从风险中学习:拉奎拉和日本的教训/从风险中学习:拉奎拉和日本的教训

IF 0.7 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Isabel Abreu-Santos, L. Vasconcelos, Ivania M. O. Pires
{"title":"从风险中学习:拉奎拉和日本的教训/从风险中学习:拉奎拉和日本的教训","authors":"Isabel Abreu-Santos, L. Vasconcelos, Ivania M. O. Pires","doi":"10.1080/21711976.2016.1267854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Contemporary society faces complex, uncertain and global risks. The extensive scientific literature is not consensual about the concept of risk or the relevance of its perception by the populations, their level of preparedness or the ways they deal with risk and disaster situations. Assuming that better prepared societies face risk situations more efficiently, two case studies were submitted to research and comparison — L’Aquila earthquake and Japan’s triple disaster (earthquake, tsunami and nuclear). Results point to a general inability to manage risk in unforeseen situations. Risk communication has shown to be inadequate, with major flaws, transmitting a false sense of safety. The governance model exposed the failure of the decision structures in dealing with the events, thus contributing to the creation of distrust and insecurity in the communities smitten by calamity. Past experiences have created adequate behaviours in L’Aquila, but gave rise to false assumptions in Japan, jeopardizing human lives. This paper intends to reflect and draw lessons learned in these experiences, which may serve as a baseline and as support for future guidelines.","PeriodicalId":55641,"journal":{"name":"Psyecology-Revista Bilingue de Psicologia Ambiental","volume":"67 1","pages":"107 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning from risk: lessons from L’Aquila and Japan / Aprender del riesgo: lecciones de L’Aquila y Japón\",\"authors\":\"Isabel Abreu-Santos, L. Vasconcelos, Ivania M. O. Pires\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21711976.2016.1267854\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Contemporary society faces complex, uncertain and global risks. The extensive scientific literature is not consensual about the concept of risk or the relevance of its perception by the populations, their level of preparedness or the ways they deal with risk and disaster situations. Assuming that better prepared societies face risk situations more efficiently, two case studies were submitted to research and comparison — L’Aquila earthquake and Japan’s triple disaster (earthquake, tsunami and nuclear). Results point to a general inability to manage risk in unforeseen situations. Risk communication has shown to be inadequate, with major flaws, transmitting a false sense of safety. The governance model exposed the failure of the decision structures in dealing with the events, thus contributing to the creation of distrust and insecurity in the communities smitten by calamity. Past experiences have created adequate behaviours in L’Aquila, but gave rise to false assumptions in Japan, jeopardizing human lives. This paper intends to reflect and draw lessons learned in these experiences, which may serve as a baseline and as support for future guidelines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psyecology-Revista Bilingue de Psicologia Ambiental\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"107 - 147\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psyecology-Revista Bilingue de Psicologia Ambiental\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2016.1267854\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psyecology-Revista Bilingue de Psicologia Ambiental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2016.1267854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

当代社会面临着复杂的、不确定的、全球性的风险。大量的科学文献对风险的概念或人们对风险的认识的相关性、他们的准备水平或他们处理风险和灾害情况的方式没有达成共识。假设准备更充分的社会更有效地面对风险情况,提交了两个案例研究供研究和比较——拉奎拉地震和日本的三重灾难(地震、海啸和核)。结果表明,在不可预见的情况下,管理风险的能力普遍不足。风险沟通已被证明是不充分的,存在重大缺陷,传递了一种虚假的安全感。治理模型暴露了决策结构在处理事件方面的失败,从而在遭受灾难打击的社区中造成不信任和不安全。过去的经验在拉奎拉创造了适当的行为,但在日本却产生了错误的假设,危及人类的生命。本文旨在反映和总结从这些经验中吸取的教训,这些教训可以作为今后指导方针的基础和支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Learning from risk: lessons from L’Aquila and Japan / Aprender del riesgo: lecciones de L’Aquila y Japón
Abstract Contemporary society faces complex, uncertain and global risks. The extensive scientific literature is not consensual about the concept of risk or the relevance of its perception by the populations, their level of preparedness or the ways they deal with risk and disaster situations. Assuming that better prepared societies face risk situations more efficiently, two case studies were submitted to research and comparison — L’Aquila earthquake and Japan’s triple disaster (earthquake, tsunami and nuclear). Results point to a general inability to manage risk in unforeseen situations. Risk communication has shown to be inadequate, with major flaws, transmitting a false sense of safety. The governance model exposed the failure of the decision structures in dealing with the events, thus contributing to the creation of distrust and insecurity in the communities smitten by calamity. Past experiences have created adequate behaviours in L’Aquila, but gave rise to false assumptions in Japan, jeopardizing human lives. This paper intends to reflect and draw lessons learned in these experiences, which may serve as a baseline and as support for future guidelines.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信