IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i24p13003-d698713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020

Author

Listed:
  • Tianlong Yu

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Hao Yang

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Xiaowei Luo

    (Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China)

  • Yifeng Jiang

    (China Electric Power Research Institute, Beijing 100192, China)

  • Xiang Wu

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

  • Jingqi Gao

    (School of Engineering and Technology, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

This paper used 1526 works from the literature on disaster risk perception from 2000 to 2020 in the Web of Science core collection database as the research subject. The CiteSpace knowledge graph analysis tool was used to visual analyze the country, author, institution, discipline distribution, keywords, and keyword clustering mapping. The paper drew the following conclusions. Firstly, disaster risk perception research has experienced three stages of steady development, undulating growth, and rapid growth. Secondly, the field of disaster risk perception was mainly concentrated in the disciplines of engineering, natural science, and management science. Thirdly, meteorological disasters, earthquakes, nuclear radiation, and epidemics were the main disasters in the field of disaster risk perception. Residents and adolescents were the main subjects of research in the field of disaster risk perception. Fourthly, research on human risk behavior and risk psychology and research on disaster risk control and emergency management were two major research hotspots in the field of disaster risk perception. Finally, the research field of disaster risk perception is constantly expanding. There is a trend from theory to application and multi-perspective combination, and future research on disaster risk perception will be presented more systematically. The conclusion can provide a reference for disaster risk perception research, as well as directions for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13003-:d:698713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13003/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13003/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    3. R. Bailón-Moreno & E. Jurado-Alameda & R. Ruiz-Baños & J. P. Courtial, 2005. "Analysis of the field of physical chemistry of surfactants with the Unified Scienctometric Model. Fit of relational and activity indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(2), pages 259-276, April.
    4. Hui Yang & Xuexin Shao & Ming Wu, 2019. "A Review on Ecosystem Health Research: A Visualization Based on CiteSpace," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Rodrigo Marçal Gandia & Fabio Antonialli & Bruna Habib Cavazza & Arthur Miranda Neto & Danilo Alves de Lima & Joel Yutaka Sugano & Isabelle Nicolai & Andre Luiz Zambalde, 2019. "Autonomous vehicles: scientometric and bibliometric review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 9-28, January.
    6. Ming‐Chou Ho & Daigee Shaw & Shuyeu Lin & Yao‐Chu Chiu, 2008. "How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 635-643, June.
    7. Torsten Grothmann & Fritz Reusswig, 2006. "People at Risk of Flooding: Why Some Residents Take Precautionary Action While Others Do Not," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 38(1), pages 101-120, May.
    8. Garfield, Eugene, 2009. "From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 173-179.
    9. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    10. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    11. Kaijing Xue & Shili Guo & Yi Liu & Shaoquan Liu & Dingde Xu, 2021. "Social Networks, Trust, and Disaster-Risk Perceptions of Rural Residents in a Multi-Disaster Environment: Evidence from Sichuan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-25, February.
    12. Yasuto Kunii & Yuriko Suzuki & Tetsuya Shiga & Hirooki Yabe & Seiji Yasumura & Masaharu Maeda & Shin-ichi Niwa & Akira Otsuru & Hirobumi Mashiko & Masafumi Abe & Mental Health Group of the Fukushima H, 2016. "Severe Psychological Distress of Evacuees in Evacuation Zone Caused by the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Neda Nikolić & Una Radovanović Nenadić & Adem Öcal & Eric K. Noji & Miodrag Zečević, 2020. "Preparedness and Preventive Behaviors for a Pandemic Disaster Caused by COVID-19 in Serbia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-23, June.
    14. P. Bubeck & W. J. W. Botzen & J. C. J. H. Aerts, 2012. "A Review of Risk Perceptions and Other Factors that Influence Flood Mitigation Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1481-1495, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    2. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    3. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    4. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    5. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.
    6. Md Omar Faruk & Keshav Lall Maharjan, 2023. "The Determinants of Farmers’ Perceived Flood Risk and Their Flood Adaptation Assessments: A Study in a Char-Land Area of Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    7. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    8. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    9. Michal Titko & Jozef Ristvej & Zenon Zamiar, 2021. "Population Preparedness for Disasters and Extreme Weather Events as a Predictor of Building a Resilient Society: The Slovak Republic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-24, February.
    10. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    11. Pierre Valois & David Bouchard & Denis Talbot & Maxime Caron & Jean-Sébastien Renaud & Pierre Gosselin & Johann Jacob, 2020. "Adoption of flood-related preventive behaviours by people having different risks and histories of flooding," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1155-1173, July.
    12. Shi-yu Hu & Miao Yu & Ting Que & Gang Fan & Hui-ge Xing, 2022. "Individual willingness to prepare for disasters in a geological hazard risk area: an empirical study based on the protection motivation theory," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 110(3), pages 2087-2111, February.
    13. Ming Zhong & Lu Xiao & Qian Zhang & Tao Jiang, 2021. "Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Mitigation Actions of Flash Floods: Results from a Survey in Three Types of Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-23, November.
    14. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Paula B. Repetto & Javiera V. Castañeda & Eliana Guic, 2020. "Understanding the Relationship Between Direct Experience and Risk Perception of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2057-2070, October.
    15. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.
    16. Philip Bubeck & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Jonas Laudan & Jeroen C.J.H. Aerts & Annegret H. Thieken, 2018. "Insights into Flood‐Coping Appraisals of Protection Motivation Theory: Empirical Evidence from Germany and France," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(6), pages 1239-1257, June.
    17. Yi Ge & Guangfei Yang & Xiaotao Wang & Wen Dou & Xueer Lu & Jie Mao, 2021. "Understanding risk perception from floods: a case study from China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(3), pages 3119-3140, February.
    18. Delin Liu & Mengjie Li & Yue Li & Hao Chen, 2022. "Assessment of Public Flood Risk Perception and Influencing Factors: An Example of Jiaozuo City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, August.
    19. Catherine E. Lambert & Jason R. Holley & Katherine A. McComas & Natalie P. Snider & Grace K. Tucker, 2021. "Eroding Land and Erasing Place: A Qualitative Study of Place Attachment, Risk Perception, and Coastal Land Loss in Southern Louisiana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, June.
    20. Ting Que & Yuxin Wu & Shiyu Hu & Jianmin Cai & Nan Jiang & Huige Xing, 2022. "Factors Influencing Public Participation in Community Disaster Mitigation Activities: A Comparison of Model and Nonmodel Disaster Mitigation Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-18, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13003-:d:698713. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.