# Objective and Perceived Risk in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at an Urban Scale

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{6}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Conceptual Framework and Methodology

## 3. Material and Method

#### 3.1. Objective and Perceived Risk

_{o}) depends on three elements: hazard (H), vulnerability (V), and exposure (E). These factors may assume different meanings depending on the nature of the event producing harm (e.g., earthquake, epidemics, flooding, climate change) and on the size of the considered territory. In the present study, with the aim of evaluating the seismic risk referred to a portion of an urban area, such as a district, the factors of vulnerability, exposure and hazard can be appropriately defined.

- -
- ${\left({V}_{b}\right)}_{j}$ is the probability that a building may suffer damage as a result of an earthquake, parameterized in relation to the seismic vulnerability of the individual building;
- -
- ${\left({V}_{6-74}\right)}_{j}$ is the percentage of inhabitants under 6 years old and over 74 years old for each building;
- -
- ${\left({E}_{ab}\right)}_{j}$ is the total number of inhabitants for each building.

- -
- ${i}_{KE}$ represents the m-th variable of the risk knowledge and experience index;
- -
- ${i}_{IC}$ represents the k-th variable of the inclination to change index;

_{p}(Risk perceived) for the j-th building (j = 1, 2,…, n) can thus be evaluated through the formalism of the multinomial logit models (MNL) [51]:

- -
- <…>
_{j}represents an average over all the respondents belonging to the j-th building - -
- ${w}_{KE}$ represents the weight of the knowledge and experience of risk index;
- -
- ${w}_{IC}$ represents the weight of the inclination to change index.

#### 3.2. Case Study

^{64+}) of 1066 individuals, the younger population (Pop

^{15−}) consists of 353 elements (Table 1).

^{3}/inhabitant, compared to the 80–100 m

^{3}/inhabitant indicated in DM 1444/68 as the optimal value.

^{3}/ab represent 45% of the cases. Values from 5 to 33 times higher (450–2636 m

^{3}/ab) than those considered optimal in DM 1444/1968 are identified in 20% of the occurrences. The under-utilization of the building stock aggravates the neighborhood’s vulnerable conditions due to the lack of maintenance work, including routine maintenance, required to upgrade the buildings.

_{KE}index, there is a positive relationship between the two variables. The respondents were categorized into five groups: 18–25, 26–35, 36–50, 51–65, and over 65. The results show that age has a positive influence on the index, certainly conditioned by previous experience with earthquakes that have struck the city. This implies that older people will have higher index values when compared to younger respondents. An individual’s level of education may influence the risk knowledge and experience factors, as evidenced by the positive relationship between the two variables in the model. Employment status also influences I

_{KE}, but to a lesser degree than the other variables.

_{KE}) and the Index of Inclination to Change (I

_{IC}). The I

_{KE}is calculated on a scale of 1 (very low) to 4 (high) and the I

_{IC}on a scale of 1 (low) to 3 (high). The scores are calculated according to formulas (4) and (5).

^{2}= 0.142, which is an expression of the greater propensity to activate attitudes and improved practices for individual and collective safety the higher the Risk Knowledge and Experience Index (Table 6).

^{®}support (Figure 7a,b, respectively). The maps make it possible to identify by individual building the mean values of the Risk Knowledge and Experience Index, within the range 2.61 ≤ I

_{KE}≤ 3.30 and the mean values of the Inclination to Change Index, within the range 1.94 ≤ I

_{IC}≤ 2.54. Perceived risk assessment was then developed according to formula (6). The exponential weights of the formula were kept constant and equivalent for both indices.

## 4. Results and Discussion

_{o}in abscissa and R

_{p}in ordinate.

_{j}calculated through the ratio between with R

_{o}and R

_{p}(see Equation (5)):

**SPPi ≥ 1 sector**: In this region, the objective risk is greater than the perceived risk. The policy index values are between 1 and 1.352 (red dots below the bisector).

**SPPi < 1 sector:**Objective risk is lower than the perceived risk. The values of the policy index are between 0.408 and 1 (green dots above the bisector).

**Sector I (SPPi ≥ 1)—Policy P1**

- -
- Direct public interventions;
- -
- Complex recovery actions;
- -
- Public–private rewards (change in urban use, transfer of cubature).

**Sector II (SPPi < 1)—Policy P2**

_{o}(blue vertical line). Below this average value (yellow dashed line sector), the necessity of intervention is obviously less stringent (we could refer to this situation as a third policy P3).

_{j}in the considered neighborhood is shown in Figure 11, organizing the values for the various buildings inside three color classes according to the corresponding policy we suggest adopting.

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Jasanoff, S. Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis. In Crisis Management (2008); Boin, A., Ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Pidgeon, N. Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: Why we do need risk perception research. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
**1998**, 59, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pavić, G.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Bulajić, B.; Jurković, Ž. Development of Seismic Vulnerability and Exposure Models—A Case Study of Croatia. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Pavić, G.; Hadzima-Nyarko, M.; Bulajić, B. A Contribution to a UHS-Based Seismic Risk Assessment in Croatia—A Case Study for the City of Osijek. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Salazar, L.G.F.; Ferreira, T.M. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historic Constructions in the Downtown of Mexico City. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Ferreira, T.M.; Rodrigues, H.; Vicente, R. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Urban Centers. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Greco, A.; Lombardo, G.; Pantò, B.; Famà, A. Seismic Vulnerability of Historical Masonry Aggregate Buildings in Oriental Sicily. Int. J. Arch. Herit.
**2018**, 14, 517–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhai, Y.; Chen, S.; Ouyang, Q. GIS-Based Seismic Hazard Prediction System for Urban Earthquake Disaster Prevention Planning. Sustainability
**2019**, 11, 2620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Vargas-Alzate, Y.F.; Lantada, N.; González-Drigo, R.; Pujades, L.G. Seismic Risk Assessment Using Stochastic Nonlinear Models. Sustainability
**2020**, 12, 1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Greco, A.; Pluchino, A.; Barbarossa, L.; Barreca, G.; Caliò, I.; Martinico, F.; Rapisarda, A. A new agent-based methodology for the seismic vulnerability assessment of urban areas. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
**2019**, 8, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Fischer, E.; Barreca, G.; Greco, A.; Martinico, F.; Pluchino, A.; Rapisarda, A. Seismic risk assessment of a large metropolitan area by means of simulated earthquakes. Preprint
**2022**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sjöberg, L.; Moen, B.E.; Rundmo, T. Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde Publ.
**2004**, 84, 55–76. [Google Scholar] - Febrianti, F. Flood Risk Perception and Coping Mechanism of Local Community: A Case Study in Part of Surakarta City, Central Java Province, Indonesia; ITC: Enschede, The Netherlands, 2010; Available online: http://www.itc.nl/library/papers_2010/msc/aes/febrianti.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2022).
- Dowling, G.; Staelin, R. A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-Handling Activity. J. Consum. Res.
**1994**, 21, 119–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Slovic, P. Perception of Risk. Science
**1987**, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - McCaffrey, S. Thinking of Wildfire as a Natural Hazard. Soc. Nat. Resour.
**2004**, 17, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Marincioni, F.; Appiotti, F.; Ferretti, M.; Antinori, C.; Melonaro, P.; Pusceddu, A.; Oreficini-Rosi, R. Perception and Communication of Seismic Risk: The 6 April 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake Case Study. Earthq. Spectra
**2012**, 28, 159–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nascimento, N.; Guimaraes, E.; Mingoti, S.; Moura, N.; Faleiro, R. Assessing public perception of flood risk and flood control measure in urban areas. In Proceedings of the 2nd SWITCH Scientific Meeting, Tel-Aviv, Israel, 25–29 November 2007; Available online: http://switchurbanwater.lboro.ac.uk/outputs/pdfs/CBEL_PAP_Assessing_public_perception_of_flood_risk_and_controls.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2022).
- Marshall., T.M. Risk perception and safety culture: Tools for improving the implementation of disaster risk reduction strategies. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
**2020**, 47, 101557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Paton, D.; McClure, J.; Bürgelt, P. Natural hazard resilience: The role of individual and household preparedness. In Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach; Paton, D., Johnston, D., Eds.; Charles C Thomas Publisher: Springfield, IL, USA, 2006; pp. 105–127. [Google Scholar]
- Saito, S.; Yasumoto, S.; Sekiya, N. Earthquake probability in the National Seismic Hazard Maps for Japan and people’s risk perceptions: The search for more effective expression. Earth Planets Space
**2022**, 74, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Savadori, L.; Ronzani, P.; Sillari, G.; Di Bucci, D.; Dolce, M. Communicating Seismic Risk Information: The Effect of Risk Comparisons on Risk Perception Sensitivity. Front. Commun.
**2022**, 7, 743172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Qureshi, M.I.; Khan, S.U.; Rana, I.A.; Ali, B.; Rahman, A.U. Determinants of people’s seismic risk perception: A case study of Malakand, Pakistan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
**2021**, 55, 102078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Armaş, I. Earthquake Risk Perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal.
**2006**, 26, 1223–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Armaş, I.; Avram, E. Patterns and trends in the perception of seismic risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Nat. Hazards
**2008**, 44, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Savage, I. An empirical investigation into the effect of psychological perceptions on the willingness-to-pay to reduce risk. J. Risk Uncertain.
**1993**, 6, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Mileti, D. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States; Joseph Henry Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, W.E.; Martin, I.; Kent, B. The role of risk perceptions in the risk mitigation process: The case of wildfire in high risk communities. J. Environ. Manag.
**2009**, 91, 489–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Barron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
**1986**, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - O’Connor, R.; Bord, R.J.; Fisher, A. Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change. Risk Anal.
**1999**, 19, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Crescimbene, M.; La Longa, F. Terremoti: Tra percezione e realtà. In Terremoti, Comunicazione, Diritto. Riflessioni sul Processo alla “Commissione Grandi Rischi”; Amato, A., Cerase, A., Galadini, F., Eds.; Franco Angeli Editore: Milan, Italy, 2015; pp. 227–244. ISBN 978-88-917-1271-4. [Google Scholar]
- Stucchi, M.; Meletti, C.; Montaldo, V.; Akinci, A.; Faccioli, E.; Gasperini, P.; Malagnini, L.; Valensise, G. Pericolosità Sismica di Riferimento per il Territorio Nazionale MPS04 [Dataset]; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV): Rome, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Guidoboni, E. I disastri sismici in Italia: Una riflessione sulle risposte sociali e culturali nel lungo periodo. In Rischio Sismico in Italia: Analisi e Prospettive per una Prevenzione Efficace in un Paese Fragile; Fiore, A., Ottaviani, V., Eds.; Geologia dell’Ambiente, Supplemento al n. 1/2018; ISPRA: Rome, Italy, 2018; pp. 11–18. [Google Scholar]
- Mela, A.; Belloni, M.C.; Davico, L. Sociologia e Progettazione del Territorio; Carocci Editore: Rome, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Crichton, D. The Risk Triangle. In Natural Disaster Management; Ingleton, J., Ed.; Tudor Rose: London, UK, 1999; pp. 102–103. [Google Scholar]
- Hofer, J.; Hamann, K. D32.1—Report on Risk Perception. 2016. Available online: https://driver-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Report-on-risk-perception.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2021).
- Morrow, B.H. Community Resilience: A Social Justice Perspective; CARRI Research Report No. 4; CARRI: Columbia, SC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Formisano, A.; Florio, G.; Landolfo, R.; Mazzolani, F.M. Numerical Calibration of a Simplified Procedure for the Seismic Behaviour Assessment of Masonry Building Aggregates. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Computing; Topping, B.H.V., Tsompanakis, Y., Eds.; Civil-Comp Press: Stirlingshire, Scotland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lagomarsino, S.; Giovinazzi, S. Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings. Bull. Earthq. Eng.
**2006**, 4, 415–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Grünthal, G. (Ed.) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98) European Seismological Commission, sub commission on Engineering Seismology, Working Group Macroseismic Scales. In Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie; Conseil de l’Europe: Luxembourg, 1998; Volume 15. [Google Scholar]
- Mouroux, P.; Le Brun, B. Risk-Ue Project: An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with application to different European towns. In Assessing and Managing Earthquake Risk, Geotechnical, Geological And Earthquake Engineering; Oliveira, C.S., Roca, A., Goula, X., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vicente, R.; Parodi, S.; Lagomarsino, S.; Varum, H.; Silva, J. Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment: Case study of the historic city centre of Coimbra, Portugal. Bull. Earthq. Eng.
**2011**, 9, 1067–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Anglade, E.; Giatreli, A.-M.; Blyth, A.; Di Napoli, B.; Parisse, F.; Namourah, Z.; Rodrigues, H.; Ferreira, T.M. Seismic damage scenarios for the Historic City Center of Leiria, Portugal: Analysis of the impact of different seismic retrofitting strategies on emergency planning. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
**2019**, 44, 101432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Eudave, R.R.; Ferreira, T.M.; Vicente, R. Parameter-based seismic vulnerability assessment of Mexican historical buildings: Insights, suitability, and uncertainty treatment. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
**2022**, 74, 102909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Greco, A.; Cannizzaro, F.; Pluchino, A. A novel procedure for the assessment of the seismic performance of frame structures by means of limit analysis. Bull. Earthq. Eng.
**2020**, 18, 4363–4386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Greco, A.; Fiore, I.; Occhipinti, G.; Caddemi, S.; Spina, D.; Caliò, I. An equivalent non-uniform beam-like model for dynamic analysis of multi-storey irregular buildings. Appl. Sci.
**2020**, 10, 3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Benedetti, D.; Petrini, V. Sulla vulnerabilità sismica di edifici in muratura: Proposte di un metodo di valutazione. L’Ind. Costr.
**1984**, 149, 66–74. [Google Scholar] - Lindell, M.K.; Perry, R.W. Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of the literature. Environ. Behav.
**2000**, 32, 461–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lindell, M.K.; Whitney, D.J. Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Anal.
**2000**, 20, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sattler, D.N.; Adams, C.F.; Watts, B. Effects of personal experience on judgments about natural disasters. J. Soc. Behav. Personal.
**1995**, 10, 891–898. [Google Scholar] - Lovreglio, R.; Fonzone, A.; Dell’Olio, L. A mixed logit model for predicting exit choice during building evacuations. Transp. Res. Part A
**2016**, 92, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arnstein, S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan.
**1969**, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Castells, M. The City and the Grassroots; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Friedmann, J. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Gans, H.J. The human implications of current redevelopment and relocation planning. J. Am. Inst. Plan.
**1959**, 25, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sanoff, H. Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Allegretti, U. (Ed.) Democrazia Partecipativa. Esperienze e Prospettive in Italia e in Europa; Firenze University Press: Firenze, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bacque, M.H.; Rey, H.; Sintomer, Y. (Eds.) Gestion de Proximite et Democratie Participative. Une Perspective Comparative; La Decouverte: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hatzfeld, H. Faire de la Politique Autrement: Les Expériences Inachevées des Années 1970; Presses Universitaires de Rennes: Rennes, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Revel, M.; Blatrix, C.; Blondiaux, L.; Fourniau, J.M.; Hériard Dubreuil, B.; Lefebvre, R. (Eds.) Le débat Public: Une Expérience Française de Démocratie Participative; La Découverte: Paris, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Sintomer, Y.; Allegretti, G. I Bilanci Partecipativi in Europa. Nuove Esperienze Democratiche nel Nuovo Continente; Ediesse: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, F. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment, The Politics of Local Knowledge; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Calthorpe, P. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream; Princeton Architectural Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Conceptual Framework showing objective risk assessment model and determinants of perceived risk.

**Figure 3.**(

**a**) Geographical identification of the Catania Metropolitan Area (

**b**) Perimeter of the Catania Metropolitan Area and (

**c**) Location of Catania’s districts and possible application of the methodology adopted.

**Figure 4.**Study area: (

**a**) Satellite image of the study area; (

**b**) Identification of the 164 buildings surveyed; (

**c**) Three-dimensional view of the survey area.

**Figure 6.**Correlation diagram between the Indices of Knowledge and Experience of Risk and Inclination to Change.

**Figure 7.**Spatial distribution of the two indicators and attribution to buildings in the investigated area: (

**a**) Index of Knowledge and Experience of risk; (

**b**) Index of Inclination to change.

**Figure 9.**Risk comparison. The bisector marked in dashed red represents the locus of points where the ratio of objective risk to perceived risk is one. Red points represent the region where the objective risk is greater than perceived risk and for which Policies P1 apply. Green points represent the region where the objective risk is lower than perceived risk and for which Policy P2 apply.

**Figure 11.**Spatial distribution of the Seismic Policy Prevention Index (SPPi)

_{j}in the considered district.

**Figure 12.**Map of the Seismic Policy Prevention Index (SPPi) for several districts in the urban context of Catania, showing the three categories, A-B-C. The central one is that reported in Figure 8.

Description | Symbol | Value | Unit | |
---|---|---|---|---|

Area | A_{site} | 10.71 | ha | |

Population | ||||

Population | Pop | 3604 | - | |

Population density | Pop/A_{site} | 336.50 | Inh/ha | |

Households | H | 1815 | - | |

Medium age | Ma | 49,59 | - | |

Median age | Mea | 51 | - | |

Population ^{64+} | Pop^{64+} | 1066 | - | |

Population ^{15−} | Pop^{15−} | 353 | - | |

Population ^{6−} | Pop^{6−} | 111 | - | |

Population ^{74+} | Pop7^{4+} | 598 | - | |

Rate | % | |||

Ageing Index | Ai | - | Pop64+/Pop^{14−} | 302 |

One member households | H1 | 865 | H_{1}/Pop | 24 |

One member 74+ households | H_{1}^{74+} | 298 | H_{1}^{74+}/Pop | 8 |

Two members households | H_{2} | 852 | H_{2}/Pop | 24 |

Two members households 74+ | H_{2}^{74+} | 194 | H_{2}^{74+}/Pop | 5 |

Two members households 18− | H_{2}^{18−} | 48 | H_{2}^{18−}/Pop | 1 |

Households 6+ | H^{6+} | 80 | H^{6+}/Pop | 2 |

Foreign residents | Fr | 199 | Fr/Pop | 6 |

Built-up area data | Symbol | Value | Unit | |

Buildings Number | B | 164 | - | |

Total buildings volume | V_{bds} | 1,218,243 | m^{3} | |

Buildings density | V_{bds}/A_{site} | 113,748 | m^{3}/ha | |

Total residential buildings volume | Vr_{bds} | 993,886 | m^{3} | |

Average building height | h_{wtd} | 20.1 | m | |

Floor average number | F_{av} | 6 | - | |

Building’s total gross floor area | A_{bldg} | 56,089 | m^{2} | |

Dwelling units | Du | 2,464 | - | |

Soil use fraction | Symbol | Value | Unit | |

Floor area ratio | FAR | 52.37 | % | |

Impervious surface area | A_{imp}/A_{site} | 99 | % | |

Pervious surface | A_{per}/A_{site} | 0.09 | % | |

Street parameters | ||||

Street width | W | 6.50–12.00 | m | |

Street aspect ratio | H/W | 0.85–3.00 | m | |

Sidewalks width | W | 0.80–1.20 | m |

**Table 2.**Calculation of the vulnerability level for a typical concrete, closed-court, insulated, 8-story building (RC oc-I8).

Parameters k | Typology: RC oc-I8 | |
---|---|---|

Description | Value є [0, 1] | |

1.1 | Construction date | 0.1875 |

1.2 | Resisting system type | 0.125 |

1.3 | Mean column normal stress at 1° level (σ = Np ∗ q ∗ A/Sp) | 0.1875 |

1.4 | Regularity | −0.2 |

1.5 | Infill typology 1° level | 0.125 |

1.6 | Non-structural elements | 0 |

1.7 | Location and soil condition | 0 |

∑k_{i} = | 1.1 + 1.2 + 1.3 + 1.4 + 1.5 + 1.6 + 1.7 | 0.425 |

**Table 3.**Vulnerability calculated for each of the 17 typological-structural categories in the survey area.

Typology | Number of Buildings | Vulnerability V_{b} | Typology | Number of Buildings | Vulnerability V_{b} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

RC_lA11 | 4 | 0.14 | RC_oc1A9 | 7 | 0.74 |

RC_l I10 | 1 | 0.32 | RC_oc2A8 | 8 | 0.74 |

RC_li A9 | 13 | 0.32 | RC_oc2A9 | 4 | 0.74 |

RC_li A11 | 9 | 0.32 | RC_l A9 | 22 | 1 |

RC_cc A8 | 2 | 0.32 | MA_mh3 | 11 | 0.26 |

RC_oc A7 | 22 | 0.35 | MA_mh5 | 10 | 0.34 |

RC_l A6 | 15 | 0.35 | MA_ml3 | 16 | 0.67 |

RC_oc I8 | 4 | 0.58 | MA_ml5 | 7 | 0.79 |

RC_oc1 A8 | 9 | 0.74 |

Weights | Classes | Frequency | % |
---|---|---|---|

Subjective knowledge | |||

1 | Very high | 1 | 0.8 |

0.8 | High | 16 | 13.5 |

0.6 | Moderate | 63 | 53.5 |

0.4 | Low | 21 | 17.8 |

0.2 | Very low | 17 | 14.4 |

Self-efficacy | |||

1 | Very high | 6 | 5 |

0.8 | High | 26 | 22 |

0.6 | Moderate | 51 | 43 |

0.4 | Low | 16 | 14 |

0.2 | Very low | 19 | 16 |

Hazard experience | |||

1 | High | 22 | 18.7 |

0.5 | Moderate | 88 | 74.6 |

0 | Low | 8 | 6.7 |

Nature and features of disasters | |||

1 | Very high | 42 | 35.6 |

0.8 | High | 15 | 12.7 |

0.6 | Moderate | 30 | 25.4 |

0.4 | Low | 20 | 17 |

0.2 | Very low | 11 | 9.3 |

Model | Coefficient B | Std. Error | t-Value | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|

Constant | 1.613 | 0.150 | 10.728 | 0.00 |

Age | 0.112 | 0.028 | 3.888 | 0.00 |

Education | 0.128 | 0.046 | 2.762 | 0.01 |

Occupation | 0.064 | 0.015 | 4.172 | 0.00 |

House ownership | 0.130 | 0.061 | 2.138 | 0.03 |

Model summary | R^{2} = 0.3212 | |||

ANOVA | F = 13.36867 | p-value = 0.00 |

**Table 6.**Pearson correlation between the Knowledge and Experience of Risk (I

_{KE}) and Inclination to Change (I

_{IC}) indices.

I_{KE} | ||
---|---|---|

I_{IC} | Pearson | 0.377 |

Sign. (two tails) | <0.001 | |

N | 118 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Fischer, E.; Biondo, A.E.; Greco, A.; Martinico, F.; Pluchino, A.; Rapisarda, A.
Objective and Perceived Risk in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at an Urban Scale. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 9380.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159380

**AMA Style**

Fischer E, Biondo AE, Greco A, Martinico F, Pluchino A, Rapisarda A.
Objective and Perceived Risk in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at an Urban Scale. *Sustainability*. 2022; 14(15):9380.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159380

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Fischer, Eliana, Alessio Emanuele Biondo, Annalisa Greco, Francesco Martinico, Alessandro Pluchino, and Andrea Rapisarda.
2022. "Objective and Perceived Risk in Seismic Vulnerability Assessment at an Urban Scale" *Sustainability* 14, no. 15: 9380.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159380