No abstract

People tolerate different levels of risk owing to a variety of hazards. Previous research shows that the psychometric properties of hazards predict people's tolerance of them. However, this work has not taken into account events such as earthquakes. The present study tested how earthquakes score vis-à-vis risk properties and risk tolerance as compared to five other familiar hazards. Participants from Wellington, New Zealand (N=139) rated these six hazards using measures of risk characteristics and risk tolerance. Participants demonstrated different levels of risk tolerance for the different hazards and viewed earthquakes as having similar risk features to nuclear power. They also preferred different risk mitigation strategies for earthquakes (more government funding) to the other five hazards (stronger legislation). In addition, earthquake risk tolerance was predicted by different risk characteristics than the other five hazards. These findings will help risk communicators in identifying which risk characteristics to target to influence citizens' risk tolerance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Earthquakes are a major hazard around the world (Bjornerud, 2016). A recent example is New Zealand, where three major earthquake events occurred within a six-year period. The 2010–11 earthquakes in Canterbury, centred close to the city of Christchurch, led to 185 fatalities, mainly due to two collapsed buildings and crumbling facades (Crampton and Meade, 2016). In addition, the rebuild of Christchurch after the earthquakes cost $40 billion (English, 2013), a large sum for a small country. Subsequent large earthquakes occurred in 2013 in Seddon (close to Wellington) and in 2016 in Kaiköura.

<p>People tolerate different levels of risk from different hazards in their day-to-day life. Perceptions of risks and the amount of risk mitigation people desire for different hazards vary. Previous research shows that the psychometric properties of different hazards predict the level of risk people tolerate for various hazards, but not for earthquakes. Risk tolerance is likely to also be affected by factors other than the psychometric properties of hazards. This research tested how earthquakes score on psychometric risk properties compared to five other hazards, and aimed to replicate previous research on the risk factors predicting risk tolerance. Secondly, the research aimed to test if other factors, namely framing effects, risk perception and fatalistic thinking predict risk tolerance for earthquakes. In Study 1, participants from Wellington, New Zealand (N = 139) rated six different hazards (nuclear power, smoking, alcohol, driving, flying and earthquakes) on several risk characteristics and measures of risk tolerance. The results showed that the different hazards were perceived differently in terms of risk tolerance and that participants thought different risk mitigation actions were appropriate for the six hazards. Factor analysis showed that factors derived from risk characteristics did not predict risk tolerance. Study 2 (N = 173) assessed the effects of framing messages, risk perception and fatalism on risk tolerance (judgments about the firmness of the legislation; willingness to pay tax) and judgments about who should pay. The frames had an effect on participants’ concern about the risk, but did not affect the other measures. Generally participants thought that the Government should pay for strengthening buildings, however, those participants who perceived damage as preventable (fatalism measure) thought that private owners should pay for strengthening.</p>

<p>People tolerate different levels of risk from different hazards in their day-to-day life. Perceptions of risks and the amount of risk mitigation people desire for different hazards vary. Previous research shows that the psychometric properties of different hazards predict the level of risk people tolerate for various hazards, but not for earthquakes. Risk tolerance is likely to also be affected by factors other than the psychometric properties of hazards. This research tested how earthquakes score on psychometric risk properties compared to five other hazards, and aimed to replicate previous research on the risk factors predicting risk tolerance. Secondly, the research aimed to test if other factors, namely framing effects, risk perception and fatalistic thinking predict risk tolerance for earthquakes. In Study 1, participants from Wellington, New Zealand (N = 139) rated six different hazards (nuclear power, smoking, alcohol, driving, flying and earthquakes) on several risk characteristics and measures of risk tolerance. The results showed that the different hazards were perceived differently in terms of risk tolerance and that participants thought different risk mitigation actions were appropriate for the six hazards. Factor analysis showed that factors derived from risk characteristics did not predict risk tolerance. Study 2 (N = 173) assessed the effects of framing messages, risk perception and fatalism on risk tolerance (judgments about the firmness of the legislation; willingness to pay tax) and judgments about who should pay. The frames had an effect on participants’ concern about the risk, but did not affect the other measures. Generally participants thought that the Government should pay for strengthening buildings, however, those participants who perceived damage as preventable (fatalism measure) thought that private owners should pay for strengthening.</p>