Examining the Risk Perception-Disaster Preparedness Behavior Nexus in the Seismic Context of Bucharest

Abstract

This research relied on an extended theory of planed behavior, introducing risk perception as a predictor of the willingness to implement earthquake preparedness behavior, and examining its relationships with the traditional components of the theory. The study used an online snowball sample of 369 participants from Bucharest, collected in February–March 2024. The sample is almost equally divided between women and men, aged 18 to 65, most of them holding higher education degrees and living in apartment buildings with more than eight floors. The investigation revolved around two hypotheses: (1) subjective norm is the primary driver of the intention to conduct preparedness behavior in Bucharest; and (2) different constructs (behavior factors) amplify or impede changes in disaster preparedness behavior, also serving as catalysts for these changes. A highlight of the results is that risk perception does not directly influence disaster preparedness behavior or intention to prepare, but it is strongly linked to subjective norm. The limited association between risk perception and attitudes toward disaster preparedness behavior warrants further analysis. These insights into the drivers of disaster preparedness are essential for developing effective programs to raise awareness about seismic risk, seismic adjustments, risk mitigation, and capacity building.

Keywords

Bucharest / Disaster preparedness behavior / Earthquake preparedness / Extended theory of planned behavior / Risk perception

References

[1] AjzenIKuhlJ, BeckmannJ. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action control: From cognition to behavior, 1985, Berlin. Springer. 1139

[2] AjzenI. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991, 50(2): 179-211

[3] AjzenI. The theory of planned behavior: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 2011, 26(9): 1113-1127

[4] Ajzen, I. 2020a. The theory of planned behavior: A bibliography. https://people.umass.edu/aizen/tpbrefs.html. Accessed 25 Feb 2025.

[5] AjzenI. The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2020, 2(4): 314-324

[6] AjzenI, FishbeinM. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84: 888-918

[7] AjzenI, FishbeinMUnderstanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, 1980, Englewood-Cliffs. Prentice-Hall.

[8] AlbulescuAC. Overview of the seismic vulnerability problem of the urban settlements in Romania. GeoPatterns VI, 2021, 2021: 17-26

[9] ArmaşI. Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Analysis, 2006, 26(5): 1223-1234

[10] ArmaşI. Social vulnerability and seismic risk perception. Case study: The historic center of the Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards, 2008, 47: 397-410

[11] ArmaşI. Multi-criteria vulnerability analysis to earthquake hazard of Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards, 2012, 63: 1129-1156

[12] ArmaşI, AvramE. Patterns and trends in the perception of seismic risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards, 2008, 44: 147-161

[13] ArmașI, NeacșuM. Attitudes of Bucharest residents towards seismic risk (Atitudinea locuitorilor orașului București față de riscul seismic). Analele Universitatii Spiru Haret, seria Geografie, 2003, 6: 115-123

[14] ArmaşI, CretuRZ, IonescuR. Self-efficacy, stress, and locus of control: The psychology of earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2017, 22: 71-76

[15] ArmaşI, IonescuR, GavrişA, Toma-DanilaD. Identifying seismic vulnerability hotspots in Bucharest. Applied Geography, 2016, 77: 49-63

[16] ArmaşI, Toma-DanilaD, IonescuR, GavrisA. Quantitative population loss assessment: Seismic scenarios for Bucharest using 2002 census data. GI Forum Journal, 2016, 1: 30-40

[17] ArmaşI, Toma-DanilaD, IonescuR, GavrişA. Vulnerability to earthquake hazard: Bucharest case study, Romania. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2017, 8(2): 182-195

[18] ArmitageCJ, ConnerM. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2001, 40(4): 471-499

[19] Ashida, R., D. Tzioutzios, and A.M. Cruz. 2024. The impact of subjective well-being on risk perception and disaster preparedness actions: A survey of the Kinki region, Japan, through structural equation modelling. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 10: Article 104595.

[20] Bălan, Ș., V. Cristescu, and I. Cornea. 1982. The 4th March 1977 earthquake in Romania (Cutremurul de Pământ din România de la 4 martie 1977), ed. Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, București, 518.

[21] BourqueLB, ReganR, KelleyMM, WoodMM, KanoM, MiletiDS. An examination of the effect of perceived risk on preparedness behavior. Environment and Behavior, 2012, 45(5): 615-649

[22] Brewer, N.T., G.B. Chapman, F.X. Gibbons, M. Gerrard, K.D. McCaul, and N.D. Weinstein. 2007. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychology 26(2): Article 136.

[23] BubeckP, BotzenWJW, AertsJC. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Analysis, 2012, 32(9): 1481-1495

[24] Buhoiu, A. (coordinator). (1977). 4th of March 1977. Tragic seconds, heroic days. The chronicale of an earthquake (4 Martie 1977. Secunde tragice, zile eroice. Din cronica unui cutremur). Seria “Reporter XX”, Junimea Publishing House, Iași, 266.

[25] ByrneMBStructural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming, 2012, Abingdon. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

[26] CliffBJ, MorlockL, CurtisAB. Is there an association between risk perception and disaster preparedness in rural US hospitals?. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 2009, 24(6): 512-517

[27] ConnerM, ArmitageCJ. Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1998, 28: 1429-1464

[28] FishbeinM, AjzenIBelief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research, 1975, Cambridge. Addison-Wesley.

[29] FreyBS. Camouflage: A dominant reaction to worsening conditions. Rationality and Society, 2023, 35: 366-384

[30] Georgescu, E.S., and A. Pomonis. 2012. Building damage vs. territorial casualty patterns during the Vrancea (Romania) earthquakes of 1940 and 1977. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 24–28 September 2012, Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28.

[31] Giardini, D., J. Woessner, L. Danciu, H. Crowley, F. Cotton, G. Grünthal, R. Pinho, G. Valensise, et al. 2013. Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe (SHARE). https://doi.org/10.12686/SED-00000001-SHARE.

[32] Gumasing, M.J.J., and M.D.M. Sobrevilla. 2023. Determining factors affecting the protective behavior of Filipinos in urban areas for natural calamities using an integration of protection motivation theory, theory of planned behavior, and ergonomic appraisal: A sustainable disaster preparedness approach. Sustainability 15(8): Article 6427.

[33] IonescuD, IacobCI, AvramE, ArmașI. Emotional distress related to hazards and earthquake risk perception. Natural Hazards, 2021, 109(3): 2077-2094

[34] Jamovi Project. 2024. Jamovi (version 2.5), computer software. https://www.jamovi.org. Accessed 2 Jun 2025.

[35] JohnsonTP. Snowball sampling: Introduction in encyclopedia of biostatistics. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics reference online, 2014, Hoboken. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[36] JohnstonD, BeckerJ, McClureJ, PatonD, McBrideS, WrightK, LeonardG, HughesMJoffeH, RossettoT, AdamsJ. Community understanding of, and preparedness for, earthquake and tsunami risk in Wellington, New Zealand. Cities at risk: Living with perils in the 21st century, 2013, Dordrecht. Springer. 131148

[37] KellensW, TerpstraT, De MaeyerP. Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(1): 24-49

[38] KahanD. Culture, cognition, and consent: Who perceives what, and why, in acquaintance rape cases. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2010, 158(3): 729-812

[39] KahanD, BramanD. Cultural cognition of public policy. Yale Law & Policy Review, 2006, 24(1): 147-170

[40] Kenny, D.A. 2014. SEM model fit: Introduction. http://davidakenny.net/webinars/SEM/General/Fit/Introduction/Introduction.html. Accessed 24 Jun 2024.

[41] Kenny, D.A. 2020. Measuring model fit. http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.html. Accessed 25 Jun 2024.

[42] KimM, HunterJE. Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior. Communication Research, 1993, 20: 331-364

[43] KirschenbaumA. Preparing for the inevitable: Environmental risk perceptions and disaster preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters, 2005, 23(2): 97-127

[44] Kuhlicke, C., M.M. de Brito, B. Bartkowski, W. Botzen, C. Doğulu, S. Han, P. Hudson, and S. Rufat. 2023. Spinning in circles? A systematic review on the role of theory in social vulnerability, resilience and adaptation research. Global Environmental Change 80: Article 102672.

[45] Li, X., and T. Liu. 2020. Community participation effects on preparedness behavior through risk perception: Empirical data of hazardous chemicals from China. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 44: Article 101421.

[46] LindellMK, PerryRWCommunicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities, 2003, London. Sage Publications.

[47] LukmanS, SumarmiP, BachriS, Hari UtomoD, TriwahyuniE. Relationship of knowledge and attitudes with disaster preparedness in high school students. Perspectives of Science and Education, 2021, 51(3): 261-272

[48] MiceliR, SotgiuI, SettanniM. Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2008, 28(2): 164-173

[49] Najafi, M., A. Ardalan, A. Akbarisari, A.A. Noorbala, and H. Elmi. 2017. The theory of planned behavior and disaster preparedness. PLoS Currents Disasters 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.4da18e0f1479bf6c0a94b29e0dbf4a72.

[50] National Institute of Statistics. 2021. National Census. Population at the national censuses on 1948, 1956, 1966, 1977, 1992, 2002, 2011 and 2021 (counties and urban/rural). https://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Tabel-1.01.xls. Accessed 7 Jul 2024.

[51] NestlerEJ. Epigenetic mechanisms of drug addiction. Neuropharmacology, 2014, 76: 259-268

[52] NgSL. Effects of risk perception on disaster preparedness toward typhoons: An application of the extended theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2022, 13(1): 100-113

[53] NgSL. The role of risk perception, prior experience, and sociodemographics in disaster preparedness and emergency response toward typhoons in Hong Kong. Natural Hazards, 2023, 116(1): 905-936

[54] Nurjanah, N., and A.M. Rezza. 2021. Disaster preparedness and risk perception: A study in Bandung. http://tsdr.psdku.unpad.ac.id. Accesed 21 Sept 2024.

[55] OncescuMC, MarzaVI, RizescuM, PopaMWenzelF, LunguD, NovakO. The Romanian earthquake catalogue between 984–1997. Vrancea earthquakes: Tectonics, hazard and risk mitigation, 1999, Dordrecht. Springer. 4347

[56] OralV, CengizE. Investigation of factors affecting disaster preparedness behaviors: A structural equation modeling (Afete Hazırlık Davranışlarına Etki Eden Faktörlerinin İncelenmesi: Bir Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi). Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021, 12(3): 1252-1269

[57] OziliP. The acceptable R-square in empirical modelling for social science research. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2022.

[58] Pantea, A., and A.P. Constantin. 2013. Re-evaluation of the macroseismic effects produced by the March 4, 1977, strong Vrancea earthquake in Romanian territory. Annals of Geophysics 56(1): Article R0104-R0104.

[59] PatonD. Disaster preparedness: A social-cognitive perspective. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 2003, 12(3): 210-216

[60] PatonD, JohnstonD. Disasters and communities: Vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 2001, 10(4): 270-277

[61] PaulBK, BhuiyanRH. Urban earthquake hazard: Perceived seismic risk and preparedness in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Disasters, 2010, 34(2): 337-359

[62] RadulianMBeerM, KougioumtzoglouIA, PatelliE, AuSK. Mechanisms of earthquakes in Vrancea. Encyclopedia of earthquake engineering, 2014, Berlin. Springer. 14731481

[63] Retnowati, R., and L.H. Susanto. 2020. Disaster preparedness behavior based on the disaster mitigation and disaster preparedness attitudes of students of Madrasah Aliyah (Ma) in the city of Bogor. https://rumahsains-ipa-pasca.unpak.ac.id/riset/aaff4312-ed06-4d1b-9c9f-bac367d25a99. Accessed 21 Sept 2024.

[64] Rufat, S., A. Fekete, I. Armaş, T. Hartmann, C. Kuhlicke, T. Prior, T. Thaler, and B. Wisner. 2020. Swimming alone? Why linking flood risk perception and behavior requires more than “it’s the individual, stupid”. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 7(5): Article e1462.

[65] RufatS, Madruga de BritoM, FeketeA, CombyE, RobinsonPJ, ArmașI, Wouter BotzenWJ, KuhlickeC. Surveying the surveyors to address risk perception and adaptive behavior cross-study comparability. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2022, 22(8): 2655-2672

[66] RundmoT. Perceived risk, health and consumer behavior. Journal of Risk Research, 1999, 2: 187-200

[67] ScolobigA, De MarchiB, BorgaM. The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: Findings from case studies in an Alpine region. Natural Hazards, 2012, 63: 499-520

[68] ScovellM, McShaneC, SwinbourneA, SmithD. Rethinking risk perception and its importance for explaining natural hazard preparedness behavior. Risk Analysis, 2022, 42(3): 450-469

[69] SheeranP. Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 2002, 12(1): 1-36

[70] Slovic, P., and E.U. Weber. 2002. Perception of risk posed by extreme events. Paper prepared for discussion at the conference “Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World”, 12–13 April 2002, Palisades, New York, USA. https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/documents/meetings/roundtable/white_papers/slovic_wp.pdf. Accessed 19 Sept 2024.

[71] SlovicP, FinucaneML, PetersE, MacGregorDG. The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 2007, 177(3): 1333-1352

[72] SlovicP, FischhoffB, LichtensteinS. Rating the risks. Environment, 1979, 21(3): 14-39

[73] SommestadT, KarlzénH, HallbergJ. The sufficiency of the theory of planned behavior for explaining information security policy compliance. Information & Computer Security, 2015, 23(2): 200-217

[74] Suhr, D. 2022. The basics of structural equation modeling. University of Northern Colorado, CO, USA. https://lexjansen.com/wuss/2006/tutorials/TUT-Suhr.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2024.

[75] SunL, XueL. Does non-destructive earthquake experience affect risk perception and motivate preparedness?. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2020, 28(2): 122-130

[76] SunL, GuoJ, QiW. Earthquake attribution, risk perception, and self-efficacy: Tibetan Buddhism believers’ preparedness motivation. Environmental Hazards, 2024, 23(5): 462-481

[77] SuttonS. Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1998, 28(15): 1317-1338

[78] TaberJM, KleinWM. The role of conviction in personal disease risk perceptions: What can we learn from research on attitude strength?. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2016, 10(4): 202-218

[79] UTCB (Universitatea Tehnică de Construcție București). Seismic design code. Part I. Provisions for building design (Cod de proiectare seismică. Partea I. Prevederi de proiectare pentru clădiri). P100-1/2013. https://colegiu-diriginti-santier.ro/norme/P100-1-2013%20cod%20de%20proiectare%20seismica.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2025.

[80] UTCB (Universitatea Tehnică de Construcție București). Seismic design code. Part I. Provisions for building design (Cod de proiectare seismică. Partea I. Prevederi de proiectare pentru clădiri). P100-1/2025. https://www.aicps.ro/media/content/2024-02/p100-1-02022024_65c0c2d57f596.pdf. Accessed 17 Mar 2025.

[81] Vacareanu, R., D. Lungu, G. Marmureanu, C. Cioflan, A. Aldea, C. Arion, C. Neagu, S. Demetriu, and F. Pavel. 2013. Statistics of seismicity for Vrancea subcrustal source. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Earthquake Engineering SE-50 EEE, 29–31 May 2013, Skopje, Macedonia. https://infp.infp.ro/bigsees/Docs/Statistics%20of%20seismicity%20for%20Vrancea%20subcrustal%20seismic%20source.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2024.

[82] VacareanuR, PavelF, AldeaA. On the selection of GMPEs for Vrancea subcrustal seismic source. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 11(6): 1867-1884

[83] WachingerG, RennO, BeggC, KuhlickeC. The risk perception paradox—Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(6): 1049-1065

[84] Weinstein, N.D. 1988. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology 7(4): Article 355.

[85] World Bank. 1978. Report and recommendation of the president of the international bank for reconstruction and development to the executive directors on a proposed loan to the investment bank with the guarantee of the Socialist Republic of Romania for a post-earthquake construction assistance project, No. P-2240-RO. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/648451468092386192/pdf/multi0page.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2024.

[86] Yildiz, A., R. Teeuw, J. Dickinson, and J. Roberts. 2020. Children’s earthquake preparedness and risk perception: A comparative study of two cities in Turkey, using a modified PRISM approach. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 49: Article 101666.

[87] Zaremohzzabieh, Z., A.A. Samah, S. Roslan, H.A.M. Shaffril, J.L. D’Silva, S. Kamarudin, and S. Ahrari. 2021. Household preparedness for future earthquake disaster risk using an extended theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 65: Article 102533.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s)

Just Accepted

This article has successfully passed peer review and final editorial review, and will soon enter typesetting, proofreading and other publishing processes. The currently displayed version is the accepted final manuscript. The officially published version will be updated with format, DOI and citation information upon launch. We recommend that you pay attention to subsequent journal notifications and preferentially cite the officially published version. Thank you for your support and cooperation.