Risk perception and coping strategies for risk from Popocatépetl volcano, Mexico

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The goal of this study is to explore risk perception and coping strategies used by adults living near the volcano Popocatépetl in Mexico. Qualitative and semi-quantitative data were collected with a questionnaire from 192 adult respondents. These respondents were divided into four groups (G1-G4) according to the risk zone in which they live (generally the degree of hazard decreases with increasing distances from the volcano). Analyses of the completed questionnaires were made according to sex and age range of the respondents. Not surprisingly volcanic risk was perceived as more worrisome by people living in the zone nearest the volcano's crater (G1). However, when we asked what risks could affect them directly, perceptions changed, and volcanic risk was appraised as the most important risk potentially affecting them and their homes for risk zones G1, G2 and G3. Despite sporadic information given by the Civil Defense authorities, a high percentage of people exposed to volcanic hazards do not feel prepared to face an eruptive event, and people have no strategy to cope with general perceived risks. A high percentage of participants in the four groups stated that they would leave the area if an eruptive event occurred. This statement reflects the serious misinformation, because civil authorities do not require people living in the third and fourth zones to evacuate. The results of study demonstrate the critical need to reinforce public information campaigns regarding volcanic risk in communities vulnerable to direct damage in the event of a stronger eruption of the volcano Popocatépetl.

Translated abstract

El objetivo de este estudio es explorar la percepción de riesgo y las estrategias de afrontamiento utilizadas por personas adultas que viven cerca del volcán Popocatépetl en México. Se recolectaron datos tanto cualitativos como semi-cuantitativos a partir de un cuestionario que se aplicó a las 192 personas participantes. Éstos, fueron divididos en cuatro grupos (G1-G4) conforme a la zona de riesgo en la cual viven (en general el grado de peligro volcánico disminuye con la distancia). Sin sorpresa, observamos que el riesgo volcánico fue percibido como más preocupante por la gente que vive en la zona más cercana al cráter del volcán. Sin embargo, cuando preguntamos sobre los riesgos que los afectan más directamente, estas percepciones cambian, y el riesgo volcánico es evaluado como el riesgo más importante para los grupos G1, G2 y G3. A pesar de la información dada por las autoridades de Protección Civil, un alto porcentaje de personas expuestas a los peligros volcánicos no se sienten preparadas para enfrentar un evento eruptivo y no tienen estrategias para enfrentar los riesgos percibidos. Un alto porcentaje de participantes en los cuatro grupos sostuvieron que ellos dejarían la zona si ocurriera una erupción. Esta afirmación refleja una seria falta de información, puesto que las autoridades civiles no sugieren que la gente que vive en las zonas tres y cuatro evacuen. Se sugiere reforzar las campañas de información pública en las comunidades cercanas al Popocatépetl.

Related collections

Most cited references 53

Record: found
Abstract: found
Book: not found

Stress, Appraisal, and Coping

PhD Richard S. Lazarus, PhD Susan Folkman (1984)

The reissue of a classic work, now with a foreword by Daniel Goleman!Here is a monumental work that continues in the tradition pioneered by co-author Richard Lazarus in his classic book Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. Dr. Lazarus and his collaborator, Dr. Susan Folkman, present here a detailed theory of psychological stress, building on the concepts of cognitive appraisal and coping which have become major themes of theory and investigation. As an integrative theoretical analysis, this volume pulls together two decades of research and thought on issues in behavioral medicine, emotion, stress management, treatment, and life span development. A selective review of the most pertinent literature is included in each chapter. The total reference listing for the book extends to 60 pages. This work is necessarily multidisciplinary, reflecting the many dimensions of stress-related problems and their situation within a complex social context. While the emphasis is on psychological aspects of stress, the book is oriented towards professionals in various disciplines, as well as advanced students and educated laypersons. The intended audience ranges from psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, nurses, and social workers to sociologists, anthropologists, medical researchers, and physiologists.

0 comments Cited 1525 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

Paul Slovic, Melissa L Finucane, Ellen Peters … (2004)

Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.