PSI - Issue 78

Andrea Digrisolo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 78 (2026) 761–768

762

1. Introduction Italy is one of the European countries most exposed to natural hazards, including earthquakes, floods, landslides, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and wildfires, in addition to risks related to human activities (DPC). According to the ISPRA (2021) report, 93.9% of Italian towns are at risk of landslides and in the past century, there were more than 2,600 deaths from floods and about 5,200 deaths from landslides (Salvati et al. 2003). For seismic risk, more than 120 earthquakes with Mw 5.5 or higher have occurred in the past two centuries (Rovida et al. 2020), causing more than 149,000 deaths (Di Ludovico et al. 2017). In the past 50 years, earthquakes caused about 5,000 deaths and economic losses were estimated at around 200 billion euros (Manfredi et al. 2023). The combination of seismicity and Italy’s location in the Mediterranean basin also exposes the country to tsunami risk. It is worth recalling that the disastrous 1908 Messina earthquake caused about 80,000 deaths, approximately 2,000 of which were due to the tsunami impact (Boschi et al. 1995). Italy is also exposed to volcanic risk. Along with Iceland, it has the highest concentration of active volcanoes in Europe and, with more than 3 million people living within 20 km of the eruptive vents of the Campanian volcanoes (Coviello and Somma 2021), it is among the countries with the highest number of people exposed in the world. Other hazards can be added to those ones mentioned above, both natural, such as wildfires or extreme weather events, and anthropogenic, such as major industrial risks (Laurent et al. 2021) which, in many cases, can combine and produce cascading effects (Marzocchi et al. 2012). In addition, non-material damage must also be considered, such as psychological disorders caused by traumatic events. A study of over 100 survivors of the 2016 – 2017 Central Italy earthquake (Massazza et al. 2022) found that nearly 50% of respondents experienced vivid and distressing intrusive memories, associated with high levels of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Regarding prevention, the scientific community has invested heavily in developing technical and knowledge-based tools, while institutions have implemented risk mitigation policies. However, such actions may be insufficient if the fundamental role of individual and collective behavior is overlooked. For citizens to be prepared for an emergency, it is essential that they know the risks and mitigation actions they can implement to limit the impact of future disaster events. In this context, communication plays a crucial role as a strategic process aimed at informing, sensitizing, and empowering people about the risks in the area where they live. The role of risk communication is becoming increasingly central, as internationally recognized through instruments such as the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 – 2015 (UNISDR, 2005) and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030 (UNISDR, 2015), which highlight the potential of risk communication in promoting community engagement. In Italy, with D.Lsg. n.1 of 2018, prevention activities are defined in Article 2 and differentiated into structural and non-structural prevention. As for non-structural prevention, a central role is assigned to communication and public awareness, highlighting the importance of informing and educating citizens to increase risk awareness and promote proactive behaviors. 2. F actors influencing citizens’ risk perception and proactive behavior Italy has frequently been affected by natural disasters, resulting in extensive damage and a very high number of casualties and injuries. This should suggest a strong sensitivity among the population to natural hazards; however, this has not always translated into the adoption of appropriate behaviors. Risk perception is influenced by several factors, including emotional and sociocultural ones, which play a decisive role in determining people's actions (Solberg et al. 2010). Due to the complexity of risk perception, it is very difficult to provide general definitions as well as a unified theory of risk perception (Wachinger and Renn 2010). Social psychologists define risk perception as an experiential attitude that includes the emotions and sensations associated with a specific hazard, with direct personal experiences being a determining factor. However, the literature shows an ambivalent relationship (Brondi et al. 2021). Qureshi et al. (2021) and Gruev-Vintila and Rouquette (2007) argue that past experiences, especially when associated with significant losses, can improve risk perception and encourage the adoption of self-protective measures. Other authors (Solberg et al. 2010; Dhar et al. 2023) suggest that some conditions may be associated with less concern, particularly when the effects were minor, such as in areas far from the epicenter. In these cases, people tend to associate their experience of low impact with the magnitude of the event, thus underestimating the real risks.