INTERSECTING VULNERABILITIES: BUCHAREST HOUSING  AT THE NEXUS OF SEISMIC EXPOSURE, SOCIAL PRECARITY AND CULTURAL PERCEPTION OF RISK

Daniela GÎLCĂ

doi:10.47743/asas-2025-1-810

Autori

Daniela GÎLCĂ Department of Sociology, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, University of Bucharest,

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47743/asas-2025-1-810

Cuvinte cheie:

vulnerable city, structural vulnerability, seismic risk, social precarity, housing, risk perception, collective memory, community resilience

Rezumat

Când vorbim despre cutremur nu vorbim despre clădiri, vorbim despre oamenii care locuiesc în aceste clădiri. Cutremurul nu ne afectează în mod egal, deși locuim în structuri nesigure la cutremure. În contextul urban actual, riscul seismic nu mai poate fi redus la aspecte tehnice, cum nici vulnerabilitatea nu mai poate fi înțeleasă doar ca expunere la hazarduri naturale. Riscul seismic implică interacțiunea dintre factori structurali, politici, sociali, economici și culturali, iar acest articol analizează cazul Bucureștiului, capitală cu cel mai înalt grad de risc seismic din Europa, marcat de o istorie seismică profundă și de o infrastructură rezidențială fragilă. Pornind de la un demers de cercetare calitativ, ce include interviuri în profunzime cu locatarii clădirilor cu risc seismic, articolul evidențiază atât modul în care vulnerabilitățile structurale și sociale se intersectează și se amplifică reciproc, cât și mecanismele de gestionare a riscului, simbolurile și miturile care sunt ancorate în memoria colectivă a cutremurului. Lucrarea propune o reconceptualizare a locuirii ca spațiu al pericolului internalizat și analizează riscul seismic nu ca element distinct, ci înglobat în simboluri, precaritate, (in)acțiune instituțională și inechitate socială care contribuie la menținerea unui status quo vulnerabil. Concluzia subliniază necesitatea unei cartografieri interdisciplinare a vulnerabilităților și a unor politici urbane centrate pe reziliența comunitară în fața unui hazard, integrând și dimensiunea culturală a percepției riscului de către locuitori.

Biografie autor

Daniela GÎLCĂ, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, University of Bucharest,

PhD Candidate in Sociology and Teaching Assistant, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, University of Bucharest, and the Faculty of Political Science, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration

Referințe

Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006

Armaș, I. (2006). Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1223-1234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00810.x

Armaș, I. (2012). Multi-criteria vulnerability analysis to earthquake hazard of Bucharest, Romania. Natural Hazards, 63(2), 1129–1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0209-2

Armaș, I., Toma-Dănilă, D., & Ionescu, G. A. (2017a). Vulnerability to Earthquake Hazard: Bucharest Case Study, Romania. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 8 (2), 182-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-017-0132-y

Armas, Iuliana & Cretu, Romeo & Ionescu, Radu. (2017b). Self-efficacy, stress, and locus of control: The psychology of earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 22, 71-76. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.018.

Beck, U. (2009). World risk society. Polity Press.

Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. Institute for Environment and Human Security Journal, 5, 7-54.

Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies, 1(9), 3-7.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203714775

Borden, K. A., Schmidtlein, M. C., Emrich, C. T., Piegorsch, W. W., & Cutter, S. L. (2007). Vulnerability of U.S. cities to environmental hazards. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1279

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Burton, I., Kates, R. W., & White, G. F. (1978). The environment as hazard. Guilford Press.

Calotescu, I., Pavel, F., Văcăreanu, R. (2018). Earthquake Risk Awareness in Bucharest, Romania: Public Survey. 10.1007/978-3-319-74724-8_20.

Cannon, T. (1994). Vulnerability analysis and the explanation of “natural” disasters. In A. Varley (Ed.), Disasters, development and environment (pp. 13–30). John Wiley and Sons.

Collier, S. J., & Lakoff, A. (2008). Distributed preparedness: The spatial logic of domestic security in the United States. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(1), 7-28. https://doi.org/10.1068/d446t

Crowley, H., Dabbeek, J., Despotaki, V., Rodrigues, D., Martins, L., Silva, V., Romão, X., Pereira, N., Weatherill, G., & Danciu, L. (2021). European Seismic Risk Model (ESRM20). EFEHR Technical Report 002, V1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.7414/EUC-EFEHR-TR002-ESRM20

Cutter, S. L. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20(4), 529-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259602000407 (Original work published 1996)

Cutter, S. L. (2003). The Vulnerability of Science and the Science of Vulnerability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.93101

Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 242-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002

Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. University of California Press.

Donovan, A. (2016). Geopower: Reflections on the critical geography of disasters. Progress in Human Geography, 41(1), 44-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515627020

Dwyer, A., Zoppou, C., Nielsen, O., Day, S., & Roberts, S. (2004). Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards (Vol. 14). Canberra: Geoscience Australia.

Flanagan, B. E., Gregory, E. W., Hallisey, E. J., Heitgerd, J. L., & Lewis, B. (2011). A social vulnerability index for disaster management. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1792

Gaillard, J. C., & Mercer, J. (2013). From knowledge to action: Bridging gaps in disaster risk reduction. Progress in Human Geography, 37(1), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512446717

Granger, K. (2000). An Information Infrastructure for Disaster Management in Pacific Island Countries. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 15(1), 20-32. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.368242818188972

Jupp, V. (2010). Dicționar al metodelor de cercetare socială (trad. S. Mereu). Polirom.

Moldovan, I. (2018). The country where 96% of homes are privately owned. BBC Worklife. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/gallery/20181119-the-country-where-96-of-citizens-own-homes

Pavel, F., Vacareanu, R., Arion, C., Aldea, A., Scupin, A. (2021). Seismic risk assessment of lifelines in Bucharest. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 66, 102629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102629

Pink, S. (2015). Doing sensory ethnography (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917057

Popescu, R. (2017). ALERT – Analiza de vulnerabilitate: Consideraţii privind situația socio-demografică a Bucureștiului, din perspectiva teritorială, în fața unui cutremur de intensitate ridicată. Proiect ALERT.

Rotariu, T., & Iluț, P. (2006). Ancheta sociologică și sondajul de opinie. Teorie și practică (2nd ed.). Polirom.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507

Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp 117-152). Praege.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The Affect Heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397-420). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098.025

Toma-Danila, Dragos. (2018). A GIS framework for evaluating the implications of urban road network failure due to earthquakes: Bucharest (Romania) case study. Natural Hazards, 93, 97-111. 10.1007/s11069-017-3069-y.

Văcăreanu, R., Pavel, F., Arion, C., & Scupin, A. (2019). Enhancing resilience: Seismic risk in Romania – assessment and premises for reduction. DRMKC 4th Annual Scientific Seminar – Acting Today, Protecting Tomorrow.

Wisner, B. (2004). Assessment of capability and vulnerability. In G. Bankoff, G. Frerks, & D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping vulnerability: Disasters, development and people (pp. 183-193). Earthscan.