Recent years the Netherlands have been shocked by a series of earthquakes. Normally an earthquake would be considered as a natural hazard, however extracting gas induces these earthquakes. Whenever a hazard is induced, it is perceived as man-made and therefore controllable. This leads to differences in risk acceptance in relation to natural hazards. When ambiguity about risks exists, a participatory strategy should be used with involvement of the local community. In cases of induced hazards, low trust between local communities and authorities exists, leading to ineffective risk mitigation. The first step of improving mitigation measures is finding out whether differences in risk acceptance lead to differences in mitigation measure preferences. In this paper this research objective is carried out by gathering data in the earthquake area in Groningen with the Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE) method. Next the data is analysed using factor analysis and logistic regression. Based on the results is concluded that citizens with lower trust in authorities prefer measures that directly target the consequences of the induced hazard. While citizens with more trust in authorities and more belief in the benefits of the activity causing the hazard are more open for measures that target the indirect consequences of the hazard. During this research, assumptions were made to construct the context of the PVE method. To improve the validity of this research it is suggested to repeat the research with different variables.