Capacity Building in Serbia for Disaster and Climate Risk Education

Prof. Dr. Vladimir M. Cvetković – Disaster Risk Management

Cvetković, V. & Šišović, V. (2024). Capacity building in Serbia for disaster and climate risk education. Disaster and Climate Risk Education Insights from Knowledge to Action, edited by: Ayse Yildiz and Rajib Shaw, book series Disaster Risk Reduction, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd., 152 Beach Road.

Capacity Building in Serbia for Disaster and Climate Risk Education

 Vladimir M. Cvetković123, Vanja Šišović2

1   Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, Gospodara Vučića 50, 11040 Belgrade, Serbia

2   Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11040 Belgrade, Serbia

3   International Institute for Disaster Research, Dmitrija Tucovića 121, 11040 Belgrade, Serbia

 

Corespondence: vmc@fb.bg.ac.rs; vladimirkpa@gmail.com

 

Abstract: The territory of the Republic of Serbia is exposed to various natural and technical-technological hazards that increasingly endanger people and their material goods. An integrated disaster risk management system (preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery) has not yet taken root in Serbia to a sufficient extent, although there are certain institutional and legal prerequisites for its smooth functioning. Abandoning the reactive way of preparing for disasters and increasingly implementing proactive measures, societies are desperately trying to improve their resilience in resource-scarce situations and mitigate future consequences of disasters. In Serbia, there is insufficient resistance to disasters, reflected in the insufficiently improved ability of Serbian society exposed to dangers to respond to them and recover from the consequences of disasters promptly and efficiently. Despite this, many efforts are in vain considering that the population’s awareness of various aspects of disaster management remains very low. The aim of this chapter refers to the comprehensive analysis and description of capacity building in Serbia for Disaster and Climate Risk Education. The undoubted importance of education in the field of disasters, which is increasingly receiving priority positions on various agendas around the world, emphasizes the necessity of continuous research on the perspectives of formal and informal education on disasters. One of the most effective tools used in all areas of integrated disaster risk management is education. Admittedly, it should be borne in mind that education is a complex and interactive psychological process in which the transfer of knowledge from different fields is carried out in a planned and clearly grounded manner in the form of a kind of transfer.

 

Keywords: disasters, climate risk, capacity building,  education, Serbia.

 

  1. Introduction

 

In today’s period, more than ever before, developed and underdeveloped countries face the consequences of various natural and technical-technological disasters (Cvetković, Romanić, & Beriša, 2023; El-Mougher, Abu Sharekh, Abu Ali, & Zuhud, 2023; Iftikhar & Iqbal, 2023; Rajani, Tuhin, & Rina, 2023; Sergey & Gennadiy, 2022; Shibru, Operea, Omondi, & Gichaba, 2022). Abandoning the reactive way of preparing for disasters and increasingly implementing proactive measures, societies are desperately trying to find ways to improve their level of resilience in resource-scarce situations and mitigate future consequences of disasters (Aktar et al., 2021; Cruz & Ormilla, 2022; Dukiya & Banji Adeleye, 2022; El-Mougher, 2022; Jaiye & Benjamine, 2021; Janković, 2021; Kabir et al., 2022; Mohammed & Maysaa, 2022; Öcal, 2021; Odero & Mahiri, 2022).

Despite this, many efforts are in vain considering that the population’s awareness of various aspects of disaster management remains at a very low level (Cvetković, Adem, & Ivanov, 2019; Cvetković & Dragićevic, 2014; Cvetković et al., 2019b; Cvetković et al., 2020; Cvetković & Stanišić, 2015; Ocal et al., 2020). The implications of neglecting to find innovations in the field of education and training of the population leave behind tragic and very expensive consequences (Carla S, 2019; Cvetković, 2019; Goyal, 2019; Kumiko & Shaw, 2019; Mano & Rapaport, 2019; Öcal, 2019). In one of the studies, several types of deficiencies were identified that currently hinder the promotion of a culture of preparedness in the face of a particular disaster. These are 1) decision-making skills, 2) teamwork skills, 3) understanding of regulations, 4) compliance with regulations, and 5) radiation anxiety (Salleh & Yusof, 2013). Consequently, it can be said that these factors represent a small part of the core competencies (knowledge, skills and attitude) in building a culture of preparedness (Cvetković et al., 2022; Cvetković & Martinović, 2021; Cvetković & Nikolić, 2021; Cvetković et al., 2022; Cvetković et al., 2021; Cvetković, Pavlović, & Janković, 2021; Cvetković & Filipović, 2020; Cvetković & Martinović, 2020; Cvetković, Radovanović, & Milašinović, 2021; VCvetković et al., 2021; Cvetković & Todorović, 2020; Cvetković & Janković, 2021; Janković & Cvetković, 2020; Krnjić & Cvetković, 2021).

Man has always found ways to protect himself and his neighbours from destructive phenomena that came from nature and his built environment (Cvetković & Janković, 2020; Cvetković & Jovanović, 2020; Cvetković et al., 2020; Cvetković, Roder, Tarolli, & Dragićević, 2018; Cvetković & Bošković, 2021; Cvetković & M. Filipović, 2018; Cvetković, Jakovljević, Gačić, & Filipović, 2017). Of course, it is difficult to say what in that evolutionary sense was destructive to man and his existence. Were these phenomena from nature that surprised him and very often subdued him, or did everything take on a different dimension when accelerated industrialization occurred. Not so rarely, do people notice that we have become a society of risk, that absolute security has become such a hard-to-achieve phenomenon and that serious efforts are needed to adequately and timely prevent, and in the worst case, mitigate the risks of disasters. Elaborations of the concept of disaster risk reduction have indeed reached enormous proportions and serious discussions are taking place in different scientific disciplines, geographies and dialects (Kulatunga, 2010).

A disaster is an event in a certain time and space, in which society or one part of society suffers damage and social disruption so that all or some basic social values are violated. Such consequences arise because the event exceeds the usual protection measures. The concentration of disasters in a certain area defines a series of geographical areas that are identified as a series of concentric zones that show the impact and response to disasters. In practice, this zone of influence is more difficult to determine than it seems. For example. earthquake damage can cause power loss in areas where there is no physical damage. Therefore, defining the boundaries of the impact zone is a significant problem for disaster response researchers, as well as a problem for those trying to estimate where the effects of an earthquake actually occurred, let alone those trying to predict where an earthquake will actually occur (Lindell, 2013).

The gravitating and generally accepted views of experts on the one hand and the non-expert political elite on the other hand about the importance or unnecessary training and education of the population increasingly occupy the main places on the scientific and professional stage of confrontation of opinions. More and more voices are being heard calling for the community focus to on designing and implement non-structural measures aimed at improving citizens’ behavior and response to disasters. States can invest huge financial resources in various structural measures to mitigate certain aspects of disasters, but all this is in vain if, on the contrary, there are no trained individuals who will know how to protect themselves and their loved ones in the right way and promptly. Precisely for this reason, it can be said that the secret of effective disaster risk management lies in the fact of comprehensive proactive action on people by improving their mental predispositions for proper disaster response.

The undoubted importance of education in the field of disasters, which is increasingly receiving priority positions on various agendas around the world, emphasizes the necessity of continuous research on the perspectives of formal and informal education on disasters (Cvetković et al., 2020; Cvetković & Filipović, 2020; Cvetkovic & Martinović, 2020; Cvetković & Svrdlin, 2020). The subject of the thesis is a theoretical analysis of the role of schools in reducing the risk of disasters, which aims to indicate the current situation, challenges and chances for further development in the future with the help of a scientific description. However, the subject of the thesis extends to other aspects within which different approaches to education in the field of disaster studies in countries around the world are elaborated.

The scientific goal of the theoretical work is reflected in the attempt at theoretical systematization and further clarification of the importance of disaster education, with a special focus on schools as representatives of formal educational institutions. Of course, without neglecting the importance of non-formal education as well, there will be some reviews of the impact on disaster risk reduction in this way.

  1. Disaster risk reduction through formal and informal education

 

In modern societies, the functioning of social units has become unthinkable without the implementation of appropriate structural and non-structural disaster risk reduction measures (Cvetković & Filipović, 2017; Cvetković, Filipović, Popović, & Ostojić, 2017). Certainly, one of the most important measures of non-structural risk reduction from increasingly serious and frequent consequences of disasters is education. Education has become one of the most powerful weapons applied in all spheres of integrated disaster risk management. Admittedly, it should be borne in mind that education is a complex and interactive psychological process in which the transfer of knowledge from different fields is carried out in a planned and clearly grounded manner in the form of a kind of transfer.

Starting from different forms of education, such as formal, non-formal and informal education, each of these types of education has its clear advantages and disadvantages that should be taken into account when creating educational programs. A great deal of academic thinking is directed towards finding a genuine connection between the success and quality of education in the field of disaster studies and integrated disaster risk reduction. In all these studies, the general conclusion is that disaster education is one of the basic prerequisites for improving the resilience of society at all levels. However, the importance of education should not be taken literally without including other important elements in the disaster risk reduction process. Namely, all structural measures to reduce the risk of disasters can be implemented, and if citizens are not sufficiently trained to use such measures, there may be inconsistencies in the functioning of the protection systems provided for in this way.

There is a growing awareness of the impact of disasters on society. The establishment of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction “Enabling all societies to be resilient to the effects of natural hazards and related technological and environmental disasters, to reduce human, economic and social losses” has proven to be an effective platform for worldwide discussion. The publication Living with Risk (ISDR, 2002) was a turning point. Otherworld organizations have already published a huge amount of reports and publications on disaster management.

The response during a disaster can be broken down into an alarm phase, and also into a recovery or reconstruction phase. In the alarm phase, the competent authorities have to make a series of decisions, receive various forms of information and then have to decide whether the information is reliable or not and whether the advice given is relevant to them. Research has repeatedly shown that the starting point for thinking about a response lies in the moment when the threat is perceived as real. The citizen assesses the reliability of authorities or others issuing warnings. The availability of disaster information is of great importance. There are three well-known myths about citizen response that continue to be presented as the basis for government disaster preparedness. The first myth tells about the panic of citizens in disasters. In fact, what is realistic is that the initial fear that strikes citizens in emergencies quickly stops because they start looking for ways to ensure their own and others’ safety. Another myth speaks of citizens being helpless and dependent on others. This research says otherwise. Citizens are not powerless at all. What’s more, they are the first to start search and rescue activities. The third myth is very significant, it represents the robberies that happen during and after the disaster, although the governments of almost all countries are working on laws that would benefit honest citizens (Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004).

 

  • The importance of educational policies for disaster risk reduction

 

Policies serve all spheres of social existence to systematically guide people’s activities to achieve some projected goals. Viewed from that perspective, disaster risk reduction education policies occupy a special place in non-structural disaster risk reduction measures. Unfortunately, there is no educational policy in Serbia that would comprehensively and systematically design and implement certain measures aimed at reducing the risk of disasters.

The International Institute for Educational Planning at UNESKO has developed a guide for designing disaster education, which contains five framework chapters (Gwee, Shaw, & Takeuchi, 2011): the first chapter provides a general overview (introduction, prevention and preparation for disasters, challenges in disasters and reconstructions, capacity building, disaster education for all); the second chapter refers to the supplement and content (rural population, gender, ethnicity/religion/children with developmental disabilities, facilities, open and distance learning, non-formal education); the third chapter concerns teachers and students (identification, selection, educational workers, teaching and learning methods, social support for learning); the fourth refers to curriculum and learning (curriculum, health and hygiene education) and the fifth chapter refers to capacity management (assessment of needs and resources, planning process, project management, legal work frameworks, budget and financial management).

Educational policies should include teaching plans and programs, ways or modalities of performing theoretical and practical exercises, as well as proposals for workshops depending on the age of the students. One step further, it is necessary to indicate in them the thematic units that should be based on all the identified hazards that were recognized in the National Disaster Risk Assessment in the Republic of Serbia. In addition, it is important to point out that the educational policy should include ways of support from the competent state authorities in terms of financing and sustainable development of this type of education.

Starting from local specificities and regionalization of the risks themselves, educational policies should also be harmonized with the concrete risks of the given area. This actually means that it is unnecessary to burden the students of a certain area with the characteristics of dangers that are not recognized at the national or regional-local level. To develop educational policies, it is first necessary to carry out an analysis of the existing situation in terms: of a) potential dangers characteristic of the given area; b) existing educational plans and programs; c) potential modalities of student education in the field of emergencies; d) available resources for financing such a system.

In the second step, it is necessary to carry out the analysis, selection and prioritization of the thematic units, and then of the specific teaching units, with the experts of the appropriate profiles. In doing so, it is necessary to take into account the content of the teaching unit itself, which should include more social than natural aspects of protection from such events. More concretely, students should not be burdened with content from the etiology of various natural and technical-technological hazards, but should immediately focus on the genesis of the manifestation of harmful effects and ways of protection against them. About the spatial dimension, educational policies to reduce the risk of disasters could be adopted at the national, regional or local level. Certainly, it is recommended that educational policies be coordinated with each other along horizontal and vertical lines.

 

  • Strategic aspects of the importance of disaster education

 

The general impression and view are that disasters, extraordinary events and all hazards that affect all parts of the world and all peoples do not know borders, in terms of religion, nation, or culture.. The existence and respect of universal measures and mechanisms for joint action to combat and prevent the occurrence of disaster risks is necessary. It is crucial to harmonize policies at the national level when it comes to disasters. Investing in sustainable development is no less important and important and this applies not only to environmental management but also to political and economic management, from the family to the international level (Trim, 2004).

Also of primary importance is the cooperation of competent institutions at the state level, it is also necessary to eradicate corruption at all levels to prevent risks. Also, people who deal with disasters should also focus on the media, the power of the media and its abuse can cause many difficulties, such as spreading panic, discrediting those who give correct recommendations and introducing necessary measures in emergencies. If individuals do not have a developed understanding of the requirements for adopting preventive measures, infrastructure costs in all sectors of human existence may not be adequate. Even if the building has state-of-the-art fire protection equipment, poorly informed and informed people will not be able to use it in an emergency. It is necessary to nurture community knowledge in addition to individual awareness of dangers and ways to mitigate them, starting with the understanding that local self-government plays an irreplaceable role in this. Citizens must draw attention to the following issues: a) the nature and characteristics of various natural and technological dangers that are present around them; b) the importance of taking actions to prepare and mitigate the effects of disasters; c) protective measures implemented before, during and after disasters; and g) potential for risk mitigation using various risk transfer mechanisms (insurance). Public education, group seminars and training sessions, as well as the creation and execution of numerous campaigns, can help increase awareness (Cvetković, 2020).

The goals of training for appropriate and correct response to disasters can be multiple (Alexander, 2002, p. 2): a) testing and evaluation of the allocation and coordination of local and regional resources; b) demonstration of the possibility of alerting the public in certain periods; v) testing alternative communication systems to be activated and functional within 90 minutes from the occurrence of the disaster; g) demonstration of the ability of the personnel in the headquarters to function at the operational level and make valid decisions; d) testing the possibility of enabling the initial assessment of disasters within four hours; đ) demonstrating the ability to provide food, communications and administrative, logistical support to the headquarters staff; e) demonstrating the ability to verify the existence of certain events or dangers and h) assessing the possibility of the participation of various intervention and rescue services (Alexander, 2002).

 

 

 

  1. Schools and disaster risk reduction

 

    3.1. The role of primary schools in disaster risk reduction

 

Elementary schools represent a kind of pillar of education in every country (Suarmika, Arnyana, Suastra, & Margunayasa, 2022). The basic characteristic of primary education is reflected in the continuous transfer of knowledge from different subjects, that is, scientifically based disciplines, in terms of their awareness of certain thematic entities. Students of a certain age attend classes in them, and all teaching content is adapted to their age level, that is, appropriate didactic and methodical methods are applied. Leaving aside the basic teaching content, unfortunately, in Serbia, there is no subject within which students in primary schools would be comprehensively educated on the issues of etiology of endangerment and protection of people in emergencies (Cvetković, Milašinović, & Gostimirović, 2016; Cvetković, 2016a, 2016b). Nevertheless, based on the all-purpose support of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RS, and the Department for Emergency Situations, certain lectures are organized on various topics such as floods, fires, landslides, earthquakes, etc.

Judging by the insufficiently systematized education of students in the field of emergencies in the RS, one can point out the insufficient responsibility of society to protect the most vulnerable categories, such as children up to the age of 14 and young people up to the age of 18. In developed countries, such as Germany and Japan, there are special plans and programs following which the education of students of that age is carried out and the education methods themselves are very original and include various demonstration exercises such as demonstrations of how to extinguish fires, reacting in earthquake situations etc.

 

    3.2. The role of secondary and higher schools in disaster risk reduction

 

Unlike primary education, in secondary and higher education, in the processes of raising awareness and knowledge in the field of emergencies, more diverse methods and educational materials can be used. Starting from the very characteristics of students to whom knowledge is transferred, it is possible to use more available terminology, which, unlike students in the primary school system, is simply impossible to use due to their understanding. Of course, the modalities of education in the field of disasters can differ according to the types of secondary schools, i.e. whether they are vocational or general education schools (Cvetković, Kevin, et al., 2019a; Cvetković, Milašinović, & Lazić, 2018; Cvetković, Noji, et al., 2018).

Consequently, in secondary technical schools, students will receive certain prior knowledge in the field of technical-technological hazards, while in secondary schools of the general education system, it will be much more difficult (Cvetković & Filipović, 2020; Cvetkovic & Martinović, 2020; Cvetković & Svrdlin, 2020). Despite organized attempts by academic organizations to introduce a subject that could be called “Safety culture”, one gets the impression that society is still not sufficiently interested in this type of education. The justification for such bad decisions is based on the argument that such teaching content can be implemented within the framework of other subjects, and indirectly one gets the impression that the decision-makers themselves are not aware of the importance of such a subject (Cvetković et al., 2020; Cvetković, Ristanović, & Gačić, 2018; Cvetković, 2017; Cvetković, 2019).

Leaving aside the numerous imperfections of the functioning of society in Serbia, the question arises as to how all this is reflected in the level of the society’s resilience to disasters. Practice shows that by far the largest number of people were saved in the first few hours after the manifestation of the disaster, by neighbors or other people who happened to be nearby. Therefore, the members of the intervention and rescue services will not be able to provide help to all endangered people in a short period and therefore it is necessary to make people active participants in the protection and rescue system and not passive victims who will wait for help from the competent intervention and rescue services. To achieve this, it is necessary that there are organized attempts by society to raise awareness and knowledge to a higher level and that the necessary strategic orientations be carried out. On the contrary, societies that are more developed and in which knowledge has taken an appropriate position better recognize the relevance of such activities, while on the other hand, everything in Serbia is exposed to devaluation and undermining of society’s resilience.

In 2007, an international conference on school safety was held, which recognized the importance of ensuring the education of every child, as well as living in a safe environment to achieve zero per cent mortality of children in schools due to natural disasters. For these reasons, the following priorities are foreseen: disaster education will be implemented in schools; school facilities and other infrastructure must be disaster-resistant; strengthen the education of local community members to make them more resilient to disasters; make schools safer (Chhokar, 2010; Cvetković and Filipović, 2018).

 

    3.3. Disaster risk reduction education programs

 

In the literature, it is often pointed out that the role of schools in preparing children to deal with disasters is very important, given a certain number of specifics (Suarmika et al., 2022; Yusuf, Yunus, Maimun, & Fajri, 2022). In general, youth vulnerability is reduced when they are provided with information and resources, encouraged to participate in disaster preparedness and response activities, and can access personal and community support. Namely, the active involvement of young people in disaster risk reduction processes not only builds their resilience to disasters but can also provide certain benefits at the national and local levels.

For example, in southern Thailand, during the disaster caused by the tsunami in 2004, young people who actively participated in the management processes during the mentioned event had a significant role and comprehensive support in the processes of direct or indirect assistance to their own and other people’s families, as well as to local communities. By transferring knowledge and experience among young people, it is possible to reduce the risk of disasters through processes of mutual support and guidance. In a research conducted in Serbia (Krnjić & Cvetković, 2021), it was determined that the majority of respondents stated that they get information about disasters by searching for data on the Internet, which is believed by almost half of respondents 185 (49.2%). Then, 105 (27.9%) of the respondents came to know about the information through the means of public information, while 40 (11.2%) of them stated that it was through conversations with family members. Only 28 (7.4%) students stated that they learned about disasters through studying at school, while the smallest number of them declared that it was through social and video games, i.e. 16 of them (4.3%).

 

    3.4. Comparative practice of school education in the field of disaster risk reduction

 

According to research, children can learn how to take disaster precautions and the best place for them to learn these skills is at school (Coates, 2021; Johnson, Ronan, Johnston, & Peace, 2014; Luna, 2012; Nakano, Suwa, Gautam, & Yamori, 2020). In 2004, the English Government sent to all households a corresponding brochure with advice on how to react in disaster conditions, as well as advice on how to turn off gas, electricity, etc. Therefore, in that brochure, citizens are advised on how to best protect themselves and help others. However, in the period after that and everything that followed, it can be said that there was no significant effect (Page, Rubin, Amlôt, Simpson, & Wessely, 2008). Namely, after one year, on July 7, 2005, a bomb attack took place in London and on that occasion, 52 passengers were killed, and many people were directly or indirectly affected by this event. In the survey after the mentioned event, respondents were asked whether they had read the brochure. However, slightly more than half of the respondents refused to receive the brochure, even though the government sent a copy to every household. Only 300 people (52.3%) confirmed receiving the brochure, while 239 (41.6%) people said they had read the same brochure. It can be said that the receipt of the brochure influenced the collection of supplies, but not the development of plans for adequate disaster response (Page et al., 2008).

The literature has recommended certain components that are necessary for the development of disaster education programs including 1) adopting a disaster management perspective that supports teaching protective behaviours before and during disasters, 2) using a gradual sequence of learning activities throughout the school years, and 3) incorporating activities that facilitate interaction between children and parents (Ronan & Johnston, 2001)

In Germany, there are two master’s degree programs directly related to emergency and disaster management, which are implemented within the framework of two schools and several universities. Namely, continuing education in the field of disaster prevention and disaster management is offered by the University of Bonn in cooperation with the Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Relief (BBK). It is interdisciplinary and teaches actions and key competencies that are useful and necessary for sustainable disaster risk reduction and therefore sustainable disaster management. The course is intended for university graduates who have at least three years of relevant professional experience and wish to obtain further academic qualifications (https://www.uni-bonn.de/).

In the Czech Republic, some of the problems of disaster reduction are addressed within the subjects of physics, and chemistry from primary to secondary school for ages 10-15. Schools (secondary) include some aspects of disaster prevention in their programs. It is more difficult to educate adults. The mass media is involved, but not in a systematic way. Their interest in disaster risk reduction increases during disasters (Education, 2007).

When it comes to China, it should be emphasized that Article 30 of the “Law on Emergency Response of the People’s Republic of China” stipulates that schools of all levels and types incorporate education about emergencies into their curriculum, educate students about disaster knowledge and foster students’ awareness of safety and self-rescue and the ability to rescue each other. To improve safety awareness and the ability to respond to disasters in the whole society, it is emphasized that it is necessary to educate students about knowledge about disasters in the stage of school education. Colleges and universities should educate students on disaster prevention and emergency rescue knowledge according to the characteristics of disciplines and majors (http://www.jyb.cn/rmtzcg). In China, May 12 is designated as the National “Disaster Prevention and Reduction Day”, to conduct disaster prevention education for the general public and students and promote disaster prevention awareness, disaster prevention knowledge and disaster prevention skills. Education on disaster prevention in schools only started with the adoption of the five-year plan for comprehensive national prevention and disaster risk reduction. Education on disaster prevention is incorporated into the national education system and education on disaster prevention and knowledge on disaster mitigation. On the other hand, compared to elementary and middle schools and kindergartens, colleges and universities are relatively slow in disaster prevention education. In the implementation of disaster prevention education, there is a common phenomenon of emphasizing theory over practice and emphasizing form over real effect, the construction of a curriculum system for disaster education is lacking (http://www.jyb.cn).

In France, a seven-hour program was designed for students in secondary, primary and preschool education. In secondary education, each school is assigned a “correspondent” for the program, who can be a teacher or parent; the role of the assistants is to assist the teacher in case of problems and increase the awareness of the principles of the Prevention-First Gestures program among fellow students. Assistants must also organize an exhibition about local risks. In elementary school, the judge teacher trains students on how to react and behave in an emergency. In preschool, the correspondent instructs students to watch adults and practice “first gestures.” Between 1996 and December 2002, more than 6,200 people in the Grasse area participated in various training programs. Since 1999, over 3,300 students have been involved in the program, including 663 prevention assistants, 153 referee teachers and 166 school teachers. More than 5,000 students and 300 adults participated in training programs (Education, 2007).

 

  1. Curricula and programs in the field of disaster risk reduction

 

    4.1. Basic characteristics of educational programs in the field of disasters

 

There are various educational programs in the field of disaster studies in the world (Boon & Pagliano, 2014; Faupel, Kelley, & Petee, 1992; Johnson, Ronan, Johnston, & Peace, 2016). One of the studies (Johnson et al., 2014) from the top of the methodological literature review was to explore how scholars and practitioners currently measure and evaluate the effectiveness of disaster education programs for children through evaluation. From a systematic search of published and grey literature, 35 studies were identified and analyzed to develop a categorization of operational components of the existing body of research, including types and sources of evaluations, research methods and designs, research participants, outcome indicators, analysis approaches, and research limitations.

According to the authors (Johnson et al., 2014), a significant conclusion is that most of what is known about the effectiveness of disaster education programs for children is based on the results of quantitative studies with children that mainly focused on measuring children’s knowledge of disaster risks and protective actions and children’s reports on preparedness actions. Most descriptive and quasi-experimental studies concluded that programs were effective based on the proportion or positive change in children’s correct responses to surveys, and most correlational studies concluded that positive outcomes, such as household preparedness, were associated with children’s disaster participation. educational programs. However, many studies had significant methodological limitations. In particular, the authors point out that while there is evidence of valuable knowledge changes, there is still very limited empirical evidence on how disaster education programs facilitate children’s role in household preparedness, their self-protection capacities, or their likelihood to prepare for disasters as adults. In addition to the need to identify and refine program theory and meaningful outcome indicators, the authors suggest several other avenues for future research (Johnson et al., 2014).

The multidimensionality of resilience (Cvetković, Bošković, & Ocal, 2021; Cvetković & Filipović, 2018; Cvetković, Rikanović, & Knežević; Cvetković & Filipović, 2017), which is based on the national, local and individual level, is primarily based on having an appropriate level of knowledge and awareness in the field of disasters, which indicates the necessity of having developed and high-quality educational programs in the field of disaster studies. However, a review of evaluations of disaster education programs for children identified large gaps in the evidence base for the effectiveness of these programs (Back, Cameron, & Tanner, 2009). The US Federal Emergency Management Agency and UNICEF have documented a wide range of educational programs for children in disasters around the world, including formal and informal programs in the community, schools, and extracurricular programs supported by the government or the private sector (FEMA, 2010). The increasing development and investment in disaster education programs for children reflects the international consensus that these educational initiatives have some benefit in individual and community disaster resilience. However, several authors conclude that there is very little formal evaluation of these programs and their effectiveness in achieving desired learning and behavioural outcomes (Ronan & Towers, 2014).

According to Johnson (Johnson et al., 2014), to meet the aspirational goals of changing the culture of safety and resilience, children’s disaster education programs must be both effective and scalable. Most of the studies measured the results of ad hoc disaster education programs that were implemented for a very small number of children. Considering the priority goal of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 to integrate disaster education into school curricula, the international community would benefit from research into national curriculum integration processes to help identify large-scale models that can be replicated, particularly those that facilitate children’s understanding of science, geography, social studies and other academic elements (Johnson et al., 2014).

According to Cvetković (2020), one of the more significant characteristics of the curricula refers to raising the level of citizens’ awareness regarding the following: a) the nature and characteristics of various natural and technical-technological hazards that surround them; b) the importance of taking measures to mitigate and prepare for disasters; c) protection measures undertaken in different phases before, during and after disasters; g) the possibilities of mitigating risk using different mechanisms for risk transfer (insurance). Raising the level of awareness can be achieved through means of public information, by organizing collective trainings and workshops, and by designing and implementing various campaigns aimed at raising the level of awareness of citizens and society (Cvetković, 2020).

 

   4.2. Representation and diversity of disaster topics in curricula

 

The importance of disaster risk reduction education has been emphasized on several international agendas, frameworks, conferences, United Nations programs, etc. From the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, to the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, it is widely recognized that education plays a key role in disaster risk reduction. There are two separate approaches to dealing with natural disasters in formal education in Japan. The first is learning within certain subject areas, especially the social sciences and the science that deals with the formation of the natural landscape, the causes of natural disasters, and the effects of natural disasters on people. Others are educational activities that take place outside of the subject’s teaching hours, such as disaster drills and the development of disaster prevention manuals. Regarding the previous approach, despite the need for an interdisciplinary approach, the topic of natural disasters is still dealt with within individual subject areas.

Natural and social environments are covered separately in natural education and social studies. Due to the different goals and characteristics of these two subject areas, natural disasters have not been comprehensively addressed. On the other hand, activities outside of formal teaching emphasise practical activities more than scientific understanding of the causes of natural disasters. For example, there has been a tendency to concentrate more on what needs to be done during and after a natural disaster through, for example, life-saving techniques and evacuation training (Fujioka, 2016).

In one of the technical instructions, the process of curriculum development for disaster risk reduction is divided into four stages. This makes it possible a clear description of the process in an easy-to-follow format that can be adapted into a checklist for various actors involved (Unicef, 2014):

 

  1. Initial planning and preparation of the terrain: determining the need for curriculum development and building a broad-based consensus around the need; uniting interested parties around a common need; conducting “state-of-the-art” research into the existing curriculum, its functioning and implementation through a review of the curriculum, a basic study or a needs assessment; consensus building around specific needs revealed through “state-of-the-art” research; determining the focus (curriculum and class location) for curriculum development; establishing a schedule, with milestones and deadlines, for the curriculum development process; forming a team for curriculum development, determining the roles and responsibilities of the team members and establishing a modus operandi for cooperation, teamwork and meetings.
  2. Preparation of the curriculum includes: determining learning outcomes (knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours) to be achieved through the new curriculum; selection and sequence of the content of the curriculum that will help in the realization of the determined outcomes; translating selected content into age-appropriate learning material; developing learning activities with supporting stimulating materials designed to realize decisive outcomes; reviewing and analyzing existing teaching materials and activities and evaluating them for possible inclusion in the curriculum (ie to avoid “reinventing the wheel”); seeking feedback from stakeholders, including panels of experienced teachers on curriculum materials, and revising where necessary
  3. Implementation of the curriculum: identifying schools and teachers for pilot implementation of the new curriculum; training pilot teachers to teach according to the new curriculum; undertaking, monitoring and evaluating of pilot implementation; revising teaching materials and training activities and programs in the light of the pilot project evaluation; undertaking further rounds of teacher training and pilot testing (with an ever-increasing population of le and teachers); implementation of extensive training of teachers (after they participate in the ‘training of trainers events); inclusion of new materials and activities in pre-service teacher training; ensuring formal acceptance of the curriculum by national, regional or local jurisdictions;
  4. Monitoring, evaluation and updating of the curriculum: developing data collection strategies for periodic evaluation of the impact and quality of the new curriculum, its effectiveness in achieving expected learning outcomes and identifying any unforeseen effects and impacts (positive or negative); writing reports on monitoring and evaluation; establishing mechanisms for periodic revision of the curriculum based on evaluation.

 

 

 

    4.3. Education of teaching staff for the needs of education in the field of disasters

 

To realize education in the field of disasters, it is necessary for educational strategies to foresee the ways of teaching and the educational profile of the lecturers themselves. In this sense, the most discussion is about whether such teaching can be carried out by teachers who teach certain existing subjects such as geography, chemistry, etc. or it needs to be someone who graduated from the university in the field of security. Certainly, the advantages and disadvantages of all the proposed options could be summarized in the following.

Teachers who are already teaching within the framework of the existing curricula could, within their thematic units, implement teaching in the field of emergencies as well. In addition, resources would be saved because there would be no need for additional employment. On the other hand, if teachers were hired for these needs who would be specialized in this type of teaching in the mentioned field, additional perfection would be achieved in terms of the teaching units themselves. It would be recommended that they be graduated students of the Faculty of Security who have completed the study program of management in emergencies and environmental security. In this sense, it is necessary to define an educational policy as soon as possible, within which the prerequisites that should be met by teachers who would perform such classes would be defined in advance. In other developed countries, different practices are applied according to which there are different modalities mentioned above. Certainly, it is recommended to carry out all necessary additional analyses within certain project activities and to determine all advantages and disadvantages.

  1. Conclusion

 

The role of schools in reducing the risk of disasters is an unavoidable topic in all world agendas where innovative solutions for mitigating the consequences of disasters are discussed. Today, it has become unthinkable to discuss structural disaster risk reduction measures without referring to the importance of education in that process. Unfortunately, in Serbia, little attention is paid to educating citizens about disaster risk reduction, which could be the result of mistaken beliefs that it is one of the marginal topics in the disaster risk management process itself. Although calls for the introduction of the subject safety culture in schools could be heard in several places, the decision-makers explicitly refuse to include such a subject in primary and secondary schools in Serbia. The reasons for such decisions can be found in insufficient knowledge of the area of risk reduction and not giving adequate importance to such non-structural measures of risk reduction. Unfortunately, there is still no sufficient consensus in Serbia regarding the necessity and importance of introducing the subject of security culture. One gets the impression that all other content is prioritized more than security content.

The reason for such a situation can also be found in the fact that there is still a socialist view of security, according to which citizens should not take measures, but the competent state authorities, such as the police, fire-rescue units, emergency medical services, etc. However, practice shows that the largest number of people were saved by neighbours or other friends who happened to be nearby at the time when the harmful effects of disasters such as shock and heat waves, radioactive radiation, biological contamination, etc., were manifested. Also, one of the famous examples of the power of knowledge in the field of disaster studies is the girl Tilly Smith, who saved her peers on the shores of the Indian Ocean when she warned them that the retreat of water towards the centre of the ocean meant that a tsunami would occur. She then warned the teacher who started the evacuation of the children who survived thanks to that. Regardless of all that, it is necessary to continue improving theoretical knowledge and implementing practical training in Serbia. Certainly, in future planning documents, it is very important to highlight the importance of education in the field of disaster studies and to further develop all possible ways of its realization. In addition, it is important to improve curricula and programs in the field of emergencies. To achieve this, it is recommended to introduce the subject safety culture in primary and secondary schools.

 

Acknowledgements

 

The authors express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their comments, and to the Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management (http://upravljanje-rizicima.com/) and the International Institute for Disaster Research in Belgrade, Serbia for their scientific support.

 

Funding: This research was funded by the Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management (Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, Belgrade, Serbia (http://upravljanje-rizicima.com/).

 

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

 

 

References

 

 

Aktar, M. A., Shohani, K., Hasan, M. N., & Hasan, M. K. (2021). Flood Vulnerability Assessment by Flood Vulnerability Index (FVI) Method: A Study on Sirajganj Sadar Upazila. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 3(1), 1-14.

Alexander, D. E. (2002). Principles of emergency planning and management: Oxford University Press on Demand.

Back, E., Cameron, C., & Tanner, T. (2009). Children and Disaster Risk Reduction: Taking stock and moving forward.

Boon, H. J., & Pagliano, P. J. (2014). Disaster education in Australian schools. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 30(2), 187-197.

Bharosa, N., Appelman, J., & de Bruin, P. (2007). Integrating technology in crisis response using an information manager: first lessons learned from field exercises in the Port of Rotterdam. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management ISCRAM2007, Delft.

Bird, D., Ling, M., & Haynes, K. (2012). Flooding Facebook-the use of social media during the Queensland and Victorian floods. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The27(1), 27.

Carla S, R. G. (2019). School-community collaboration: disaster preparedness towards building resilient communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 45-59.

Coates, R. (2021). Educational hazards? The politics of disaster risk education in Rio de Janeiro. Disasters, 45(1), 86-106.

Cruz, R. D. D., & Ormilla, R. C. G. (2022). Disaster Risk Reduction Management Implementation in the Public Elementary Schools of the Department of Education, Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(2), 1-15.

Cvetković, V. (2019). Risk Perception of Building Fires in Belgrade. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), 81-91.

Cvetković, V. (2020). Upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama. Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.

Cvetković, V. M. (2016a). Fear and floods in Serbia: Citizens preparedness for responding to natural disaster. Zbornik Matice srpske za drustvene nauke(155-156), 303-324.

Cvetković, V. M. (2016b). The impact of the level of motivation on the preparedness of citizens of the Republic of Serbia to respond to natural disaster caused by flood. Vojno delo, 68(3), 141-171.

Cvetković, V. M. (2017). Crises: Readiness of state, local community and citizens. Vojno delo, 69(7), 122-136.

Cvetković, V. M. (2019). First aid disaster kit for a family: A case study of Serbia. Archibald Reiss Days, 9(1).

Cvetković, V. M., & Bošković, N. (2021). Conceptual bases and dimensions of resilience to disasters. Zbornik radova Naučno-stručnog društva za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama i Međunarodnog instituta za istraživanje katastrofa, 175-191.

Cvetković, V. M., & Filipović, B. (2020). The survey of citizen attitudes toward preparedness for disasters caused by wildfires: Case study: Prijepolje. Žurnal za bezbjednost i kriminalistiku, 2(2), 11-24.

Cvetković, V. M., & Filipović, M. (2018). The role of the family in reducing risks of natural disasters. Nauka, bezbednost, policija (NBP), 23(1), 71-85.

Cvetkovic, V. M., & Martinović, J. (2020). Innovative solutions for flood risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 71-100.

Cvetković, V. M., & Svrdlin, M. (2020). The vulnerability of women from the consequences of a natural disaster: A case study of Svilajnac. Bezbednost, Beograd, 62(3), 43-61.

Cvetković, V. M., & Todorović, S. (2020). Comparative Analysis of Disaster Risk Management Policies in the Region of South-East Europe, in press.

Cvetković, V. M., Jakovljević, V., Gačić, J., & Filipović, M. (2017). Cvetković, V., Jakovljević, V., Gačić, J., & Filipović, M. (2017). Obuka građana za reagovanje u vanrednim situacijama. Ecologica, 24(88), 856-882.

Cvetković, V. M., Radovanović, M. P., & Milašinović, S. M. (2021). Disaster risk communication: Attitudes of Serbian citizens. Sociološki pregled, 55(4), 1610-1647.

Cvetković, V. M., Romanić, S., & Beriša, H. (2023). Religion Influence on Disaster Risk Reduction: A case study of Serbia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 5(1), 66-81.

Cvetković, V. M., Tanasić, J., Ocal, A., Kešetović, Ž., Nikolić, N., & Dragašević, A. (2021). Capacity Development of Local Self-Governments for Disaster Risk Management. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(19), 10406.

Cvetković, V. P. S., & Janković, B. (2021). Private security preparedness for disasters caused by fires. Journal of Criminalistic and Law, NBP, 26(1).

Cvetković, V., & Dragićevic, S. (2014). Spatial and temporal distribution of natural disasters. Journal of the Geographical Institute/ Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić”, 64(3), 293-309.

Cvetković, V., & Filipović, M. (2017). Research into students’ knowledge of the proper way of acting during natural disasters. Bezbjednost, policija i građani, 13(2), 105-121.

Cvetković, V., & Filipović, M. (2018). Koncept otpornosti na katastrofe. Ecologica, 25(89).

Cvetković, V., & Janković, B. (2020). Private security preparedness for disasters caused by natural and anthropogenic hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(1).

Cvetković, V., & Jovanović, M. (2020). Examination of the factors that influence public perception of mythically-based human behavior in disaster conditions. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog drustva, 100(2), 161-179.

Cvetković, V., & Martinović, J. (2021). Upravljanje u nuklearnim katastrofama (Nuclear Disaster Management). Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, Beograd.

Cvetković, V., & Nikolić, M. (2021). The role of social networks in disaster risk reduction: a case study Belgrade. Bezbednost, 61(3), 25-42.

Cvetković, V., & Stanišić, J. (2015). Relationship between demographic and environmental factors with knowledge of secondary school students on natural disasters., SASA. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, 65(3), 323-340.

Cvetković, V., Öcal, A., & Ivanov, A. (2019). Young adults’ fear of disasters: A case study of residents from Turkey, Serbia and Macedonia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 35, 101095.

Cvetković, V., Bošković, N., & Ocal, A. (2021). Individual citizens’ resilience to disasters caused by floods: a case study of Belgrade. PREPRINT (Version 2) available at Research Square [https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-923368/v2].

Cvetković, V., Dragašević, A., Protić, D., Janković, B., Nikolić, N., & Milošević, P. (2022). Fire Safety Behavior Model for Residential Buildings: Implications for Disaster Risk Reduction. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 75, 102981.

Cvetković, V., Filipović, M., Popović, D., & Ostojić, G. (2017). Činioci uticaja na znanje o prirodnim katastrofama. Ecologica, 24(85), 121-126.

Cvetković, V., Kevin, R., Shaw, R., Filipović, M., Mano, R., Gačić, J., & Jakovljević, V. (2019a). Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia – a study from selected municipalities. Acta Geographica, 59(2), 27-43.

Cvetković, V., Milašinović, S., & Gostimirović, L. (2016). The impact of age on flood preparedness in Serbia. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(10).

Cvetković, V., Milašinović, S., & Lazić, Ž. (2018). Examination of citizens’ attitudes towards providign support to vulnerable people and voluntereeing during disasters. Journal for social sciences, TEME, 42(1), 35-56.

Cvetković, V., Nikolić, N., Nenadić, R. U., Ocal, A., & Zečević, M. (2020). Preparedness and Preventive Behaviors for a Pandemic Disaster Caused by COVID-19 in Serbia. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(11), 4124.

Cvetković, V., Nikolić, N., Ocal, A., Martinović, J., & Dragašević, A. (2022). A Predictive Model of Pandemic Disaster Fear Caused by Coronavirus (COVID-19): Implications for Decision-Makers. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19, 652.

Cvetković, V., Noji, E., Filipović, M., Marija, M. P., Želimir, K., & Nenad, R. (2018). Public Risk Perspectives Regarding the Threat of Terrorism in Belgrade: Implications for Risk Management Decision-Making for Individuals, Communities and Public Authorities. Journal of Criminal Investigation and Criminology/Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 69(4), 279-298.

Cvetković, V., Öcal, A., Lyamzina, Y., Noji, E., Milošević, G., & Jovanović, M. (2020). Public Risk Perception of Nuclear Power in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits. Advance.Preprint, advance-13082240.

Cvetković, V., Öcal, A., Lyamzina, Y., Noji, E., Nikolić, N., & Milošević, G. (2021). Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits. Energies, 14, 2464.

Cvetković, V., Pavlović, S., & Janković, B. D. (2021). Factors of influence on preparedness of the private security members for fire emergencies. NBP-Journal of Criminalistics and Law, 26(1), 35-59.

Cvetković, V., Rikanović, S., & Knežević, S. (2022). Resilience of society in disasters caused by nuclear accidents.

Cvetković, V., Ristanović, E., & Gačić, J. (2018). Citizens Attitudes about the Emergency Situations Caused by Epidemics in Serbia. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(8), 1213-1214.

Cvetković, V., Roder, G. O. A., Tarolli, P., & Dragićević, S. (2018). The Role of Gender in Preparedness and Response Behaviors towards Flood Risk in Serbia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 15(12), 2761.

Dukiya, J. J., & Banji Adeleye, A. B. (2022). Remote Sensing and GIS Assessment of Domestic Fuel Energy Supply: A Threat to Global DRR Crusade in South-western Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(2), 45-59.

Education, D. (2007). Building Research Institute (BRI) & National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS). Tokyo, Japan.

El-Mougher, M. M. (2022). Level of coordination between the humanitarian and governmental organizations in Gaza Strip and its impact on the humanitarian interventions to the Internally Displaced People (IDPs) following May escalation 2021. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(2), 15-45.

El-Mougher, M. M., Abu Sharekh, D. S. A. M., Abu Ali, M. R. F., & Zuhud, D. E. A. A. M. (2023). Risk Management of Gas Stations that Urban Expansion Crept into in the Gaza Strip. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 5(1), 13-27.

Faupel, C. E., Kelley, S. P., & Petee, T. (1992). The impact of disaster education on household preparedness for Hurricane Hugo. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 10(1), 5-24.

Fujioka, T. (2016). Disaster prevention education in the Japanese school curricula in recent years: Current status and future challenges. In Disaster Resilience of Education Systems (pp. 39-52): Springer.

Goyal, N. (2019). Disaster governance and community resilience: The law and the role of SDMAs. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 61-75.

Gwee, Q. R., Shaw, R., & Takeuchi, Y. (2011). Disaster education policy: current and future. In Disaster education: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Helsloot, I., & Ruitenberg, A. (2004). Citizen response to disasters: a survey of literature and some practical implications. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 12(3), 98-111.

Iftikhar, A., & Iqbal, J. (2023). The Factors responsible for urban flooding in Karachi (A case study of DHA). International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 5(1), 81-103.

Jaiye, D. J., & Benjamine, O. (2021). Building resilience through local and international partnerships, Nigeria experiences. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 3(2), 11-24.

Janković, B. (2021). The role of the police in disasters caused by pandemic infectious diseases. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 3(1), 41-50.

Janković, B., & Cvetković, V. (2020). Public perception of police behaviors in the disaster COVID-19 – the Case of Serbia. Policing An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management.

Johnson, V. A., Ronan, K. R., Johnston, D. M., & Peace, R. (2014). Evaluations of disaster education programs for children: A methodological review. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 9, 107-123.

Johnson, V. A., Ronan, K. R., Johnston, D. M., & Peace, R. (2016). Improving the impact and implementation of disaster education: Programs for children through theory‐based evaluation. Risk analysis, 36(11), 2120-2135.

Kabir, M. H., Hossain, T., & Haque, M. W. (2022). Resilience to natural disasters: A case study on southwestern region of coastal Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(2), 91-105.

Krnjić, I., & Cvetković, V. (2021). The role of multimedia content in educating young people about disasters. Pravni i bezbednosni aspekti upravljanja rizicima od prirodnih i antropogenih katastrofa – Legal and security aspects of natural and man-made disaster risk management (Vol. 1): Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Belgrade.

Kulatunga, U. (2010). Impact of culture towards disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 14(4), 304-313.

Kumiko, F., & Shaw, R. (2019). Preparing International Joint Project: Use of Japanese Flood Hazard Map in Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), 62-80.

Lindell, M. K. (2013). Disaster studies. Current Sociology, 61(5-6), 797-825.

Landwehr, P. M., & Carley, K. M. (2014). Social media in disaster relief. In Data mining and knowledge discovery for big data (pp. 225-257): Springer.

Latonero, M., & Shklovski, I. (2011). Emergency management, Twitter, and social media evangelism. International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (IJISCRAM)3(4), 1-16.

Luna, E. M. (2012). Education and disaster. In The Routledge handbook of hazards and disaster risk reduction (pp. 750-760): Routledge.

Mano, R., A, K., & Rapaport, C. (2019). Earthquake preparedness: A Social Media Fit perspective to accessing and disseminating earthquake information. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 19-31.

Mohammed, E.-M., & Maysaa, J. (2022). International experiences in sheltering the Syrian refugees in Germany and Turkey. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(1), 1-15.

Nakano, G., Suwa, S., Gautam, A., & Yamori, K. (2020). Long-term evaluation of proactive attitudes toward disaster education in Nepal. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 50, 101866.

Öcal, A. (2019). Natural Disasters in Turkey: Social and Economic Perspective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), 51-61.

Öcal, A. (2021). Disaster management in Turkey: a spatial approach. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 3(1), 15-22.

Ocal, A., Cvetković, V., Baytiyeh, H., Tedim, F., & Zečević, M. (2020). Public reactions to the disaster COVID-19: A comparative study in Italy, Lebanon, Portugal, and Serbia. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 11(1), 1864-1885.

Odero, N. A., & Mahiri, I. (2022). The Complacency of Flood Victims, Socio Economic Factors, and Effects and Vulnerabilities of Floods in Lower Kano Plains, Kisumu County, Kenya. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(2), 59-77.

Page, L., Rubin, J., Amlôt, R., Simpson, J., & Wessely, S. (2008). Are Londoners prepared for an emergency? A longitudinal study following the London bombings. Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense strategy, practice, and science, 6(4), 309-319.

Rajani, A., Tuhin, R., & Rina, A. (2023). The Challenges of Women in Post-disaster Health Management: A Study in Khulna District. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 5(1), 51-66.

Ronan, K. R., & Johnston, D. M. (2001). Correlates of hazard education programs for youth. Risk analysis, 21(6), 1055-1064.

Ronan, K. R., & Towers, B. (2014). Systems education for a sustainable planet: Preparing children for natural disasters. Systems, 2(1), 1-23.

Salleh, S. H., & Yusof, N. A. M. (2013). A Preliminary Study on Prepared Culture Amongst Healthcare Practitioners for Nuclear and Radiological Emergency in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 81, 416-421.

Sergey, K., & Gennadiy, N. (2022). Methodology for the risk monitoring of geological hazards for buildings and structures. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(1), 41-49.

Shibru, M., Operea, A., Omondi, P., & Gichaba, M. (2022). Impact of 2016-2017 drought on household livestock assets and food security: the case of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in Borana zone, southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 4(1), 49-69.

Suarmika, P. E., Arnyana, I. B. P., Suastra, I. W., & Margunayasa, I. G. (2022). Reconstruction of disaster education: The role of indigenous disaster mitigation for learning in Indonesian elementary schools. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 72, 102874.

Trim, P. R. J. (2004). An integrative approach to disaster management and planning. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal.

Unicef. (2014). Towards a learning culture of safety and resilience: Technical guidance for integrating disaster risk reduction in the school curriculum: UNESCO.

Cvetković, V., & Filipović, M. (2017). Concept of disaster resilience. Ecologica, 25(89).

Yusuf, R., Yunus, M., Maimun, M., & Fajri, I. (2022). Environmental Education: A Correlational Study among Environmental Literacy, Disaster Knowledge, Environmental Sensitivity, and Clean-Living Behavior of Post Tsunami Disaster in Aceh Communities, Indonesia. Polish journal of environmental studies, 31(1).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (2010). Youth emergency preparedness education paper. Philadelphia, PA: Regional Advisory Council, FEMA Region III.

Krnjić, I., & Cvetković, V. (2021). Investigating student’s attitudes and preferences towards disaster learning multimedia to enhance preparedness. Bulletin of the Serbian geographical society, 101(2) 79-96.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *