Considerations of the Impact of Seismic Strong Ground Motions in Northern Oltenia (Romania) on Some Indicators of Sustainable Development Characterization of the Region from a Security Perspective

Abstract

This study aims to highlight the degree of perception of the young population (18–35 years old), from the northern region of Oltenia (Gorj County, Romania), regarding the impact of the wave of seismic strong ground motions recorded in the region, starting from 13 February 2023, on some indicators to characterize the sustainable development of the region, in particular, the entrepreneurial potential of the region and the quality of life of the affected population. It was considered opportune to carry out this study, considering the novelty of such a situation, as the respective geographical area has not been subjected to strong ground motions in the recent past. This study was built on the basis of the questionnaire applied to 599 people, with permanent residence in Gorj County and aged between 18 and 35 years. The data were collected between 27 February 2023 and 31 March 2023, more than fourteen days after the first recorded micro-seismic event. The main working method is the combined statistical analysis, on the one hand, of the notification and evaluation of the respondents’ degree of information regarding the manifestation of the wave of seismic strong ground motions, the perception of the authorities’ involvement in the management of its negative effects (material damage and effects on the regional entrepreneurial potential), the negative impact on some indicators for evaluating the sustainable development of the region, and, on the other hand, the engagement in the empirical research of the phenomenon, related to the objectives of sustainable development, in accordance with the bibliography available. This study reveals that, in the context of a very high degree of information of the respondents regarding the manifestation of the wave of seismic strong ground motions (about 95%) and the reasonable degree of access to resources and credible information materials (55.2%), only 45.4% of them expressed their high confidence in the action of the authorities to limit the negative effects of seismic strong ground motions. On the other hand, this study highlights that the highest satisfaction average of the population, among the four WHOQOL-BREF domains, is represented by the “Psychological” domain (75.33 ± 21.17), and the lowest average is represented by the “Environmental” domain (67.45 ± 20.90). This study also reveals that male respondents show a higher satisfaction average than that recorded in the case of female respondents in the “Physical”, Psychological”, and “Environmental” domains; for the “Social” domain, the differences are insignificant in favor of the respondents from the second category. The respondents domiciled in the rural environment compared to those domiciled in the urban environment register higher mean scores in all four domains of the quality of life analysis; the respondents with higher education have a higher average score in the “Physical”, “Psychological”, and “Social” domains, with the exception of the “Environmental” domain. The quality of life indicators for the people in the area affected by earthquakes are adversely influenced by their concerns regarding the potential harm to the region’s touristic and entrepreneurial potential. Specifically, those with a high level of belief in the potential harm to the tourism and entrepreneurial potential of the region have lower quality of life measures than those with a low level of belief. Additionally, individuals with a high level of trust in the authorities’ measures to limit the negative impacts of the earthquakes have better quality of life measures than those with low trust.

1. Introduction

Starting from 13 February 2023, up to the present, a significant geographic area in northern Oltenia, Gorj County, Romania, has been affected by a wave of seismic strong ground motions (two earthquakes with magnitudes of 5.2 on the Richter scale [1], on 13 February 2023, and 5.7 on the Richter scale [2], on 14 February 2023, followed by over 3000 aftershocks of lower intensity). We would like to mention that the aforementioned geographic area (Figure 1) [3] is not known to be characterized by a high seismic risk and has not faced such events in the last 200 years [4], which has generated a state of panic and anxiety among the population and has negatively affected societal life as a whole.

Beyond the effects in terms of environmental security, the assessment of the impact of seismic strong ground motions highlights the significant impact of some indicators of the sustainable development of the region, circumscribed to the social domain—the quality of life of the population and demographic change trends through the migration of the population from the urban environment to the rural environment [5] for reasons of safety—and for the economic field—significant material damage to objectives of public interest (headquarters of public administration institutions, educational units, and places of worship) [6], as well as possible future negative effects on the tourist potential and the entrepreneurial environment in the county. The detrimental effects of the wave of seismic strong ground motions recorded prompted the national authorities with expertise in the field to reassess the seismic potential of the geographic area of manifestation. In this context, the Oltenia region will be classified in the category of areas with a high seismic risk [4].

The present study aims to establish the perception of the population in the affected region, regarding the impact of the authorities’ decisions to manage the issue following the effects of the wave of seismic strong ground motions, as well as the impact of these movements on the entrepreneurial potential of the region, in an approach from a sustainable and security perspective. It is known that the fact that sustainable development and ensuring individual and collective security imperatively demands, on the one hand, the need for balance between the three dimensions of sustainable development—economic, social, and environmental—and, on the other hand, ensures optimal conditions for the economic environment for carrying out specific activities, related to the dynamism, particularities, opportunities, and risks of the global economic market [7], to ensure economic, social, and technological progress, in harmony with nature [8].

In this context, it is worth mentioning that Gorj County represents a geographic area with unique economic and social challenges, given its mono-industrial nature focused on mineral resource exploitation and the production of electricity based on fossil fuels (approximately 20% of the national electricity production) in the country’s most important energy capabilities, namely, the Oltenia Energy Complex. The societal transformations recorded over recent decades, driven by the need to reduce carbon emissions and transition to green energy production, due to concerns related to preserving environmental factors, have grounded the government’s decisions targeting significant budgetary allocations for Gorj County. These allocations are included in the “Just Transition Fund” for the period 2021–2027, a tool financed by the European Union and the Romanian Government to “assist territories where the negative effects of the transition are most pronounced at the economic and social level, with the aim of combating and mitigating regional disparities” [9].

On another note, it should be specified that the issue of the environment, the security, and the health of the population, as well as economic security, represent important dimensions of Romania’s national security, as highlighted in the National Defense Strategy of the Country, “Together, for a safe and prosperous Romania in a world marked by new challenges”, for the period 2021–2024 [10].

The proposed study relates to the Environmental Development Objectives found in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda elaborated at the United Nations Summit in September 2015 (ADD), subsumed by the need to develop peaceful, fair, and inclusive societies while ensuring sustainable protection of the geographical areas and their resources [8].

1.1. Literature Review

The effects of the earthquakes recorded in Romania on 10 November 1940 and 4 March 1979 (both of great depth, with a magnitude of 7.4 on the Richter scale and with the epicenter in the Vrancea seismic zone) prompted the Romanian state authorities and national expert communities to conduct studies on their causality, manifestations, and negative effects [11,12,13,14,15].

The issue in question was approached with particular interest at the international level (especially after the earthquakes in Turkey, in 2023), with specialized studies bringing significant contributions to the understanding of the phenomenon with a global manifestation area [16,17,18,19], all underlining the need for anticipating seismic events with the aim of adopting effective measures to increase resistance to danger and limit their effects [20,21,22,23].

The manifestations of seismic strong ground motions and their disastrous consequences (material damage) produce unwanted effects on the quality of life of the population in the affected regions [24,25,26]. Specialized studies also highlight the negative consequences of seismic strong ground motions on the economic [27,28], tourism [29,30], and cultural [31,32] potential of the areas of manifestation.

1.2. Hypotheses and Objectives

The research objectives consist of validating/invalidating the research hypotheses, through the analysis, processing, and interpretation of the information obtained via the administered questionnaire (see

Table 1. Data needed and research questions.

Required Data	Hypothesis
Respondents’ perception of the local authorities’ decisions, likely to contribute to reducing the stress level of the affected population, by providing credible information about the manifestation of the wave of seismic strong ground motions.	H1. Do people who show a high degree of trust in the actions of the authorities to limit the negative effects of seismic strong ground motions register better indices of the quality of life than people who show a low degree of trust? H2. Do people who show a high degree of confidence in the damage to the tourism and entrepreneurial potential of the region, as a result of the negative effects of seismic strong ground motions, register lower indices of the quality of life than people who show a low degree of confidence?
Respondents’ perception of local authorities’ interventions to limit/recover the material damage caused by the wave of seismic strong ground motions.
Respondents’ perception of the damage to the tourism potential and the entrepreneurial environment of the region, circumscribed by the need for its sustainable development, as a result of the negative effects of seismic strong ground motions.

NOTE: The quality of life of individuals represents one of the fundamental indicators for assessing human security and a legal duty of the authorities of modern states.

).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participant

This study was carried out between 27 February 2023 and 31 March 2023, based on the questionnaire applied in the online environment (Facebook and various websites) to people aged 18–35, who had residence in the territory of Gorj County during the earthquakes and at least 14 days after. No data were collected on respondents’ identifiers. Their participation was voluntary, anonymous, and unpaid; they were informed about the institutional affiliation of the authors of this study and the fact that the processed data would be used for the purpose of writing a scientific study.

2.2. Procedure

Participants completed a specific questionnaire, built on the Google Forms platform, which was distributed through a dedicated web link. The questionnaire could only be completed by people who checked “Yes” to the question regarding their presence in Gorj County (during the earthquakes and at least 14 days after) with a minimum age of 18 years and 35 at most.

2.3. Measurements

The questionnaire contained 40 questions and was structured in two parts aimed at (1) obtaining socio-demographic data and opinion regarding the level of information of the population regarding the manifestation of the wave of seismic strong ground motions and (2) the respondents’ perception of the negative effects of these movements on some parameters of societal life, circumscribed to the generic concept of human security (quality of life, economic development), in an approach circumscribed to the concept of sustainability.

Quality of life was determined using the WHOQOL-BREEF measurement tool [33], and the verification, data cleaning, and calculation of means of the major domains of the quality of life assessment were performed using the WHOQOL User Manual package [34].

2.4. Statistical Data Analysis

The statistical processing of the data collected through the applied questionnaire was carried out by running the Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2021 program and IBM SPSS Statistics 26, installed on a computer equipped with the Windows 11 Professional operating system. The data thus obtained were centralized in an Excel file for their visualization, extraction, and statistical analysis.

The variables that were the basis of the analysis concerned the opinion of the participants regarding (1) the degree of information of the citizens regarding the seismic strong ground motions recorded in Gorj County; (2) the population’s perception regarding the involvement of local authorities to reduce the negative effects of their seismic strong ground motions; (3) the perception of the population regarding the damage to the tourist potential and the local entrepreneurial environment; and (4) the influences of the wave of seismic strong ground motions on the quality of life of the affected people. The analysis was circumscribed to establish the effects of the wave of seismic strong ground motions on the sustainable development of the region affected by the wave of seismic strong ground motions.

The application of descriptive statistics allowed the determination of distribution frequencies, percentages, mean scores, and standard deviation. The t-test was applied to compare mean differences. Statistical significance was set as a p value of less than 0.05.

2.5. Other Possible Methodologies

In addition to the research methods we utilized in writing this article, others can be considered: (1) The interpretation of secondary data. This method involves analyzing data already collected by other organizations or researchers. For instance, demographic or public health data can be used to determine the impact of the earthquakes in the Gorj region on the quality of life of young people. (2) Individual interviews or focus groups. Direct discussions with the affected young people can be involved, which could provide a deeper perspective on the earthquake’s impact on their lives. This method allows for a detailed exploration of the subject and understanding individual experiences. (3) Participatory observation. In this method, researchers directly engage with the community and observe the behaviors and reactions of people affected by the earthquakes.

2.6. Selection Criteria for the Methodology Applied

We believe that applying an online questionnaire, structured in two parts (specific questions and the WHOQL-BREF questionnaire), is a suitable method for our research for the following reasons: (1) WHQOL-BREF is a standardized instrument for measuring quality of life, developed by the World Health Organization, which has been validated in numerous contexts. Thus, it allows for the comparability of results across different contexts and time, which can add value to our study. (2) Online questionnaires can be distributed to a large number of people in a short time, with reduced costs. Also, data collection and processing are more efficient than with qualitative methods, such as interviews or participatory observation. (3) Respondents to the online questionnaire can complete the survey at their convenience and in the comfort of their own home, which can increase the response rate and reduce social desirability bias. (4) The online questionnaire allows for the collection of quantitative data, which can be statistically analyzed to highlight trends and test hypotheses. This is beneficial considering we aim to generalize based on the collected data and test specific hypotheses. (5) Online questionnaires allow for the inclusion of a variety of question types, which allowed us to explore multiple aspects of the addressed subject.

3. Results

The results of the measurements made by administering the questionnaire to 599 respondents show their perception of the impairment of quality of life, social well-being, and safety in Romania (

Table 2. Socio-demographic data of the respondents.

Age	Sex				Environment of Residence				Educational Level
	Female		Male		Urban		Rural		Middle and High School		University Studies
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
18–35	452	75.4	147	24.5	321	53.5	278	46.4	292	48.7	307	51.2

NOTE: The total population of Gorj County, as of 1 January 2023, is 344,535 people, a decrease of 56,486 people compared to the population recorded on 7 January 1991, when there were 401,021 people. Of the total population recorded on 1 January 2023, 76,378 people are in the age range of 18–35 years, which is the focus of this study [35,36].

).

The following aspects of interest are noted:

(a)

Aspects regarding the degree of information of the respondents regarding seismic strong ground motions

This study highlights that a very high percentage of respondents (95.4%) were aware of the wave of seismic strong ground motions registered in the north of Oltenia (see Q1,

Table 3. Respondents’ level of information about seismic strong ground motions.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q1—Are You Aware of the Recent Wave of Seismic Strong Ground Motions in Northern Oltenia (Gorj County)?
	Yes %
18–35	95.4
Male	93.8
Female	96.0
Urban	97.5
Rural	93.1
Middle and High School	95.1
University studies	95.8

).

At the same time, 55.2% of the respondents declared that they had access to information resources and materials to a large and very large extent, 18.0% claimed that they had access to a small and very small extent, and 26.8% expressed a neutral opinion—evaluation indicator “3”. (See Q2,

Table 4. Respondents’ degree of access to information on seismic strong ground motions.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q2—Did You Have Access to (Credible) Resources and Information Materials Regarding the Wave of Seismic Strong Ground Motions Produced Recently in Gorj County?
	In a Small and Very Small Measure (1–2) %	In a Large and Very Large Measure (4–5) %
18–35	18.0	55.2
Male	21.1	53.0
Female	16.3	57.3
Urban	16.8	58.2
Rural	19.4	53.9
Middle and High School	18.8	51.3
University studies	17.1	57.1

NOTE: The difference of up to 100% represents a moderate measure.

).

(b)

Respondents’ perception regarding the action of the authorities to limit the negative effects of seismic strong ground motions in the north of Oltenia

This study highlights that only 27.5% of the respondents believed that the interventions of the local authorities provided credible information that contributed to a large and very large extent to reducing the stress level of the affected population, while 45.4% of the respondents had a contrary opinion. (See Q3,

Table 5. The degree of perception of the respondents regarding the interventions of the authorities to reduce the level of stress.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q3—To What Extent Do You Appreciate That the Interventions of the Local Authorities Were Likely to Contribute to Reducing the Stress Level of the Affected Population, by Providing Credible Information about the Wave of Seismic Strong Ground Motions?
	In a Small and Very Small Measure (1–2) %	In a Large and Very Large Measure (4–5) %
18–35	45.4	27.5
Male	53.0	17.6
Female	42.9	30.7
Urban	50.5	27.4
Rural	40.6	27.7
Middle and High School	38.7	32.9
University studies	52.4	21.9

NOTE: The difference of up to 100% represents a moderate measure.

).

Also, this study highlights that only 33.4% of the respondents appreciated that the interventions of the local authorities were only to a large and very large extent likely to limit/recover the damage caused by the wave of seismic strong ground motions recorded in Gorj County—question Q3—and 34.3% had the opposite opinion (see Q4,

Table 6. The degree of perception of the respondents regarding the interventions of the authorities to limit the material damage.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q4—To What Extent Do You Think That the Local Authorities’ Interventions Were Able to Limit/Recover the Material Damage?
	In a Small and Very Small Measure (1–2) %	In a Large and Very Large Measure (4–5) %
18–35	34.3	33.4
Male	44.9	25.8
Female	30.9	36.0
Urban	34.8	30.5
Rural	33.8	37.0
Middle and High School	29.6	37.7
University studies	39.3	29.1

NOTE: The difference of up to 100% represents a moderate measure.

).

The decisions of the local authorities to limit meetings in closed spaces (educational units, public institutions, etc.), in order to prevent the unwanted effects of some seismic strong ground motions that could have taken place later, were appreciated to be opportune to a large and very large extent by only 52.9% of the respondents (see Q5,

Table 7. Respondents’ degree of perception regarding the limitation of meetings in closed spaces.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q5—To What Extent Do You Consider the Decisions of the Authorities to Limit Meetings in Closed Spaces (Educational Units, Public Institutions, etc.) To be Appropriate, in Order to Prevent the Unwanted Effects of Some Seismic Strong Ground Motions That Could Have Taken Place?
	In a Small and Very Small Measure (1–2) %	In a Large and Very Large Measure (4–5) %
18–35	20.2	52.9
Male	25.8	44.2
Female	18.3	55.7
Urban	21.1	52.9
Rural	19.0	52.8
Middle and High School	17.2	58.3
University studies	23.2	47.2

NOTE: The difference of up to 100% represents a moderate measure.

).

In total, 56.4% of the respondents expressed a desire to resume a normal life following safety and security measures implemented by authorities due to seismic activities in the north of Gorj County (see Q6,

Table 8. The degree of perception of the respondents regarding the return to a normal social life.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q6—To What Extent Did/Do You Feel the Need to Return to a Normal Social Life after the Measures Adopted by the Authorities, in the Context of the Production of Seismic Strong Ground Motions in the North of Gorj County?
	In a Small and Very Small Measure (1–2) %	In a Large and Very Large Measure (4–5) %
18–35	16.8	56.4
Male	19.7	48.3
Female	15.9	59.0
Urban	17.1	56.3
Rural	16.5	56.4
Middle and High School	17.5	53.4
University studies	16.1	59.5

NOTE: The difference of up to 100% represents a moderate measure.

).

(c)

Respondents’ perception of the effects of the seismic strong ground motions in the north of Oltenia on the tourist and entrepreneurial potential

Also, this study highlights that 44.9% of the respondents opined that the wave of seismic strong ground motions will affect the tourist potential of the north of Oltenia to a large and very large extent (see Q7,

Table 9. The degree of perception of the respondents regarding the damage to the tourist potential.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q7—To What Extent Do You Think That the Seismic Strong Ground Motions Produced in the North of Oltenia Will Affect the Tourism Potential of the Region in the Future?
	In a Small and Very Small Measure (1–2) %	In a Large and Very Large Measure (4–5) %
18–35	31.5	44.9
Male	43.5	30.6
Female	27.6	49.5
Urban	31.7	46.4
Rural	31.3	43.1
Middle and High School	29.3	42.0
University studies	33.9	47.9

NOTE: The difference of up to 100% represents a moderate measure.

).

At the same time, this study highlights that 50.0% of the respondents opined that the wave of seismic strong ground motions will affect the entrepreneurial potential of northern Oltenia to a large and very large extent (see Q8,

Table 10. The degree of perception of respondents regarding the impairment of entrepreneurial potential.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q8—To What Extent Do You Think That the Seismic Strong Ground Motions Produced in the North of Oltenia Will Affect Investments and the Development of the Entrepreneurial Environment in the Region in the Future?
	In a Small and Very Small Measure (1–2) %	In a Large and Very Large Measure (4–5) %
18–35	28.3	50.0
Male	38.1	32.6
Female	25.2	48.8
Urban	28.3	46.7
Rural	28.4	42.8
Middle and High School	26.7	42.0
University studies	30.1	68.8

NOTE: The difference of up to 100% represents a moderate measure.

).

In the context of the migration of a significant number of the population from the urban environment in the northern region of Oltenia to the rural environment, as a result of the influences of the seismic strong ground motions, it is noted that 49.2% of the respondents opined that such a decision greatly influences and greatly influences to a great extent the life of the community and the local entrepreneurial environment (see Q9,

Table 11. The degree of perception of respondents regarding urban–rural migration.

Socio-Demographic Data	Q9—To What Extent Do You Think the Mass Migration of Residents from Urban to Rural Areas, as a Result of the Recent Seismic Strong Ground Motions, Has Any Influence on Community Life and the Local Entrepreneurial Environment?
	In a Small and Very Small Measure (1–2) %	In a Large and Very Large Measure (4–5) %
18–35	22.2	49.2
Male	31.3	42.8
Female	19.2	51.3
Urban	21.1	52.3
Rural	23.3	45.6
Middle and High School	18.2	49.5
University studies	26.3	48.9

NOTE: The difference of up to 100% represents a moderate measure.

).

Participants’ Quality of Life

The average values that characterize the four major areas highlighting the quality of life of the participants (Physical, Psychological, Social, and Environmental) are presented in

Table 12. Descriptive statistical analysis of quality of life, across the entire sample, according to the four major domains.

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
ENVIR	599	0.00	100.00	67.4	20.9
PHYS	599	3.57	100.00	67.8	19.5
PSYCH	599	0.00	100.00	75.3	21.1
SOCIAL	599	0.00	100.00	71.7	23.7
Valid N (listwise)	599

.

(d)

Association between socio-demographic data and WHOQOL-BREEF

In

Table 13. The association between socio-demographic data and quality of life assessment indices.

		Physical Health	Psychological Health	Social Relationship	Environmental Health	Quality of Life (QOL)	Health Satisfaction
		Mean (SD)
Gender	Male	72.69 (18.93)	77.66 (22.11)	71.65 (26.11)	68.79 (22.70)	3.35 (1.27)	4.08 (1.04)
	Female	66.32 (19.57)	74.57 (20.82)	71.81 (22.94)	67.01 (20.29)	2.98 (1.16)	3.73 (1.17)
		p < 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p < 0.05	p > 0.05
Studies	Middle and High School	67.77 (19.00)	74.78 (20.51)	71.19 (24.34)	68.94 (20.63)	3.11 (1.15)	3.92 (1.09)
	University studies	68.00 (20.23)	75.91 (21.86)	72.37 (23.10)	65.88 (21.11)	3.02 (1.25)	3.72 (1.20)
		p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p < 0.05
Environment of residence	Urban	67.34 (20.51)	74.41 (21.38)	71.54 (24.16)	66.62 (20.87)	3.00 (1.26)	3.70 (1.18)
	Rural	68.51 (18.50)	76.39 (20.91)	72.03 (23.26)	68.40 (20.93)	3.14 (1.13)	3.95 (1.09)
		p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p < 0.05
Q3 1	1–2	65.36 (21.02)	72.90 (23.02)	67.31 (25.15)	62.13 (21.51)	2.78 (1.24)	3.60 (1.21)
	4–5	71.99 (18.43)	80.78 (16.85)	79.19 (21.63)	76.59 (19.25)	3.47 (1.15)	4.13 (1.05)
		p < 0.01	p < 0.01	p < 0.01	p < 0.01	p < 0.01	p < 0.01
Q5 2	1–2	69.83 (22.13)	77.06 (21.17)	71.07 (26.81)	65.49 (22.13)	3.02 (1.27)	3.88 (1.17)
	4–5	69.04 (19.10)	77.72 (19.43)	74.00 (22.68)	70.39 (20.25)	3.09 (1.25)	3.85 (1.13)
		p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05
Q6 3	1–2	69.62 (17.68)	75.90 (20.97)	71.03 (25.21)	66.83 (18.56)	3.11 (1.24)	3.88 (1.15)
	4–5	68.30 (20.25)	76.34 (21.39)	72.38 (24.05)	68.65 (22.15)	3.09 (1.26)	3.82 (1.19)
		p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05
Q7 4	1–2	73.07 (18.79)	77.71 (20.91)	73.54 (23.73)	69.03 (20.64)	3.37 (1.13)	4.04 (1.04)
	4–5	64.71 (20.57)	74.10 (21.79)	71.49 (23.87)	66.86 (22.00)	2.86 (1.28)	3.70 (1.23)
		p < 0.01	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p < 0.01	p < 0.01
Q8 5	1–2	73.67 (18.39)	78.28 (20.60)	73.82 (23.90)	69.30 (19.85)	3.38 (1.14)	4.05 (1.05)
	4–5	64.92 (20.49)	73.93 (21.36)	72.08 (23.88)	66.64 (22.10)	2.86 (1.28)	3.73 (1.21)
		p < 0.01	p < 0.05	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p < 0.01	p < 0.01
Q9 6	1–2	71.26 (18.40)	76.59 (18.87)	70.67 (24.92)	68.84 (18.47)	3.23 (1.12)	3.87 (1.06)
	4–5	66.02 (20.89)	75.48 (22.16)	71.77 (24.59)	66.71 (22.94)	2.96 (1.32)	3.78 (1.22)
		p < 0.01	p > 0.05	p > 0.05	p < 0.05	p < 0.05	p < 0.05

A t-test used for p value. ¹ To what extent do you appreciate that the interventions of the local authorities were likely to contribute to reducing the stress level of the affected population (by providing credible and reassuring information)? ² To what extent do you consider the decisions of the authorities to limit meetings in closed spaces (educational units, public institutions, etc.) to be appropriate, in order to prevent the unwanted effects of some seismic strong ground motions that could have taken place? ³ To what extent did/do you feel the need to return to a normal social life after the measures adopted by the authorities, in the context of the production of seismic strong ground motions in the north of Gorj County? ⁴ To what extent do you think that the seismic strong ground motions produced in the north of Oltenia will affect the tourist potential of the region in the future? ⁵ To what extent do you think that the seismic strong ground motions produced in the north of Oltenia will affect investments and the development of the entrepreneurial environment in the region in the future? ⁶ To what extent do you think that the mass migration of inhabitants from the urban environment to the rural environment, as a result of the recent seismic strong ground motions, has any influence on the life of the community and the local entrepreneurial environment? 1—To a very small extent; 2—To a small extent; 4—To a large extent; 5—To a very large extent.

, the comparisons between the four main areas are presented, taking into consideration the answers given to the specific questions in the first part of the questionnaire.

4. Discussion

This study highlights a very high degree of information among the respondents regarding the manifestation of the wave of seismic strong ground motions recorded in Gorj County (around 95%), with no significant differences according to gender, place of residence, or level of completed studies. Also, in the context where 55.2% of the respondents declare that they had access to credible information resources and materials, there are differences of approximately 5% between the respondents who reside in the urban environment (58.2%) compared to those from rural areas (53.9%), respectively, and among respondents with higher university education (57.1%) compared to those with secondary education (51.3%) and 4.3% among male (53%) and female (57.3%) respondents (see Table 3 and Table 4). This state of affairs, characterized by a high degree of information and access to information, can be correlated with the provisions of Objective 4 of the ADD, “Ensuring equitable, inclusive and quality education and promoting learning opportunities throughout of life, for all” [8].

Regarding the perception of the respondents regarding the action of the authorities to limit the negative effects of the seismic strong ground motions in the north of Oltenia (Q3), the low degree of trust of the respondents is noted (45.4%—small and very small measure), with significant differences of about 10% between urban (50.5%) and rural (40.6%) respondents, between those with university education (52.4%) and those with secondary education (38.7%), and among male (53.0%) and female (42.9%) respondents (see Table 5). These results are consistent with the research conclusions of specialized studies that highlight the decrease in the level of trust of the population in state institutions in the context of recent crises [37,38,39] and the decrease in their legitimacy [40], a fact that justifies the need to develop efficient, responsible, and transparent institutions, at the level of local administration, in accordance with Objective 16 of the ADD, “Promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, for sustainable development, ensuring everyone’s access to justice and creating efficient, responsible and inclusive institutions, at all levels” [8].

With regard to the interventions of local authorities to limit/recover the damage caused by the wave of seismic strong ground motions (Q4), overall, the respondents’ perception is approximately the same, noting, however, for the assessment “to a large and very large extent”, differences of between 8 and 12% between the respondents’ opinions related to the level of completed studies, the environment of their residence, and their gender (see Table 6). A strong correlation is noted between the answers provided by respondents to questions Q2 and Q4 (see

Table 14. The degree of correlation between the answers provided by the respondents to questions Q2 and Q4.

Q2—Did You Have Access to (Credible) Resources and Information Materials Regarding the Wave of Seismic Strong Ground Motions Produced Recently in Gorj County? Q4—To What Extent Do You Appreciate That the Interventions of the Local Authorities Were Likely to Contribute to Reducing the Stress Level of the Affected Population, by Providing Credible Information about the Wave of Seismic Strong Ground Motions?
Participants who scored 1 and 2 for both questions ***			Participants who scored 4 and 5 for both questions ***
Kendell	Correlation coefficient	0.778 **	Kendell	Correlation coefficient	0.944 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.002		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
Spearman	Correlation coefficient	0.927 **	Spearman	Correlation coefficient	0.985 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *** 1—To a very small extent/2—To a small extent/4—To a large extent/5—To a very large extent.

).

Regarding the decisions of the local authorities to limit meetings in closed spaces (educational units, public institutions, etc.) in order to prevent the unwanted effects of some seismic strong ground motions that could have occurred later (Q5), the high degree of positive perception is observed (52.9%); however, there are differences of approximately 11% between respondents with university education (47.2%) and those with secondary education (58.3%), respectively, and between male (44.2%) female (55.7%) respondents (see Table 7). The results obtained are consistent with the conclusions of specialized studies that show that people living in rural areas, those with secondary education, and those of the female gender are predisposed to give a higher degree of trust to the state authorities [41,42,43,44]. A strong correlation is noted between the answers provided by the respondents to questions Q2 and Q5 (see

Table 15. The degree of correlation between the answers provided by the respondents to questions Q2 and Q5.

Q2—Did You Have Access to (Credible) Resources and Information Materials Regarding the Wave of Seismic Strong Ground Motions Produced Recently in Gorj County? Q5—To What Extent Do You Appreciate That the Interventions of the Local Authorities Were Likely to Limit/Recover the Material Damage Produced?
Participants who scored 1 and 2 for both questions ***			Participants who scored 4 and 5 for both questions ***
Kendell	Correlation coefficient	0.733 **	Kendell	Correlation coefficient	0.978 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.003		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
Spearman	Correlation coefficient	0.891 **	Spearman	Correlation coefficient	0.994 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.001		Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *** 1—To a very small extent/2—To a small extent/4—To a large extent/5—To a very large extent.

).

In the analyzed context, the high percentage (56.4%) of respondents who felt the need to return to a normal life after the measures adopted by the authorities for reasons of safety and security (Q6) should be noted, with differences of about 6% existing between the respondents with education university (56.5%) and those with secondary education (53.4%) and 10.7% between males (48.3%) and females (59.0%) (see Table 8). This fact is explainable because the person’s level of education is an important protective factor [45,46], which allows for the correct identification of the level of risk exposure and the adoption of correct behaviors.

Regarding the respondents’ perception of the effects of the seismic strong ground motions in the north of Oltenia on the tourist potential, 44.9% of the respondents opined that the tourist potential of the region will be affected to a large and very large extent (Q7), with greater differences less than 5% of the options of the respondents from the urban environment (45.1%) and those from the rural environment (46.4%) and among those with university education (47.9%) and those with secondary education (42.1%). Significant differences, of 18.9%, are found between male respondents (30.6%) and female respondents (49.5%) (see Table 9). Regarding the impact on the local entrepreneurial potential (Q8), 50% of the respondents think that it will be negatively influenced; there are major differences in perception, of about 15%, between the respondents with university degrees (68.8%) and those with secondary education (42.0%), respectively, and between males (32.6%) and females (48.8%) (see Table 10). It is noted that the respondents with higher education, as well as those of female gender, show a higher degree of concern regarding the damage to the local tourist and entrepreneurial potential, a fact that can be explained, in the first situation, by the fact that the high level of education gives the person a higher degree of perception of problematic aspects in society [47,48,49] and, in the second situation, by the fact that women are more concerned about the conditions in which they conduct their social life, as a consequence of historical inequalities of gender, an aspect that is taken into account to be eradicated by Objective 5 of the ADD, “Achieving gender equality and the emancipation of all women and girls” [8]. In this context, a strong correlation is observed between the answers provided by the respondents to questions Q7 and Q8 (see

Table 16. The degree of correlation between the answers provided by the respondents to questions Q7 and Q8.

Q7—To What Extent Do You Think That the Seismic Strong Ground Motions Produced in the North of Oltenia Will Affect the Tourism Potential of the Region in the Future? Q8—To What Extent Do You Think That the Seismic Strong ground Motions Produced in the North of Oltenia Will Affect Investments and the Development of the Entrepreneurial Environment in the Region in the Future?
Participants who scored 4 and 5 on both questions ***
Kendell	Correlation coefficient	0.899 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
Spearman	Correlation coefficient	0.967 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *** 1—To a very small extent/2—To a small extent/4—To a large extent/5—To a very large extent.

).

This study also sought to establish the impact of the migration of a significant number of the population affected by the wave of seismic strong ground motions from the urban to the rural environment on community life and local entrepreneurial potential (Q9), and 49.2% of the respondents opined that such an approach influences the issue analyzed, to a large and very large extent. It is noteworthy that there are differences of about 5% between the options of the respondents from rural areas (45.6%) and those from urban areas (52.3%) and of 9.5% between the male respondents (42.8%) and female respondents (51.3%), the level of the respondents’ studies not significantly influencing their options (see Table 11). The issue of migration and orderly mobility is the subject of Objective 10, “Reducing inequalities within countries and between countries”, of the ADD [8], requiring the adoption of effective policies in this matter, to ensure favorable conditions for a decent social life.

The results of this study show that the highest satisfaction average among the four WHOQOL-BREF domains is represented by the “Psychological” domain (75.33 ± 21.17); on the contrary, the lowest average is represented by the “Environmental” domain (67.45 ± 20.90). This is a fact that can be explained precisely by the particularities of the phenomenon that are the basis of the sociological investigation, namely, the wave of seismic strong ground motions included in the category of natural calamities.

The comparative analysis of the medians of the major domains shows that the male gender presents a higher satisfaction average than that recorded in the case of women in the “Physical” (male: 72.69 ± 18.93, female: 66.32 ± 19.57), “Psychological” (male: 77.66 ± 22.11, female: 74.57 ± 20.82), and “Environmental” domains (male: 68.79 ± 22.70, female: 67.01 ± 20.29). For the “Social” field, the differences are insignificant in favor of the female respondents (male: 71.65 ± 26.11, female: 71.85 ± 22.94) (see Table 13). This fact is consistent with the conclusions of the specialty studies that highlight that in problematic situations, with a major impact on human life, male persons present indicators of the quality of life superior to those of female persons [50,51,52,53,54].

Related to the area of residence, this study reveals the presence of a higher average score in all four areas for the respondents domiciled in rural areas compared to those domiciled in urban areas, a fact that explains the migration of the part of the population affected by the wave of seismic strong ground motions from the urban environment to the rural environment. It should be noted that the maximum score is obtained in the case of the “Psychological” domain (76.39 ± 20.91) for the respondents domiciled in the rural environment, and the minimum is obtained in the case of the “Environmental” domain (66.62 ± 20.87) for the respondents domiciled in the urban environment (see Table 13).

Related to the level of education of the respondents (secondary education vs. university education), the differences for the four areas of analysis fall within approx. 3%, the respondents with higher education presenting a higher mean score in three out of four domains, “Physical” (68.00 ± 20.23), “Psychological” (75.91 ± 21.86), and “Social” (72.37 ± 23.10), the exception being the field “Environment”, where respondents with secondary education obtained a score of 68.94 ± 20.6 and those with higher education 65.88 ± 21.11 (see Table 13).

The scores for the four major areas, calculated according to the answers to the specific questions in the first part of the questionnaire (Q3, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, and Q9), reveal the confirmation of the proposed research hypotheses (see Table 1).

Thus, people who show a high degree of confidence in the actions of the authorities to limit the negative effects of seismic strong ground motions (question Q3) register better indices of the quality of life than people who show a low degree of confidence in all four evaluation areas (hypothesis 1 of research). The differences are about 6.5% in the case of the “Physical” field and about 15% in the case of the “Environmental” field (see Table 13).

People who considered the decisions of the authorities to limit meetings in closed spaces (educational units, public institutions, etc.) to prevent the unwanted effects of some seismic strong ground motions (question Q5) to be appropriate recorded better indices of the quality of life in three areas of evaluation: “Psychological” (77.72 ± 19.43), “Social” 74.00 ± 22.68), and “Environmental 70.39 ± 20.25). For the “Physical” domain, the difference is 0.78% in favor of the people who expressed contrary opinions (see Table 13).

In the case of question Q6, the people who declared that they felt the need to return to a normal social life to a great extent and to a very great extent after the measures adopted by the authorities, in the context of the production of seismic strong ground motions, register better indices of the quality of life in three areas of evaluation: “Psychological” (76.34 ± 21.39), “Social” (72.38 ± 24.05), and “Environmental (68.65 ± 22.15). People who issued contrary opinions register better indices of the quality of life in the field “Physical” (69.62 ± 17.68), where the differences are less than 1.3% (see Table 13).

The people who expressed that the seismic strong ground motions produced in the north of Oltenia will affect the tourism potential of the region in the future (Q7), to a great extent and to a very large extent, register weaker indices of the quality of life in all four evaluation areas, the maximum value for this category of respondents registering in the case of the “Psychological” field (74.10 ± 21.79) and the minimum in the case of the “Physical” field (64.71 ± 22.57) (see Table 13). At the same time, people who believe that the seismic strong ground motions produced in the north of Oltenia will affect in the future, to a large and very large extent, the investments and the development of the entrepreneurial potential of the region (Q8) register weaker indices of the quality of life in all four evaluation areas. The maximum value for this category of respondents is registered in the case of the “Psychological” domain (73.93 ± 21.36) and the minimum in the case of the “Environmental” domain (64.92 ± 20.49) (see Table 13). This confirms the second research hypothesis (see Table 1).

It is also worth noting that the respondents who believe that the mass migration of residents from the urban environment to the rural environment, as an extreme measure adopted in the context of the seismic strong ground motions produced recently in the north of Oltenia (Q9), influences the life of the community and the local entrepreneurial environment to a large and a very large extent register weaker indices of the quality of life, compared to those who expressed contrary opinions (see Table 13).

4.1. Possible Contributions to Public Policy Formulation

Given that this study establishes certain correlations between the quality of life of the people affected by seismic events and their level of trust in the actions of authorities to mitigate the negative effects of earthquakes (Hypothesis 1), and the level of impact on the tourism and entrepreneurial potential of a region affected by seismic strong ground motions (Hypothesis 2), we believe it can enhance debates on formulating public policies in the field of crisis/disaster management and the rejuvenation of the geographic area of Northern Oltenia:

(a)

Socially, the wave of seismic strong ground motions is an additional factor affecting the quality of life of the people living in the aforementioned geographic area, in a context where economic transformations in recent years (restructuring of fossil fuel extraction capabilities and electricity production due to sustainable development considerations) have significantly affected social comfort and population well-being. In this context, the conducted study can provide some guiding milestones for the local implementation of OB3—“Good Health and Well-being”—from the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [8], aiming to ensure a healthy life and promote the well-being of citizens.

(b)

On the other hand, economically, the wave of seismic strong ground motions affected the tourism potential of the region, commonly known as “Oltenia under the mountain”. The region is recognized, and stands as an attraction, for having the richest collection of wooden churches listed as historical monuments belonging to the national cultural heritage, as well as for the works of the sculptor Constantin Brâncuși in the city of Târgu Jiu, proposed for inclusion in the UNESCO heritage list. Thus, this study can provide some guiding milestones for the local implementation of the following provisions: Goal OB 16—“Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions”—from the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [8], aiming to establish effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels of administration; The National Recovery and Resilience Plan, the “Good Governance” section in the field of public sector reform, aiming to increase institutional decision performance [55]; and The Fair Transition Program 2021–2027 [56] (approved by the European Commission by Decision no. C(2022)9125 final/02.12.2022), which grants support from the Fair Transition Fund under the objective “Investments for employment and economic growth”.

In this context, it is essential for local and national authorities with expertise in the field to conduct a rational and lucid analysis leading to the adoption of effective measures to promote local entrepreneurial potential, to preserve and enhance the national cultural heritage affected by earthquakes, contributing significantly to rejuvenating the tourism potential of the region.

4.2. Research Limitations

Given that the research focuses exclusively on obtaining relevant conclusions through the statistical processing of the data collected through an online questionnaire, the first significant limitation is determined by the data collection method itself, as it is assumed that only a part of the population of the investigated region had access to the Internet and could complete the questionnaire [57,58]. The second limitation consists of the existence of the risk of subjective self-selection of respondents and the redistribution of the questionnaire in groups of people with similar opinions regarding the researched subject [57]. Our study is confined to the specific sample we examined, which means our findings are most representative of this particular group. When working with samples, it is essential to recognize that they are a subset of a broader population. The size and diversity of a sample can significantly influence the outcomes of the research. There is always an inherent variability in populations; thus, a larger and potentially more diverse sample might yield results that are different from ours. This is particularly true if the larger sample captures a wider range of experiences, backgrounds, or other relevant characteristics that were not as prevalent or were absent in our sample. Therefore, while our findings provide valuable insights based on the group we studied, caution should be exercised when generalizing these results to the broader population. Further research with more extensive and diverse samples would be beneficial to verify or challenge our conclusions.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study highlight the fact that the indicators of the quality of life of the people in the geographical area of manifestation of the wave of seismic strong ground motions (northern Oltenia) are negatively influenced by their fear of affecting the tourism and entrepreneurial potential of the region, in the sense that the people who present a high degree of confidence in affecting the tourism and entrepreneurial potential of the region register lower quality of life indices than people with a low degree of confidence. People who show a high degree of trust in the actions of the authorities to limit the negative effects of seismic strong ground motions register better indices of the quality of life than people who show a low degree of trust. Thus, the research hypotheses of this study are confirmed (see Table 1).

On the other hand, this study highlights that the highest satisfaction average among the four WHOQOL-BREF domains is represented by the “Psychological” domain (75.33 ± 21.17) and the lowest average is represented by the “Environmental” domain (67.45 ± 20.90), a fact that can be explained precisely by the particularities of the phenomenon that is the basis of the realization of the sociological investigation, namely, the wave of seismic strong ground motions being included in the category of natural environmental calamities.

This study also reveals that the male respondents show a higher satisfaction average than that recorded in the case of the female respondents in the “Physical”, “Psychological”, and “Environmental” domains. For the “Social” field, the differences are insignificant in favor of the female respondents. The respondents domiciled in rural areas, compared to those domiciled in urban areas, register higher mean scores in all four domains of the quality of life analysis; the respondents with higher education present a higher average score in the “Physical”, “Psychological”, and “Social” domains, with the exception of the “Environmental” domain.

It can be concluded that beyond the negative effects on the environment, seen as an important factor of human security [59], the impact of the seismic strong ground motions in the north of Oltenia negatively affects some indicators of the sustainable development of the region circumscribed predominantly to the social domain—the quality of life of the population—and the economic field—material damage to objectives of public interest and local entrepreneurial potential—fields which are of particular importance in the national security architecture of Romania.