Objective and perceived risk in seismic vulnerability assessment at urban scale
The assessment of seismic risk in urban areas with high seismicity is certainly one of the most important problems that territorial managers have to face. A reliable evaluation of this risk is the basis for the design of both specific seismic improvement interventions and emergency management plans. Unappropriate seismic risk assessments may provide misleading results and induce bad decisions with relevant economic and social impact. The seismic risk in urban areas is mainly linked to three factors, namely, "hazard", "exposure" and "vulnerability". Hazard measures the potential of an earthquake to produce harm; exposure evaluates the amount of population exposed to harm; vulnerability represents the proneness of considered buildings to suffer damages in case of an earthquake. Estimates of such factors may not always coincide with the perceived risk of the resident population. The propensity to implement structural seismic improvement interventions aimed at reducing the vulnerability of buildings depends significantly on the perceived risk. This paper investigates on the difference between objective and perceived risk and highlights some critical issues. The aim of this study is to calibrate opportune policies, which allow addressing the most appropriate seismic risk mitigation options with reference to current levels of perceived risk. We propose the introduction of a Seismic Policy Prevention index (SPPi). This methodology is applied to a case-study focused on a densely populated district of the city of Catania (Italy).