PSI - Issue 78

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

763

An important factor influencing natural disaster management, from prevention to response and recovery, is a sense of trust at both the community and institutional levels. Trust in authorities and in the information they provide is essential for promoting proactive behaviors, such as adopting self-protective measures and responding to warning alerts (Choi and Wehde 2020; Okunola 2024). Communities with high levels of trust are more likely to effectively cooperate and follow institutional guidance (Bonfanti et al. 2024). Conversely, institutions perceived as lacking transparency or competence tend to inspire less trust, compromising their ability to effectively mobilize communities in emergency situations. An online survey (Russo 2025) confirms this, showing a strong positive correlation between the level of trust in institutions and the citizens ’ involvement in disaster prevention and preparedness activities. Also trust in science is crucial. Unfortunately, this appears to be eroded in recent years, partly due to the Covid-19 pandemic (NORC, 2023), although trust in the scientific community is still ahead of other sectors (e.g., press, education). The propensity to adopt preventive measures against natural risks is often hindered by deep-rooted cultural tendencies. In many contexts, natural disasters are perceived as inevitable, attributed to uncontrollable forces or divine will (Joffe and O’Connor 2013). This fatalistic perspective fosters a sense of powerlessness, thereby reducing the motivation to implement concrete risk mitigation actions. What has been said so far refers to psychosocial aspects; however, it is also important to consider other factors, such as the economic ones. For example, people with low incomes (Qureshi et al. 2021) feel less prepared for disasters such as earthquakes, as they face difficulties improving their homes. Therefore, homeowners tend to view structural interventions as a valuable investment for both safety and property value ( Joffe and O’Connor 2013), while tenants are less interested due to limited resources and a lower level of engagement with properties they do not own. To sum up, risk perception and the adoption of proactive behaviors by citizens result from a complex interplay of emotional, sociocultural, educational, and economic factors. Therefore, fostering proactive citizen behavior requires the promotion of integrated strategies that combine education, awareness-raising and financial support. 3. Risk communication In recent years, the topic of risk communication has gained increasing attention in the scientific literature. The exponential increase in the number of publications since 2000 (Musacchio et al. 2023) shows a strong interest from the scientific community in the culture of prevention and knowledge dissemination. In addition, communication has increasingly focused on non-expert audiences in response to the growing demand from the general public for information about scientific issues. Making science accessible to non-experts is essential, as better-informed citizens can play an active role in risk reduction activities, both through self-protection actions and by promoting policy choices that incorporate disaster mitigation strategies. Some studies have shown that communication is most effective when conceived as a two-way process (Musacchio et al. 2023). For this reason, communication has evolved significantly in recent years, moving from a primarily “unidirectional” top -down approach to innovative models that place people, their needs, and their active participation at the center stage (Cazabat 2024; Das et al. 2024). When designing risk communication campaigns, it is crucial to define “when” to communicate. For example, communicating during or immediately after significant natural events that have not directly impacted the affected communities, or following minor phenomena, can enhance memory retention (Massa and Comunello 2024). However, it is also important to define "what" and "how" to communicate. News disseminated through television, newspapers, social media, etc., tends to focus attention mainly on the most devastated areas, emphasizing the immediate response. This approach can foster a sense of powerlessness among the public, shifting attention away from the importance of risk mitigation measures (McClure et al. 2007). This type of communication (Das et al. 2024) can be ineffective in promoting civic participation and collective action. Instead, when news is disseminated by authoritative sources such as government agencies and research institutions (e.g., in Italy DPC, INGV, ReLUIS), the information is supplemented with additional details that explain, among others, the relationship between intensity values and related impact in different areas, thus emphasizing the importance of preventive actions in reducing the damage suffered. 3.1. Communication methods