Elements of behavioral sciences in the understanding (and communication) of civil protection risks

Journal title PRISMA Economia - Società - Lavoro
Author/s Daniela Di Bucci
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2018/3
Language Italian Pages 13 P. 46-58 File size 177 KB
DOI 10.3280/PRI2018-003004
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.

In recent years, behavioral sciences are becoming progressively part of the culture of civil protection. Indeed, in this field, their potential application covers several areas of interest. An overview of experiences is presented here, both already concluded and still ongoing, that have been focused on an in-depth analysis of the contributions provided by this branch of knowledge: (i) to the understanding of civil protection risks, including decision-making on the acceptable level of risk; (ii) to the concrete achievement of outcomes for a more effective risk communication, for instance making more clear the probabilistic nature that characterizes hazard and risk assessment; and (iii) to make communities more resilient to disasters that may happen, paying special attention to the most vulnerable social groups.

Keywords: Scienze comportamentali, rischi, protezione civile, processo decisionale

  1. Berns G.S., Laibson D., Loewenstein G., (2007) “Intertemporal choice – toward an integrative framework”, Trends Cognit Sci, vol. 11 (11), pp. 482-488
  2. Di Bucci D., Savadori L., (2018) “Defining the acceptable level of risk for civil protection purposes: a behavioral perspective on the decision process”, Natural Hazards, vol. 90, pp. 293-324.
  3. Di Bucci D., Dolce M., Savadori L., (2019) “Deciding (or not) on the acceptable level of seismic risk: first behavioral considerations on the L’Aquila trial”, BGTA, An International Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 60 (2), pp. 337-358. DOI 10.4430/bgta0247.
  4. Dolce M., Di Bucci D., (2014) “Risk management: roles and responsibilities in the decision-making process”, in Silvia Peppoloni & Max Wyss (Eds.), Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in Earth Science. Section IV: Communication with the Public, Officials and the Media, Chapter 18, 211-221. Elsevier
  5. Dolce M., Di Bucci D., (2015) “Civil Protection Achievements and Critical Issues in Seismology and Earthquake Engineering Research”, in A. Ansal (Ed.), Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Volume 2. Springer series “Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering”, 39, Chapter 2. 21-58. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16964-4_2
  6. Gigerenzer G., (2006) “Out of the frying pan into the fire: behavioral reactions to terrorist attacks”, Risk Anal, vol. 26, pp. 347-351
  7. Gigerenzer G., Todd P.M., The ABC Research Group, (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  8. Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D., (2002) Heuristics and biases. The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  9. Kahneman D., (2003) “A perspective on judgement and choice”, Am Psychol, vol. 58, pp. 697-720.
  10. Kahneman D., (2011) Thinking, fast and slow, Macmillan, Basingstoke
  11. Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A., (eds) (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York
  12. Kahneman D., Tversky A., (1979) “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”, Econometrica, vol. 47 (2), pp. 263-291
  13. Loewenstein G., Thaler R.H., (1989) “Anomalies: intertemporal choice”, J Econ Perspect, vol. 3 (4), pp. 181-193
  14. Smith A., (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations (known as The Wealth of Nations), Strahan W. & Cadell T., (eds) London
  15. Speranza E., Savadori L., Dolce M., (2019) “A behavioral approach for seismic risk mitigation”, BGTA, An International Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 60, DOI 10.4430/bgta0248
  16. Stanovich K.E., West R.F., (1998) “Individual differences in rational thought”, J Exp Psychol Gen, vol. 127, pp. 161-188
  17. Sunstein C.R., (2014) “The limits of quantification”, Calif Law Rev, vol. 102(6), pp. 1369-1422
  18. Thaler R.H., Sunstein C.R., (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, Yale University Press, New Haven
  19. Tversky A., Kahneman D., (1973) “Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability”, Cognit Psychol, vol. 5, pp. 207-232
  20. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) “Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases”, Sci New Ser, vol. 185 (4157), pp. 1124-1131344
  21. Woo G., (2013) Scienza e coscienza delle catastrofi, Editore Doppiavoce

Daniela Di Bucci, Elementi di scienze comportamentali nella comprensione (e comunicazione) dei rischi di protezione civile in "PRISMA Economia - Società - Lavoro" 3/2018, pp 46-58, DOI: 10.3280/PRI2018-003004