioni sociali attraverso cui i rischi sono percepiti, riconosciuti, compresi e gestiti. In un simile contesto, la “visione tradizionale” (e strumentale) della comunicazione del rischio rischia di opacizzare anziché chiarire la posta in gioco delle sfide ambientali e dei processi di costruzione discorsiva del rischio, che riguardano, in ultima analisi, il confronto e il conflitto tra particolari visioni del futuro. L’articolazione di questi conflitti appare sempre più irriducibile ai classici modelli di mediazione della società di massa e al ruolo egemone dei tradizionali media broadcast: in un’arena sempre più ampia e meno circoscrivibile, gli attori e le forme che assumono questi processi di mediazione si moltiplicano, richiedendo una visione più ampia della comunicazione del rischio e dei conflitti politici e culturali ad essa sottesi.

Large-scale coastal urban sprawl, development of tourist accommodations and industrial maritime poles have highly increased the tsunami risk to people living and/or traveling along the coasts of our planet. The disastrous tsunamis in the Indian Ocean (2004) and in the Pacific Ocean (2011), as well as a suite of other damaging events worldwide, have encouraged International Institutions, first of all UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, National Governments and Local Communities to implement Tsunami Warning Systems (TWS), to raise awareness on tsunami risk, and to create a multilevel risk governance. In this framework, research on tsunami risk perception plays a key role. The results of these studies should be taken into account in designing risk mitigation programs and tools (such as drills, activities with local communities, emergency plans, etc.). This paper presents a review of such studies, carried out in several countries worldwide through many thousands of interviews performed with different techniques. Most tsunami risk perception studies were carried out in the regions where the Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System and the Pacific Ocean one (PTWS) operate. In the NEAMTWS (North-East Atlantic, Mediterranean and connected seas Tsunami Warning Systems) region, only few specific studies were conducted, mostly within the EU-funded ASTARTE project (2013–2017) and more recently in a few extensive surveys on tsunami risk perception conducted in Italy between 2019 and 2021. Although the twenty-three studies analyzed in our review show a strong heterogeneity of methodological approaches and population samples, they allow us to outline some general considerations on tsunami risk as perceived by people in the different regions of the world. With the help of a table, we schematically summarized the emerging strengths, weaknesses and lessons learned in the twenty-three papers, noting an increase in the number of such studies in the last 5 years. The surveys were mostly concentrated in high-risk areas and focused on local residents. Some differences emerged depending on the memory of past tsunamis, education level, and local cultures. This provides useful hints for sound citizen-based tsunami risk reduction actions, including improved risk communication aimed at increasing the resilience of tsunami-prone populations. The need for increasing the assessment of tourists’ tsunami risk perception, and for a more homogeneous survey strategy also emerge from our analysis.