Term paper on Critical Review Risk Perception

The basic epidemiology may be helpful for the assessment of the actual risk of the earthquake. In actuality, the basic epidemiology involves case-control and longitudinal studies. Basically, the case-control is very important because it provides ample opportunities to study each case of the earthquake in details. Scientists become aware of the risk of the disaster and its negative effects through the case-control. At the same time, the case control allows scientists to keep the situation under the control because they study each case, when they identify the risk of the earthquake. They monitor the situation and attempt to keep the situation under control to inform the public about the upcoming disaster in time. However, this approach creates the false feeling of security because people start believing that they are in a secure position because people believe that scientists can warn them in time. As a result, individuals become dependent on the report of scientists because they expect being informed in time, while there is always a risk of the earthquake. Therefore, the risk perception may decrease, when scientists take the situation under their control.

At the same time, longitudinal studies may contribute to better assessment of the risk of the earthquake because they focus on the historical study of occurrence of earthquakes in certain area and the assessment of the actual risk of its occurrence in the nearest future. Longitudinal studies are helpful because they raise the public awareness of the risk of the disaster. On the other hand, some people may believe that, if earthquakes did not occur for a long time, they would not occur in the nearest future. However, in actuality, the situation may be quite the contrary, for the area vulnerable to earthquakes is likely to suffer from the earthquake, if earthquakes did not occur in the area for a long time.

Nevertheless, longitudinal studies are helpful to raise the public debate concerning the probability of occurrence of the earthquake in the area vulnerable to the impact of natural disasters. The longitudinal studies help to understand better specificities of the area and the risk of the development of earthquakes in the area. As a result, the public becomes aware of the existing risk and individuals also grow conscious of the fact that earthquakes occurred in the area of their living and, therefore, there is a risk of the repetition of natural disasters.

In actuality, scientists (Gaur & Chandrashekhar, 2006) view the risk as the product of probability and consequences. What is meant here is the fact that scientists may use the diversity of methods to assess the probability of the risk of the earthquake mentioned above. On the ground of the assessment of probabilities, they make their conclusions concerning consequences of their studies that means that they assess the actual risk of the earthquake to certain area. Obviously, if the probability is high, scientists inform the public about the risk of the earthquake increasing the risk perception at the collective level, while people being informed in details about the probability of the earthquake become more aware of the risk at the individual level. At the same time, scientists and local authorities need to develop the disaster management plan, which is the direct consequence of the assessment of the probability of the earthquake. If local authorities are aware of the high risk of the earthquake, they start conducting policies to prevent negative effects of the earthquake, they elaborate the disaster management plan, and start accumulating material and financial resources to help the local community to recover after the earthquake. Scientists assess the probability of the earthquake and forecast possible consequences of the disaster for the community helping the local population to shape their vision of the post-disaster situation. As a result, the risk becomes the result of the probability and consequences because the higher is the probability of the disaster and the most destructive are supposed consequences to be, the higher risk perception individuals living in the community will have.

However, to enhance the risk assessment, specialists (Davies & Hemmeter, 2010) recommend using fault trees and event trees, which help to evaluate the risk of error and occurrence of the earthquake. In such a situation, fault trees focus on the assessment of the errors that could have take place in the course of the analysis of the situation and probabilities of the earthquake in the target area. Fault trees can also affect the risk perception by the public and individuals. For instance, if fault trees reveal the high risk of error in studies conducted by scientists in the area, then people are likely to doubt or reject warnings of scientists concerning the risk of the earthquake. Anyway, the high level of the risk of error puts under a question the reliability of findings of scientists. As a result, the public starts doubting and debating whether the earthquake can occur or not and when it will occur. Event trees will help the public to assess the frequency of earthquakes in the area and the probability of their occurrence in the nearest future.