All Issue

2026 Vol.22, Issue 1 Preview Page

Original Article

Structural Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception and Policy Importance of Seoul Citizens

서울시민의 재난·사고 위험도 및 정책 중요도 인식 구조 분석

이영석1ㆍ정지애2ㆍ채종길3ㆍ이석민4ㆍ송영갑5*

Youngsuk Lee1, Jiae Jung2, Jong-Gil Chae3, Sukmin Lee4, Youngkarb Song5*

1Researcher, Disaster Management Research Center, The Seoul Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2Researcher, Disaster Management Research Center, The Seoul Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3Research Fellow, Disaster Management Research Center, The Seoul Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
4Senior Research Fellow, Disaster Management Research Center, The Seoul Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
5Research Fellow, Disaster Management Research Center, The Seoul Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea
31 March 2026. pp. 399-413
PDF Citation
Abstract
Purpose: This study examines the structural relationship between risk perception and policy importance across disaster and accident types among Seoul citizens. It aims to identify patterns in public disaster perception based on a dual-dimensional framework. Methods: A survey was conducted with 500 adult residents of Seoul. A total of 57 disaster and accident types were evaluated using five-point Likert scales for both risk perception and policy importance. The analysis employed descriptive statistics, a risk-importance matrix, a gap index (), and K-means cluster analysis. Results: The overall risk perception score was 52.1, slightly above the neutral level, whereas the perceived policy importance of urban safety reached 70.4, indicating a “moderate-risk, high-importance” structure. In 91.2% of the 57 types, policy importance exceeded perceived risk. Urban infrastructure services, including water, energy, telecommunications, and transportation, as well as several natural hazards, showed relatively large discrepancies between perceived risk and policy importance. Cluster analysis further revealed that disaster and accident types were not organized along a simple linear hierarchy of risk intensity, but rather formed four hierarchical groups based on the combined levels of risk perception and policy importance. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that disaster perception among Seoul citizens is structured by the combination of perceived risk and policy importance. This study provides an analytical framework for identifying citizen-based disaster portfolios and implies that disaster management policies should incorporate public perception structures, resilience-oriented planning for urban infrastructure, and differentiated risk communication strategies.
Keywords
Disaster Perception
Risk Perception
Policy Importance
Risk-importance Gap
Quadrant Matrix
Cluster Analysis
Seoul
연구목적: 본 연구는 서울시민을 대상으로 재난·사고 유형에 대한 위험도(Risk Perception)와 중요도(Policy Importance)를 측정하고, 두 차원의 구조적 관계와 유형별 인식 패턴을 분석하였다. 연구방법: 서울시 거주 성인 500명을 대상으로 설문조사를 실시하였다. 57개 재난·사고 유형(자연재난 12, 사회재난 28, 안전사고 17)에 대해 위험도와 중요도를 각각 5점 리커트 척도로 측정한 후 100점으로 환산하였다. 분석은 기술통계, 위험도-중요도 매트릭스, 격차지수(), K-means 군집분석을 통해 단계적으로 수행하였다. 연구결과: 전반적 위험도(52.1점)는 보통 수준을 소폭 상회한 반면, 도시안전 중요도(70.4점)는 이를 크게 상회하여 ‘중위험-고중요’ 구조가 확인되었다. 전체 유형 중 91.2%에서 중요도가 위험도를 초과하였으며, 도시기반서비스(물·에너지·통신·교통)와 일부 자연재난에서 위험도-중요도 간 격차가 크게 나타났다. 군집분석 결과, 재난 유형은 위험도 단일 기준에 따른 서열 구조가 아니라 위험 체감과 중요성 판단의 결합 수준에 따라 네 개의 계층적 집단으로 구분되었다. 연구결론: 서울시민의 재난 인식은 단일 위험도 지표만으로 설명하기 어려운 이중 차원 구조를 보였다. 따라서 향후 재난관리 정책은 객관적 위험평가와 더불어 시민의 정책 중요도 판단, 위험도-중요도 간 격차, 군집별 특성을 함께 반영하는 방향으로 설계될 필요가 있다.
키워드
재난 인식
위험도
정책 중요도
격차지수
매트릭스
군집분석
서울시
References
  1. Byun, S.-S., Cho, T.-H., Bae, M.-G. (2023). “A study on the factors affecting satisfaction with disaster management policies of local governments: Focusing on the field of regional safety index.” Crisisonomy, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 15-26. 10.14251/crisisonomy.2023.19.2.15
  2. Cho, T.-H., Byun, S.-S., Bae, M.-G. (2020). “A study on the difference in disaster safety perception between residents and public officials according to the policy implementation structure: Focusing on Chungcheongbuk-do.” Journal of Convergence for Information Technology, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 217-237. 10.24826/KSCS.9.4.14
  3. Choi, M.-Y., Lee, H.-J. (2023). “A study on the perception of disaster safety by the general public.” Journal of the Korea Society of Next Generation Convergence Technology, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 1004-1011.
  4. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K. (1994). “Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks.” Risk Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 1101-1108. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x
  5. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X., Ratick, S. (1988). “The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework.” Risk Analysis, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 177-187. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
  6. Kim, J.-E., Kim, K.-H., Cho, T.-H. (2019). “Exploration of disaster safety perception levels and influencing factors of people with disabilities.” Humanities and Social Sciences 21, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 1727-1740. 10.22143/HSS21.10.5.123
  7. Kim, J.-W., Kim, S.-W. (2023a). “A study on the difference in perception of disaster and safety management between men and women in Seoul.” Culture and Convergence, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 105-115.
  8. Kim, J.-W., Kim, S.-W. (2023b). “A study on disaster safety perception of Seoul citizens.” Culture and Convergence, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 317-327.
  9. Kim, S.-D., An, S. (2025). “A study on trust in government and disaster safety awareness: The mediating effect of disaster fear and the moderated mediation effect of disaster knowledge.” Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 121-153. 10.23036/kapae.2025.35.1.5
  10. Kim, Y., Jeong, S. (2024). “Social perception of disaster safety education for migrant youth based on big data.” Journal of Korea Disaster Information Society, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 462-469.
  11. Lee, J.-H., Kim, M.-R., Ko, J.-C. (2021). “A study on the development plan for promotion of advanced disaster-safety awareness.” Journal of Korea Disaster Information Society, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 415-426.
  12. Lee, M.-J., Chung, G.-H. (2020). “Analysis of gender differences in perception of disaster and safety management.” Journal of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 329-337. 10.9798/KOSHAM.2020.20.5.329
  13. Lee, Y., Yoo, J., Won, J., Song, Y. (2024). “Development and Application of a regional urban risk assessment model.” Journal of the Korean Geo-Environmental Society, Vol. 25, No. 12, pp. 37-45. 10.14481/JKGES.2024.25.12.37
  14. Martilla, J.A., James, J.C. (1977). “Importance-performance analysis.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 77-79. 10.1177/002224297704100112
  15. Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) (2020). The 4th National Basic Plan for Safety Management. Seoul, Korea.
  16. Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS) (2024). Results of the National Safety Awareness Survey for the Second Half of 2023. Sejong, Korea.
  17. National Disaster Management Research Institute (NDMI) (2023). Future risk register report 2023. Ulsan, Korea.
  18. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. (1985). “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 41-50. 10.1177/002224298504900403
  19. Shin, J.-D., Yoon, K.-H., Choi, D.-S., Kim, H.-J. (2014). “Analysis of disaster impact on wide-area power outage considering interdependency matrix and disaster prevention capability of national infrastructure.” Journal of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 93-100. 10.9798/KOSHAM.2014.14.4.93
  20. Slovic, P. (1987). “Perception of risk.” Science, Vol. 236, No. 4799, pp. 280-285. 10.1126/science.3563507
  21. Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) (2023a). 2023 Seoul Metropolitan Government Safety Management Plan. Seoul, Korea.
  22. Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) (2023b). The 3rd Seoul Metropolitan Government Basic Plan for Urban Safety (2023-2027). Seoul, Korea.
  23. Song, H.-R., Kim, W.-J. (2013). “Effects of risk characteristic and risk perception on risk severity of natural disaster.” Journal of the Korea Contents Association, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 198-207. 10.5392/JKCA.2013.13.04.198
  24. The Seoul Institute (2021). Characteristics of Seoul Citizens' Disaster and Accident Risk Perception and Implications for a Safe City. Seoul, Korea.
  25. The Seoul Institute (2024). A Plan to Transition to a Constant Risk Management System Based on Urban Risk Assessment. Seoul, Korea.
  26. Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., Kuhlicke, C. (2013). “The risk perception paradox—implications for governance and communication of natural hazards.” Risk Analysis, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 1049-1065. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x
  27. Yoon, S.-H., Shin, J.-D., Pak, S.-Y., Won, J.-Y., Im, D.-H. (2016). “A study for improvement direction and reality of disaster management system in Korea - A review focused on basic safety management plan.” Crisisonomy, Vol. 12, No. 9, pp. 97-106. 10.14251/crisisonomy.2016.12.9.97
  28. Yoon, S.-H., Yoon, H.-W. (2024). “Comparative analysis of urban safety risk factors affecting social safety perception: Focused on the 2021 Incheon Metropolitan social survey data.” Urban Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 155-182.
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Society of Disaster Information
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국재난정보학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of the Society of Disaster Information
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국재난정보학회논문집
  • Volume : 22
  • No :1
  • Pages :399-413
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.15683/kosdi.2026.3.31.399
Journal Informaiton Journal of the Society of Disaster Information Journal of the Society of Disaster Information
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close