Abstract
The paper discusses how to approach the problem of the social mitigation of seismic risk, in order to reduce damage and grief consequent to earthquakes. An alert protocol, intended as a working hypothesis, is proposed based on the experience gained from analysis of the behaviour and social response to the threat before and after the great disaster of the L’Aquila earthquake on 6th April 2009. Authors propose a protocol addressing four levels of increasing alert based on signs of earthquake preparation and social concerns. In this sense, it works as an intensity scale and does not strictly relate to earthquake size (magnitude) or seismic hazard. The proposed alert protocol provides sensible measures for reducing vulnerability, which is the only factor that can be more or less efficiently controlled, based on structural and behavioural adjustments. Factors indicating the difficult relationship between politicians, scientific community and citizens are considered: 1) a serious gap between researchers and citizens; 2) measures adopted by local administrators and the National Civil Protection Service not agreed by the population; 3) misunderstanding originated from a lack of clarity of communication about scientific terminology; and 4) the lack of an alert procedure protocol. In the current situation, all these problems are crucial and contribute to the unpreparedness to face a seismic event, and thus greatly increase the risk. The adoption and implementation of an alert procedure protocol requires a preliminary assessment of the context and should be adapted to the local sensibility and culture. The application of a protocol may reduce the contrasts between preventive measures and individual responsibilities, making mitigation measures more feasible and socially acceptable. In this paper, risk evaluation is not strictly related to probabilistic or deterministic predictions. In fact, this is a result of a project that comes from the general analysis of risk and is not intended to give an alternative hazard estimate method. This paper proposes an alert protocol addressing four levels of increasing alert based on signs of earthquake generating preparation and social concerns. Finally, there is a suggestion on how to gradually communicate the threat and get citizens involved in the risk mitigation process.
Highlights
Despite the availability of a significant number of risk reduction measures, implementing seismic risk mitigation is a major challenge in most earthquake-prone countries
It is clear that in many civilized countries prevention measures are applied only to a fraction of what can be done, as many old structures cannot be successfully converted to anti-seismic structures and land modification costs are too high and economically and culturally unrealistic. This fact suggests that only proper preparation and communication based on sound forecasting methods can be used to mitigate the risk through the reduction of social vulnerability
The analysis of the Italian situation, extendable to many other countries, allows us to state that the success of risk mitigation measures is not directly related to hazard evaluation
Summary
Despite the availability of a significant number of risk reduction measures, implementing seismic risk mitigation is a major challenge in most earthquake-prone countries. By integrating different theoretical frameworks and methodologies, ranging from earths sciences to social sciences, this paper is intended to increase risk awareness and efficiency of mitigation measures. We believe that earthquake risk mitigation has to pass through social politics and the cultural preparation of the population For this reason it is important to prepare individuals and institutions for pre- and post-earthquake scenarios. Promoting and enhancing citizens’, communities’ and administrators’ decisions to adopt earthquake risk preparedness measures is essential in order to reduce fatalities, damage to property and infrastructure, and economic and social disruption in a seismic disaster [2]. Establishing a standard protocol with more objective and impersonal mitigation choices will immediately result in a general benefit by reducing conflicts between administrators, scientists, politicians and citizens This procedure would efficiently inform the population about hazard, and would avoid panic and indirect loss of income and lives
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
