The perception of geo-hydrological risk in Calabria, southern Italy: the casestudy of Coast of the Gods

Journal title ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI
Author/s Francesco De Pascale, Loredana Antronico, Roberto Coscarelli
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2019/124 Language Italian
Pages 30 P. 171-199 File size 273 KB
DOI 10.3280/ASUR2019-124008
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This work seeks to analyze the mechanisms of geo-hydrological risk perceptionin a coastal stretch of southern Tyrrhenian (Coast of the Gods), located in theprovince of Vibo Valentia (Calabria, Italy). In the three-year period 2009-2011,this stretch has been affected by numerous debris flows and floods triggeredby rainy events, even with low intensities. A structured questionnaire wasadministered to 300 citizens of Tropea, Parghelia and Zambrone.

Keywords: Alluvial fans, geography of perception, geo-hydrological risk, humanfactors, Southern Italy

  1. Alcantara-Ayala I. and Moreno A.R. (2016). Landslide risk perception and communication for disaster risk management in mountain areas of developing countries: a Mexican foretaste. Journal of Mountain Science, 13(12): 2079-2093.
  2. Alemanno A. (2017). Prefazione. In: Cerase A., a cura di, Rischio e Comunicazione. Teorie, modelli, problemi. Milano: Egea.
  3. Antronico L., Borrelli L. and Coscarelli R. (2016). Recent damaging events on alluvial fans along a stretch of the Tyrrhenian coast of Calabria (Southern Italy). Bull Eng Geol Environ.
  4. Antronico L., Coscarelli R., De Pascale F. and Muto F. (2017). Geo-hydrological risk perception: a case study in Calabria (Southern Italy). International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 25: 301-311.
  5. Arendt H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  6. Bailly A. (1975). L’organisation urbaine. Theories et modeles. Paris: Centre de Recherce d’Urbanisme.
  7. Berg B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  8. Bertoncin M., Pase A. e Quatrida D. (2014). Geografie di prossimita. Prove sul terreno. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  9. Bianchi E. (1987). Comportamento e percezione dello spazio ambientale. Dalla Behavioral Revolution al Paradigma umanistico. In: Corna Pellegrini G., a cura di, Aspetti e problemi della geografia. Milano: Marzorati, 1: 545-598.
  10. Bickerstaff K. (2004). Risk Perception Research: Socio-cultural Perspectives on the Public Experience of Air Pollution. Environment International, 6: 827-840.
  11. Bickerstaff K. and Walker G.P. (1999). Clearing the smog?: public responses to air quality information. Local Environment, 4: 279-294. DOI: 10.1080/1354983990872560
  12. Bobrowsky P., Cronin V.S., Di Capua G., Kieffer S.W. and Peppoloni S. (2017). The Emerging Field of Geoethics. In: Gundersen L.C., ed., Scientific Integrity and Ethics with Applications to the Geosciences. Special Publication American Geophysical Union. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 1-42.
  13. Botta G. (1987). Calamita naturali e studi geografici. In: Corna Pellegrini G., a cura di, Aspetti e problemi della Geografia. Milano: Marzorati, 1: 679-723.
  14. Bulkeley H. (2000). Common knowledge? Public understanding of climate change in Newcastle, Australia. Public Understand. Sci. 9: 313-333.
  15. Bush J., Moffatt S. and Dunn C.E. (2001). Even the birds round here cough: Stigma, air pollution and health in Teesside. Health and Place, 7(1): 47-56.
  16. Calandra L.M. (2012). Territorio e democrazia. Un laboratorio di geografia sociale nel doposisma aquilano. L’Aquila: Edizioni L’Una. Calandra L.M. e Castellani S. (2017). La ricerca geografica come strategia di resilienza: esperienze di partecipazione in contesto post-disastro. In: Mela
  17. A., Mugnano S. e Olori D., a cura di, Territori vulnerabili. Verso una nuova sociologia dei disastri italiana. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 51-66.
  18. Carnelli F., Forino G. and Zizzari S. (2016). L’Aquila 2009-2016. The earthquake in the Italian social sciences. Sociologia Urbana e Rurale, 111: 111-114. DOI: 10.3280/SUR2016-11100
  19. Cerase A. (2017). Rischio e Comunicazione. Teorie, modelli, problemi. Milano: Egea.
  20. Crescimbene M., La Longa F., Camassi R. and Pino N.A. (2015). The Seismic Risk Perception Questionnaire. In: Peppoloni S. and Di Capua G., eds., Geoethics: the role and responsibility of geoscientists. London: Geological Society, Special Publications, 419-427.
  21. De Marchi B., Scolobig A., Delli Zotti G. and Del Zotto M. (2007). Risk construction and social vulnerability in an Italian Alpine Region: 1-359. – Testo disponibile al sito: http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:ab65811e-6394-470e-9663-530c0751382e/T11-06-08-Task11_p33_06-08_final.pdf.
  22. De Pascale F., Bernardo M., Muto F., D’Amico S., Zumbo R., Galea P. and Agius M. (2015a). Neogeography and seismic risk perception. A comparison between two case studies: Calabria, Southern Italy and Malta. European Journal of Geography, 6(1): 64-83.
  23. De Pascale F., Bernardo M., Muto F. and Tripodi V. (2015b). Geoethics and seismic risk perception: the case of Pollino area, Calabria, Southern Italy and comparison with communities of the past. In: Peppoloni S. and Di Capua
  24. G., eds., Geoethics: the role and responsibility of geoscientists, Geological Society of London, Lyell Collection (Special Publications), vol. 419, 87-102.
  25. De Pascale F., Bernardo M., Muto F., Dattilo V. and Ruffolo A. (2016). Geoethics, Neogeography and risk perception: myth, natural and human factors in archaic and postmodern society. In: D’Amico S., ed., Earthquakes and their impact on Society. Cham: Springer, 665-692.
  26. Douglas M. and Wildavsky A. (1982a). Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  27. Douglas M. and Wildavsky A. (1982b). ≪How can we know the risks we face? Why risk selection is a social process≫. Risk Analysis, 2(2): 49-58.
  28. Downs R.M. (1970). Geographic space perception: past approaches and future prospects. Progress in Geography, 2:65-108.
  29. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S. and Combs B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2): 127-152. DOI: 10.1007/BF0014373
  30. Forino G. e Carnelli F. (2017). Di cosa si parla quando si parla di rischio in Italia?, Il Lavoro Culturale. -- Testo disponibile al sito: www.lavoroculturale.org/cosa-siparla-si-parla-rischio-italia (ultimo accesso: 20 maggio 2018).
  31. Fremont A. (1974). Recherches sur l’espace vecu. Espace geographique, 3(3): 231-238.
  32. Harvey D. (2012). Rebel Cities. From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. London: Verso.
  33. Hinchliffe S. (1996). Helping the earth begins at home: The social construction of socio-environmental responsibilities. Global Environmental Change, 6(1): 53-62. DOI: 10.1016/0959-3780(95)00113-
  34. Irwin A., Simmons P. and Walker G.P. (1999). Faulty environments and risk reasoning: the local understanding of industrial hazards. Environment and Planning A, 31(7): 1311-1326.
  35. Kahneman D. and Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263-292.
  36. Kasperson J.X and Kasperson R.E. (2005). The social contours of risk: publics, risk communication and the social amplification of risk (Vol. 1). London: Earthscan.
  37. Kempton W. (1991). Lay Perspectives on Global Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 18: 183-208. DOI: 10.1016/0959-3780(91)90042-
  38. Lefebvre H. (1968). Le Droit a la ville. Paris: Anthropos.
  39. Lucini B. (2017). Il terremoto a L’Aquila, la resilienza sociale e territoriale nel post sisma. In: Mela A., Mugnano S. e Olori D., a cura di, Territori vulnerabili. Verso una nuova sociologia dei disastri italiana. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 42-50.
  40. Mela A., Mugnano S. e Olori D. (2017). Verso una nuova sociologia dei disastri italiana. In: Mela A., Mugnano S. e Olori D., a cura di, Territori vulnerabili. Verso una nuova sociologia dei disastri italiana. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 7-21.
  41. Nikitina N.K. (2016). Geoethics: theory, principles, problems. Monograph. 2nd edition, revised and supplemented. Szolnok: Geoinformmark Ltd.
  42. Paton D., Smith L.M. and Johnston D. (2000). Volcanic hazards: risk perception and preparedness. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 29(2): 86-91.
  43. Peppoloni S. (2014). Convivere con i rischi naturali. Bologna: il Mulino.
  44. Pidgeon N., Hood C., Jones D., Turner B. and Gibson R. (1992). Risk perception. In: Royal Society Study Group, eds., Risk Analysis, Perception and Management. London: Royal Society, 89-134.
  45. Pidgeon N., Simmons P. and Henwood K. (2006). Risk, environment and technology. In: Taylor-Gooby P., Zinn J.O., eds., Risk in social science. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 94-116.
  46. Renn O. (1990). Risk communication and the social amplification of risk. In: Kasperson R.E. and Stallen P.J.M., eds., Communicating risks to the public: International perspectives (Vol. 4). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 287-324.
  47. Slovic P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799): 280-285.
  48. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4): 689-701.
  49. Sjoberg L. (2006). Worry and risk perception. Risk analysis, 18(1): 85-93.
  50. Trigila A., Iadanza C., Bussettini M. e Lastoria B. (2015). Dissesto idrogeologico in Italia: pericolosita e indicatori di rischio. Rapporti ISPRA 233/2015. Roma: ISPRA.
  51. Trochim W. (2000). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Cincinnati: Atomic Dog Publishing.
  52. White G.F., Calef W., Hudson J., Mayer H., Sheaffer J. and Volk D. (1958). Changes of urban occupancy of Flood Plains in the United States. Research paper 57. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.
  53. Wildavsky A. and Dake K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?. Daedalus, 119: 41-60.

  • Disaster Resilience and Human Settlements Bharat Dahiya, Francesco De Pascale, Orlando De Pietro, Piero Farabollini, Francesca Romana Lugeri, Leonardo Mercatanti, pp.3 (ISBN:978-981-99-2247-5)
  • A Study on Memory Sites Perception in Primary School for Promoting the Urban Sustainability Education: A Learning Module in Calabria (Southern Italy) Marcello Bernardo, Francesco De Pascale, in Sustainability /2019 pp.6379
    DOI: 10.3390/su11226379

Francesco De Pascale, Loredana Antronico, Roberto Coscarelli, La percezione del rischio idrogeologico in Calabria: il caso studio della Costa degli Dei in "ARCHIVIO DI STUDI URBANI E REGIONALI" 124/2019, pp 171-199, DOI: 10.3280/ASUR2019-124008