TXT-tool 4.052-1.1: Landslide Risk Perception

  • Irasema Alcántara-Ayala


Derived from the establishment of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015–2030, the need and desire to prevent disasters, at global, regional, national and sub-national scales is focused on initiatives directed towards Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Risk Management (DRM). There is a wide consensus on the necessity of involving community participation to achieve both DRR and DRM. To build adequate strategies for DRR, risk perception analysis are a requirement for integrated disaster risk assessments, the latter being the first step of DRM. Risk perceptions consist of the explanations people build and shape to try to understand the dynamics of the complex interactions that give rise to the humanised landscape according to experiences, beliefs, social and cultural frameworks, feelings and needs. In this paper, a general panorama of some of the aspects concerning the notions of risk and risk perception is presented, to later on deepen into the broad configuration of landslide risk perception analysis.


Risk perception Landslides Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction Disaster risk management 



Special thanks are due to CONACyT for the financial support kindly provided through the research project 156242.


  1. Abelson RP (1979) Differences between belief and knowledge systems. Cogn Sci 3:355–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams J (1995) Risk. UCL Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmad JH, Lateh HH (2011) Awareness on landslide issues in Malaysia: a review in Paya Terubong, Penang. Asian J Environ Disaster Manag 3(3):275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alcántara-Ayala I (2016) On the multi-dimensions of integrated research on landslide disaster risk. In: Aversa S, Cascini L, Picarelli L, Scavia C (eds) Landslides and engineered slopes. Experience, theory and practice. CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  5. Alcántara-Ayala I, Altan O, Baker D, Briceño S, Cutter S, Gupta H, Holloway A, Ismail-Zadeh A, Jiménez-Díaz V, Johnston D, McBean G, Ogawa Y, Paton D, Porio E, Silbereisen R, Takeuchi K, Valsecchi G, Vogel C, Wu G, Zhai P (2015) Disaster risks research and assessment to promote risk reduction and management. In: Ismail-Zadeh A, Cutter S (eds) ICSU-ISSC ad hoc group on disaster risk assessment, Paris.
  6. Aucote HM, Miner A, Dahlhaus P (2010) Rockfalls: predicting high-risk behaviours from beliefs. Disaster Prev Manag 19:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett J, Breakwell GM (2001) Risk perception and experience: hazard personality profiles and individual differences. Risk Anal 21:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennis W, Katsikopoulos K, Goldstein D, Dieckmann A, Berg N (2012) Designed to fit minds: institutions and ecological rationality. In: Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (eds) Ecological rationality: intelligence in the world. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 409–427Google Scholar
  9. Bird DK, Gísladóttir G (2012) Residents’ attitudes and behaviour before and after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruptions—a case study from southern Iceland. Bull Volcanol 74(6):1263–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjønness IM (1986) Mountain hazard perception and risk-avoiding strategies among the Sherpas of Khumbu Himal, Nepal. Mt Res Dev 6(4):277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Boulding K (1969) National images and international systems. In: Rosenau JN (ed) International politics and foreign policy: a reading in research and theory. Free Press, New York, pp 422–431Google Scholar
  13. Breakwell GM (2014) The psychology of risk. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Bubeck P, Botzen WJW, Aerts JCJH (2012) A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Anal 32:1481–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cascini L (2004) The flowslides of May 1998 in the Campania region, Italy: the scientific emergency management. Riv Ital Geotec 2:11–44Google Scholar
  16. Calvello M, Nicolina-Papa M, Pratschke J, Nacchia-Crescenzo M (2015) Landslide risk perception: a case study in Southern Italy. Landslides 13(2):349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cheyo DR (1999) Geohazards around the Michesi and Zomba areas. In: Proceedings of the symposium on natural geological hazards in Southern Malawi, Zomba, pp 30–42Google Scholar
  18. Chikusa CM (1985) The phenomenon of “Napolo” in Zomba with reference to the 1985 Ntonya–Ulumba Events, Zomba. Geological Survey Department, ZombaGoogle Scholar
  19. Damm A, Eberhard K, Sendzimir J, Patt A (2013) Perception of landslides risk and responsibility: a case study in eastern Styria, Austria. Nat Hazards 69:165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dilley M, Chen RS, Deichmann W, Lerner-Lam AL, Arnold M (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Eiser JR, Donovan A, Sparks SJ (2015) Risk perceptions and trust following the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic volcanic ash crises. Risk Anal 35:332–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Etkin D (2016) Disaster Theory: An interdisciplinary approach to concepts and causes. Butterworth-Heinemann, pp 386Google Scholar
  23. Finlay PJ, Fell R (1997) Landslides: risk perception and acceptance. Can Geotech J 34:169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA (2000) Gender, race, perceived risk: the ‘white male’ effect. Health Risk Soc 2:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe: a psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (1994) Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gigerenzer G (2014) Risk savvy: how to make good decisions. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Green JE (1992) Landslide awareness in Cincinnati, Ohio. East Lakes Geogr 27:30–37Google Scholar
  29. Gurung SM (1989) Human perception of mountain hazards in the Kakani-Kathmandu area: experiences from the middle mountains of Nepal. Mt Res Dev 9(4):353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haimes Y (2004) Risk modeling, assessment, and management, 2nd revised edn. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Heine SJ, Lehman DR (1995) Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: does the west feel more invulnerable than the east? J Pers Soc Psychol 68:595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Helweg-Larsen M (1999) (The lack of) optimistic biases in response on the Northridge earthquake: the role of personal experience. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 21:19–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hernández-Moreno G, Alcántara-Ayala I (2016) Landslide risk perception in Mexico: a research gate into public awareness and knowledge. Landslides. doi: 10.1007/s10346-016-0683-9Google Scholar
  34. Hillson D (2004) Effective opportunity management for projects: exploiting positive risk. Marcel Dekker, New York, p 316Google Scholar
  35. Holsti O (1962) The belief system and national images: a case study. J Confl Resolut 6(3):244–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ICSU (2008) A science plan for integrated research on disaster risk: addressing the challenge of natural and human-induced environmental hazards. ICSU, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Jasanoff S (1998) The political science of risk perception. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 59(1):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jervis R (1976) Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  39. Jervis R (2006) Understanding beliefs. Polit Psychol 27(5):641–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnston DM, Bebbington M, Lai CD, Houghton BF, Paton D (1999) Volcanic hazard perceptions: comparative shifts in knowledge and risk. Disaster Prev Manag 8:118–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kitutu MG, Muwanga A, Poesen J, Deckers AJ (2011) Farmers’ perception on landslide occurrences in Bududa District, Eastern Uganda. Afr J Agric Res 6(1):7–18Google Scholar
  42. Kurita T, Arakida M, Colombage SRN (2007) Regional characteristics of tsunami risk perception among the tsunami affected countries in the Indian Ocean. J Nat Disaster Sci 29(1):29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Landeros-Mugica K, Urbina-Soria J, Alcántara-Ayala I (2016) The good, the bad and the ugly: on the interactions among experience, exposure and commitment with reference to landslide risk perception in México. Nat Hazards 80:1515–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McClure J, Johnston D, Henrich L, Milfont T, Tarciano L, Becker J (2015) When a hazard occurs where it is not expected: risk judgments about different regions after the Christchurch earthquakes. Nat Hazards 75:635–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McKenna FP (1993) It won’t happen to me: unrealistic optimism or illusion of control? Br J Psychol 84:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Misanya D, Øyhus AO (2014) How communities’ perceptions of disasters influence disaster response: managing landslides on Mount Elgon, Uganda. Disasters 39:389–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Msilimba GG (2002) Landslides geohazard assessment of the Vunguvung/Banga Catchment Area in Rumphi District. Unpublished M.Sc. dissertation, University of Malawi, ZombaGoogle Scholar
  48. Msilimba GG, Holmes PJ (2009) Landslides in northern and central Malawi; awareness, perceptions and coping strategies. S Afr Geogr J 91:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oliver-Smith A, Alcántara-Ayala I, Burton I, Lavell A (2016) Forensic investigations of disasters (FORIN): a conceptual framework and guide to research (IRDR FORIN publication no. 2). Integrated research on disaster risk. ICSU, Beijing, p 56Google Scholar
  50. Palmer C, Carlstrom LK, Woodward JA (2001) Risk perception and ethnicity. Risk Decis Policy 6(3):187–206Google Scholar
  51. Pidgeon N, Hood C, Jones D, Turner B, Gibson R (1992) Risk perception. In: G. Royal Society Study (ed) Risk: Analysis, Perception, and Management. London, pp 89–134Google Scholar
  52. Renn O, Rohrmann B (2000) Cross-cultural risk perception research: state and challenges. In: Renn O, Rohrmann B (eds) Cross-cultural risk perception. A survey of empirical studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Renshon J (2008) Stability and change in belief systems: the operational code of George W. Bush. J Confl Resolut 52:820–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roder G, Ruljigaljig T, Lin CW, Tarolli P (2016) Natural hazards knowledge and risk perception of Wujie indigenous community in Taiwan. Nat Hazards 81(1):641–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rohrmann B (2003) Perception of risk—research overview. In: Gough J (ed) Sharing the future—risk communication in practice. CAE, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  56. Rohrmann B (2008) Risk perception, risk attitude, risk communication, risk management: a conceptual appraisal (Keynote). In: The International Emergency Management Society (ed) Global co-operation in emergency and disaster management - 15th TIEMS Conference bookletGoogle Scholar
  57. Ropeik D (2002) Understanding factors of risk perception. Nieman reports. Winter 56(4):52.
  58. Rosa EA (1998) Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. J Risk Res 1(1):15–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosa EA (2008) White, black, and gray: critical dialogue with the international risk governance council’s framework for risk governance. Glob Risk Gov. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Salvati P, Bianchi C, Fiorucci F, Giostrella P, Marchesini I, Guzzetti F (2014) Perception of flood and landslide risk in Italy: a preliminary analysis. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14:2589–2603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shreve C, Fordham M, Anson S, Watson H, Hagen K, Wadhwa K, Begg C, Müller A, Kuhlicke C, Karanci N (2014) Report on risk perception and preparedness. The TACTIC project.
  62. Silmak MW, Dietz T (2006) Personal values, beliefs and ecological risk perception. Risk Anal 26(6):1689–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sjöberg L (1996) A discussion of the limitations of the psychometric and cultural theory approaches to risk perception. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 68:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sjöberg L (2000) Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Slovic P, Flynn JH, Lyman M (1991) Perceived risk, trust and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254(5038):1603–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Slovic P (1992) Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In: Golding D, Krimsky S (eds) Theories of risk. Praeger, London, pp 117–152Google Scholar
  67. Solana MC, Kilburn CRJ (2003) Public awareness of landslide hazards: the Barranco de Tirajana, Gran Canaria, Spain. Geomorphology 54:39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Terpstra T, Gutteling JM (2008) Households’ perceived responsibilities in flood risk management in the Netherlands. Int J Water Resour Dev 24(4):555–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. UNISDR (2016) Working text on terminology. The second session of the open-ended inter-governmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction, Geneva, 10–11 Feb 2016Google Scholar
  70. Wachinger G, Renn OWG (2010) Risk perception and natural hazards. CapHaz-Net WP3 report, Stuttgart.
  71. Wagner K (2007) Mental models of flash floods and landslides. Risk Anal 27:671–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wildavsky A, Douglas M (1993) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of GeographyNational Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)CoyoacánMexico
  2. 2.Circuito ExteriorCiudad UniversitariaCoyoacánMexico

Personalised recommendations