IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/brc/journl/v56y2022i2p70-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Risk Mapping Using Cluster Analysis Within Pandemic Context: Empirical Evidence From Romania

Author

Listed:
  • Diaconu Mihaela

    (University of Pite?ti)

  • Du?u Amalia Viorica

    (University of Pite?ti)

Abstract

During the last two years the entire world faced the worst crisis in its modern history. During the recent history, different crisis hit different regions and affected different aspects of people life (economic, social, political, terrorist and public health). Moreover, the future comes along with many challenges and different potential crisis (energetic, economic, migration, food etc.). Thus, understanding the crisis dynamic and how risk exposure is connected to human behavioral shift become more and more important for market mood understanding and business strategies adoption. Thus, the present study propose was to display an individual risk perception measurement model, considering risk probability, risk consequences and risk exposure controllability. Also, risk mapping using Cluster analysis was developed using individual risk perception and individual risk aversion using empirical data collected in the first stage of the pandemic.

Suggested Citation

  • Diaconu Mihaela & Du?u Amalia Viorica, 2022. "The Risk Mapping Using Cluster Analysis Within Pandemic Context: Empirical Evidence From Romania," Management Strategies Journal, Constantin Brancoveanu University, vol. 56(2), pages 70-78.
    • Handle: RePEc:brc:journl:v:56:y:2022:i:2:p:70-78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.strategiimanageriale.ro/papers/220224.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yongbao Zhang & Jingqi Gao & Xiaowei Luo & Xiang Wu & Haoqi Bao, 2021. "Dynamic Evolution of Public’s Positive Emotions and Risk Perception for the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of Hubei Province of China," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2021, pages 1-14, March.
    2. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    3. Sven Ove Hansson, 2010. "Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 231-238, March.
    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. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    3. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    4. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    5. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    6. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    7. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.
    8. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    9. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    10. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey B. Henriques, 2009. "The Effect of Graphics on Environmental Health Risk Beliefs, Emotions, Behavioral Intentions, and Recall," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1549-1565, November.
    11. Martijn Adriaan Boermans & Daan Willebrands, 2017. "Entrepreneurship, risk perception and firm performance," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 31(4), pages 557-569.
    12. Christiane Riedinger & Jackie Campbell & William M P Klein & Rebecca A Ferrer & Juliet A Usher-Smith, 2022. "Analysis of the components of cancer risk perception and links with intention and behaviour: A UK-based study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Liana Fraenkel & Marilyn Stolar & Jonathan R. Bates & Richard L. Street Jr & Harjinder Chowdhary & Sarah Swift & Ellen Peters, 2018. "Variability in Affect and Willingness to Take Medication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 34-43, January.
    14. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    15. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    16. Diego Fernandez-Duque & Timothy Wifall, 2007. "Actor/observer asymmetry in risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 1-8, February.
    17. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    18. Zhang, Qiyuan & Wallbridge, Christopher D. & Jones, Dylan M. & Morgan, Phillip L., 2024. "Public perception of autonomous vehicle capability determines judgment of blame and trust in road traffic accidents," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    19. Myeonggil Choi & Changhan Lee, 2015. "Information Security Management as a Bridge in Cloud Systems from Private to Public Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-20, August.
    20. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," 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 1207-1224, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O47 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Empirical Studies of Economic Growth; Aggregate Productivity; Cross-Country Output Convergence
    • M21 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics - - - Business Economics
    • M51 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Firm Employment Decisions; Promotions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:brc:journl:v:56:y:2022:i:2:p:70-78. 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: Dan MICUDA (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.univcb.ro/ .

    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.