Community Disaster Resilience in Serbia

Community Disaster Resilience in Serbia, Vladimir M. Cvetković

Cvetković, V. M., & Šišović, V. (2024). Community Disaster Resilience in Serbia. In: Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Belgrade.

Download – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379953858_Community_Disaster_Resilience_in_Serbia

 

Vladimir M. CVETKOVIĆ

Vanja ŠIŠOVIĆ

 

COMMUNITY DISASTER RESILIENCE IN SERBIA

 

Preface

 

In the face of natural disasters, communities are often the first line of defence, bearing the brunt of devastation while also displaying remarkable resilience in their aftermath. The ability of societies to withstand, adapt to, and recover from such crises is a testament to the strength and resourcefulness inherent in human communities. This monograph, titled “Community Disaster Resilience in Serbia,” represents a concerted effort to delve into the underlying dynamics that shape a community’s capacity to cope with natural disasters. Focusing on Serbia, a country with a rich tapestry of social, economic, and demographic complexities, this research endeavors to unravel the intricate interplay between various socioeconomicand demographic factors and community resilience.

 

The research methodology employed in this study is grounded in a comprehensive quantitative approach, leveraging rigorous statistical analyses to explore the multifaceted dimensions of community disaster resilience. Through the administration of a carefully crafted questionnaire to 321 participants in January 2024, we sought to capture diverse perspectives and experiences, enriching our understanding of the complex socio-economic and demographic landscape of Serbia. At its core, this study recognizes the critical importance of understanding how factors such as income, employment status, marital status, education, risk perception, gender, and age intersect to influence a community’s ability to withstand and recover from natural disasters. By shedding light on these nuanced relationships, we aim to equip policymakers, practitioners, and community leaders with evidence-based insights to enhance disaster preparedness and response efforts.

 

A notable aspect of our methodology is the utilization of the snowball sampling method, which facilitated the organic expansion of our participant pool. By harnessing the networks and connections within communities, we were able to access a diverse array of voices, enriching our dataset and ensuring the robustness of our findings. Central to our inquiry is the exploration of how age, education, and gender intersect with broader social structures, capital, mechanisms, equity, diversity, and beliefs to shape community disaster resilience in Serbia. By elucidating these relationships, we aim to provide insights that can inform targeted interventions and policy initiatives aimed at bolstering community resilience across the country.

 

This monograph holds significant importance in the field of disaster resilience research and practice for several reasons. Firstly, it fills a crucial gap in the existing literature by providing comprehensive insights into the impacts of demographic and socioeconomic factors on community disaster resilience, particularly within the context of Serbia. While studies on disaster resilience abound, there is a notable scarcity of research specifically examining the influence of demographic and socioeconomic factors on resilience in this region.  Secondly, the findings of this research offer practical implications for policymakers, government agencies, non-governmental organisations, and community leaders involved in disaster management and resilience-building initiatives. By identifying key predictors and factors influencing community resilience, stakeholders can tailor interventions and strategies to address specific vulnerabilities and enhance the capacity of communities to withstand, adapt to, and recover from disasters effectively.

 

Furthermore, the utilization of robust statistical methods and the comprehensive nature of the research design enhance the reliability and validity of the findings presented in this monograph. The employment of multivariate regression analysis allows for a nuanced understanding of the relationships between various predictors and different dimensions of community disaster resilience, providing valuable insights for both academics and practitioners. Moreover, by employing an adapted version of the ‘5Ssocial resilience framework, this research contributes to the advancement of theoretical frameworks and conceptual models in the field of disaster resilience. The application of such frameworks enables researchers and practitioners to systematically assess and evaluate the complex interplay between social, economic, and environmental factors shaping community resilience, thereby facilitating more informed decision-making and resource allocation.

 

Overall, this monograph serves as a seminal contribution to the burgeoning field of disaster resilience, offering evidence-based insights and actionable recommendations for enhancing resilience-building efforts in Serbia and beyond. Its significance lies not only in its empirical findings but also in its potential to inform policy development, guide practice, and inspire further research in the pursuit of building more resilient and adaptive communities worldwide.

 

As we embark on this intellectual journey, we extend our gratitude to all those who have contributed to this endeavor, from the participants who generously shared their insights to the researchers and practitioners whose expertise has guided our inquiry. We hope this monograph will serve as a valuable resource for academics, policymakers, and practitioners alike, fostering dialogue and collaboration in our collective efforts to build more resilient communities in Serbia and beyond.

 

Authors

 

 

CONTENT

 

 

  1. INTRODUCTION.. 18
  2. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF DISASTER RESILIENCE. 23

2.1. Conceptual Definition and Classification of Disaster Resilience. 23

2.2. Dimensions of Disaster Resilience: Understanding the Multifaceted Aspects of Community Preparedness and Recovery. 28

2.3. Measuring Disaster Resilience: Assessing Preparedness and Recovery Efforts. 31

  1. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DISASTER RESILIENCE. 38

3.1. The Impact of Income on the Level of Disaster Resilience. 39

3.2. The Impact of Employment on the Level of Disaster Resilience. 41

3.3. The Influence of Marital Status on the Level of Disaster Resilience   43

3.3. The Impact of Gender on the Level of Disaster Resilience. 45

3.3. The Influence of Age on the Level of Disaster Resilience. 46

3.3. The Influence of Education on the Level of Disaster Resilience. 47

3.4. The Impact of Other Factors on the Level of Disaster Resilience. 48

  1. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCHING DISASTER RESILIENCE. 52

4.1. Research Issue and Questions. 52

4.2. Research Subject. 53

4.3. Disciplinary Determination of the Research Subject. 54

4.4. Hypothetical Research Framework. 55

4.5. Research Objective. 55

4.6. Social and Scientific Justification of the Research.. 55

4.7. Research Methods. 56

4.8. Study Area. 57

4.9. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics. 59

4.10. Questionnaire Design.. 61

4.11. Analyses. 62

  1. RESULTS RESEARCH.. 63

5.1. The predictors of community disaster resilience. 63

5.2. Perception of preventive measures and disaster resilience. 66

5.3. Sustainable Development of Community (Social) Disaster Resilience Framework. 68

5.4. Influences of Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors on the Sustainable Development of Community (Social) Disaster Resilience Framework. 77

5.5. Results of Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Community Disaster Resilience. 83

5.5.1. Participants’ Perception of Social Structure as a Component of Resilience  103

5.5.2. Participants’ Perception of Social Capital as a Component of Resilience  116

5.5.3. Participants’ Perception of Social Mechanisms as a Component of Resilience. 128

5.5.4. Perception of Participants Regarding Social Justice as a Component of Resilience. 152

5.5.5. Perception of Participants Regarding Social Beliefs as a Component of Resilience. 169

  1. DISCUSSION.. 187
  2. CONCLUSION.. 194
  3. APPENDIX A – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE. 199
  4. REFERENCES. 203
  5. AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY. 227

 

List of Figures

 

Figure 1. Research design of community (social) disaster resilience model. 54

Figure 2. Study area. Location of Serbia. 59

Figure 3. The predictors of community (social) disaster resilience. 65

Figure 4. Scale ratings for disaster preventive measures and disaster resilience levels. 68

Figure 5. The mean values of the subscales (structure, capital, mechanisms, equality, diversity, beliefs) of social resilience to disasters. 69

Figure 6. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of landslide resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5. 91

Figure 7. Overview of respondents’ answers to evaluating knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to volcanic eruptions, on a scale from 1 to 5. 92

Figure 8. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of flood resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5. 94

Figure 9. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question of assessing knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of tsunami resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5. 95

Figure 10. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question of assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of avalanche resistance, on a scale from 1 to 5. 96

Figure 11. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to drought, on a scale from 1 to 5. 98

Figure 12. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to extreme temperatures, on a scale from 1 to 5. 99

Figure 13. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to storms, on a scale from 1 to 5. 100

Figure 14. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to epidemics, on a scale from 1 to 5. 102

Figure 15. Overview of respondents’ answers to evaluating knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to forest fires, on a scale from 1 to 5. 103

Figure 16. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the organization and structuring of the local community for disaster management. 104

Figure 17. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to basic services such as healthcare, education, and social assistance during disasters. 105

Figure 18. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the quality of regulatory governance in disasters. 107

Figure 19. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the quality of implementation of disaster risk assessment and preparedness plans. 108

Figure 20. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of human resources in society for disaster protection and rescue. 109

Figure 21. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of financial resources in society for disaster protection and rescue. 111

Figure 22. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of technological resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue. 112

Figure 23. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the cooperation of local authorities with all relevant stakeholders in designing preventive measures. 113

Figure 24. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of disaster response services – police, fire and rescue units, emergency medical services, civil protection, etc. 115

Figure 25. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of leadership in the community. 116

Figure 26. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of mutual trust and support within the community. 117

Figure 27. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence and strength of social networks and connections. 118

Figure 28. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards participation in volunteer activities and community projects. 119

Figure 29. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence of regular dialogue and cooperation between local communities and authorities. 121

Figure 30. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the possibility of participation by various social groups in decision-making and planning processes during disasters. 122

Figure 31. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence of local disaster preparedness initiatives involving various socioeconomic groups. 124

Figure 32. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence and strength of economic cooperation between different socioeconomic groups. 125

Figure 33. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses. 126

Figure 34. Overview of participants’ attitudes regarding the perception of the strength of family bonds and interactions within communities. 128

Figure 35. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence and quality of education and training for emergencies. 129

Figure 36. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence of understanding and respect for cultural diversity. 130

Figure 37. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of personal and collective responsibility for community resilience and safety in disasters. 132

Figure 38. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards community preparedness for disasters. 133

Figure 39. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding household preparedness for disasters. 134

Figure 40. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards disaster risk perception. 136

Figure 41. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the implementation of disaster preparedness campaigns. 137

Figure 42. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the implementation of special measures for protecting critical infrastructure. 139

Figure 43. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on citizens’ awareness of disaster risks. 140

Figure 44. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the possibility of rapid evacuation and the existence of shelters. 142

Figure 45. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the possibility of making rapid decisions in relevant institutions, without bureaucratic complications. 143

Figure 46. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the active involvement of the community in implementing protection and preparedness measures. 145

Figure 47. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of faith and optimism in the community’s ability to cope with disasters. 146

Figure 48. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of flexibility and adaptability in addressing unforeseen situations. 147

Figure 49. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence of collective willingness to learn from previous disasters and improve future responses. 149

Figure 50. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the effectiveness of early warning and alerting systems. 150

Figure 51. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of disaster insurance. 152

Figure 52. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward access to resources and services without discrimination. 153

Figure 53. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward measures for the protection and promotion of minority rights. 154

Figure 54. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the community’s readiness to address social injustices. 156

Figure 55. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of availability and access to key resources (water, food, shelter) during and after disasters. 157

Figure 56. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to medical services and emergency interventions regardless of socioeconomic status during disasters. 159

Figure 57. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the extent of social assistance and support available to different groups in the community during disasters. 160

Figure 58. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the presence and active participation of various social groups in planning and implementing resilience initiatives. 162

Figure 59. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence of programs targeting specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, or migrant communities. 163

Figure 60. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the availability of personalized emergency plans for individuals with special needs. 164

Figure 61. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to transportation and evacuation that caters to different levels of mobility and needs. 165

Figure 62. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards openness and adaptation of communication strategies for different linguistic and cultural communities. 167

Figure 63. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the participation of various social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementation of crisis management measures. 168

Figure 64. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards justice in access to and participation in local crisis management bodies. 169

Figure 65. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding trust in the work of social institutions and services during disasters. 171

Figure 66. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of development of disaster resilience culture. 172

Figure 67. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the significance of cultural and religious values in community life. 173

Figure 68. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards openness to dialogue and understanding between different cultural and religious groups. 174

Figure 69. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity. 175

Figure 70. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards adherence to traditional social norms and values in the community. 177

Figure 71. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the level of individuals’ involvement in local cultural activities and communal manifestations. 178

Figure 72. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards respecting and preserving local customs and traditions during and after disasters. 180

Figure 73. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the intensity and frequency of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals. 181

Figure 74. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community. 182

Figure 75. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness and emergencies. 184

Figure 76. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the influence of local culture and tradition on the interpretation of disasters. 185

 

 

List of Tables

 

 

Table 1. Basic socio-economic and demographic information of respondents (n = 321). 60

Table 2. Results of a multivariate regression analysis concerning subscales (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, and social belief) for community (social) disaster resilience (n = 321). 63

Table 3. Scale ratings for disaster preventive measures, and disaster resilience levels (1 – very low, 5 – very high) (n = 321). 67

Table 4. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards social structure. 70

Table 5. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards social capital. 72

Table 6. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards social mechanisms. 73

Table 7. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards equity and diversity. 75

Table 8. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards beliefs. 76

Table 9. One-way ANOVA results regarding age, education, marital status, employment status, income level, ownership of property and household number members, and variables of the sustainable development of community (social) disaster resilience. 78

Table 10. Pearson’s correlation results for the relationship between the sustainable development of community (social) disaster resilience and the age of the respondents. 82

Table 11. Independent samples t-test results between gender and the variables on sustainable development of community (social) disaster resilience. 82

Table 12. Independent samples t-test results between volunteering and the variables on the sustainable development of community (social) disaster resilience. 83

Table 13. Overview of the sample of participants by gender. 84

Table 14. Overview of participants’ education. 84

Table 15. Overview of Participants’ Marital Status. 85

Table 16. Overview of Participants Regarding Their Employment Status. 85

Table 17. Overview of Participants Regarding the Number of Household Members. 86

Table 18. Overview of participants according to ownership of the house/apartment they live in. 87

Table 19. Overview of Participants Regarding Household Average Incomes. 88

Table 20. Overview of participants based on whether they have ever volunteered. 88

Table 21. Overview of Participants Regarding Fear of Disasters. 89

Table 22. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of earthquake resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5. 90

Table 23. 90

Table 24. Overview of respondents’ answers to evaluating knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to volcanic eruptions, on a scale from 1 to 5. 92

Table 25. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of flood resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5. 93

Table 26. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question of assessing knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of tsunami resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5. 94

Table 27. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question of assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of avalanche resistance, on a scale from 1 to 5. 95

Table 28. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to drought, on a scale from 1 to 5. 97

Table 29. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to extreme temperatures, on a scale from 1 to 5. 98

Table 30. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to storms, on a scale from 1 to 5. 99

Table 31. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to epidemics, on a scale from 1 to 5. 101

Table 32. Overview of respondents’ answers to evaluating knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to forest fires, on a scale from 1 to 5. 102

Table 33. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the organization and structuring of the local community for disaster management. 104

Table 34. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to basic services such as healthcare, education, and social assistance during disasters. 105

Table 35. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the quality of regulatory governance in disasters. 106

Table 36. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the quality of implementation of disaster risk assessment and preparedness plans. 107

Table 37. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of human resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue. 109

Table 38. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of financial resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue. 110

Table 39. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of technological resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue. 111

Table 40. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the cooperation of local authorities with all relevant stakeholders in designing preventive measures. 113

Table 41. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of disaster response services – police, fire and rescue units, emergency medical services, civil protection, etc. 114

Table 42. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of leadership in the community. 115

Table 43. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of mutual trust and support within the community. 116

Table 44. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence and strength of social networks and connections. 118

Table 45. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards participation in volunteer activities and community projects. 119

Table 46. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence of regular dialogue and cooperation between local communities and authorities. 120

Table 47. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the possibility of participation by various social groups in decision-making and planning processes during disasters. 121

Table 48. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence of local disaster preparedness initiatives involving various socioeconomic groups. 123

Table 49. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence and strength of economic cooperation between different socioeconomic groups. 124

Table 50. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses. 126

Table 51. Overview of participants’ attitudes regarding the perception of the strength of family bonds and interactions within communities. 127

Table 52. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence and quality of education and training for emergencies. 128

Table 53. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence of understanding and respect for cultural diversity. 130

Table 54. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of personal and collective responsibility for community resilience and safety in disasters. 131

Table 55. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards community preparedness for disasters. 132

Table 56. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding household preparedness for disasters. 134

Table 57. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards disaster risk perception. 135

Table 58. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the implementation of disaster preparedness campaigns. 136

Table 59. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the implementation of special measures for protecting critical infrastructure. 138

Table 60. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on citizens’ awareness of disaster risks. 139

Table 61. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the possibility of rapid evacuation and the existence of shelters. 141

Table 62. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the possibility of making rapid decisions in relevant institutions, without bureaucratic complications. 143

Table 63. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the active involvement of the community in implementing protection and preparedness measures. 144

Table 64. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of faith and optimism in the community’s ability to cope with disasters. 145

Table 65. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of flexibility and adaptability in addressing unforeseen situations. 147

Table 66. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence of collective willingness to learn from previous disasters and improve future responses. 148

Table 67. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the effectiveness of early warning and alerting systems. 149

Table 68. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of disaster insurance. 151

Table 69. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward access to resources and services without discrimination. 153

Table 70. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward measures for the protection and promotion of minority rights. 154

Table 71. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the community’s readiness to address social injustices. 155

Table 72. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of availability and access to key resources (water, food, shelter) during and after disasters. 156

Table 73. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to medical services and emergency interventions regardless of socioeconomic status during disasters. 158

Table 74. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the extent of social assistance and support available to different groups in the community during disasters. 160

Table 75. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the presence and active participation of various social groups in planning and implementing resilience initiatives. 161

Table 76. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence of programs targeting specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, or migrant communities. 162

Table 77. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the availability of personalized emergency plans for individuals with special needs. 163

Table 78. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to transportation and evacuation that caters to different levels of mobility and needs. 164

Table 79. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards openness and adaptation of communication strategies for different linguistic and cultural communities. 166

Table 80. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the participation of various social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementation of crisis management measures. 167

Table 81. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards justice in access to and participation in local crisis management bodies. 169

Table 82. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding trust in the work of social institutions and services during disasters. 170

Table 83. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of development of disaster resilience culture. 171

Table 84. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the significance of cultural and religious values in community life. 172

Table 85. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards openness to dialogue and understanding between different cultural and religious groups. 173

Table 86. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity. 175

Table 87. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards adherence to traditional social norms and values in the community. 176

Table 88. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the level of individuals’ involvement in local cultural activities and communal manifestations. 177

Table 89. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards respecting and preserving local customs and traditions during and after disasters. 178

Table 90. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the intensity and frequency of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals. 180

Table 91. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community. 182

Table 92. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness and emergencies. 183

Table 93. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the influence of local culture and tradition on the interpretation of disasters. 184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, fires, and storms, have a significant impact on human communities worldwide (Pelling, Özerdem, & Barakat, 2002; Grozdanić et al., 2024; Cvetković, 2016a; Cvetković, 2016b). Their destructive effects not only cause direct damage to infrastructure and the environment but also deeply affect the social and economic structures of society (Iftikhar & Iqbal, 2023; Kabir, Hossain, & Haque, 2022). Therefore, it is essential to examine how socioeconomic factors shape society’s response and how they can influence its resilience.

On an annual basis, disasters occur every day of the year, affecting approximately 200 million people (Guha-Sapir, Hargitt, & Hoyois, 2004). The increasing risk of disasters (both natural and human-induced), coupled with heightened vulnerability of people and their assets, necessitates a responsible response from communities in Serbia to enhance their resilience. A disaster can be defined as “a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or society involving widespread human, material, economic, or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources” (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2009).

The territory of Serbia is vulnerable to various types of disasters (floods, earthquakes, epidemics, wildfires, droughts, landslides, terrorist attacks, nuclear, chemical, and biological disasters, etc.), and the risk varies across the territory depending on the type of hazard and the expected potential damage (Cvetković, 2017; Cvetković, 2023a;  Cvetković & Todorović, 2021; Filipović & Cvetković, 2020). Currently, the state of disaster protection in Serbia is characterized by incomplete and inaccessible information on the risks of possible disasters and their potential consequences, along with insufficient “public participation.” Particularly notable is the insufficient capacity of local authorities, expert services, and consultants to enhance society’s resilience to disasters.

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, it becomes imperative for Serbia to proactively address these shortcomings. By focusing on raising public awareness, improving information availability, and enhancing the preparedness of local stakeholders, Serbia can navigate the complex landscape of disaster resilience and build a stronger society capable of facing the challenges brought by unforeseen calamities (Cvetković, 2023a;  Cvetković & Todorović, 2021; Filipović & Cvetković, 2020).

The economic structure of society plays a crucial role in determining the community’s ability to cope with the consequences of natural disasters (Botzen, Deschenes, & Sanders, 2019). The level of economic development of a society can provide resources for building more resilient infrastructure, developing technological solutions, and effectively managing risks. On the other hand, economic inequality can increase the vulnerability of certain social groups, making their recovery after a disaster more difficult (Hallegatte, Vogt-Schilb, Rozenberg, Bangalore, & Beaudet, 2020). Unequal distribution of resources and access to basic services can exacerbate existing social inequalities and hinder the recovery of the most vulnerable groups during and after a disaster.

The education system also plays a key role in determining the level of preparedness and awareness of society regarding the risks of natural disasters (Cvetković & Šišović, 2023; Cvetković, 2016b, Cvetković & Filipović, 2017b). A high level of education can contribute to creating an informed community capable of efficiently responding to emergencies. On the other hand, a lack of education can increase insecurity and hinder coordination during disaster management (Aleghfeli & Hunt, 2022).

Although the resilience theory is widely spread in the literature and often applied, we cannot ignore the existing criticisms in both natural and social sciences. There are several arguments questioning the effectiveness of resilience as an analytical concept, highlighting the shortcomings and limitations that have emerged during its application (Keck & Sakdapolrak, 2013). According to certain researchers, resilience is an integral part of adaptation capacity (Neil Adger, 2006; Birkmann & Birkmann, 2006), while others see adaptation capacity as the main component of vulnerability (Burton, Huq, Lim, Pilifosova, & Schipper, 2002; O’Brien et al., 2004). A third perspective suggests that the concepts of resilience and adaptation capacity are part of the vulnerability structure (Gallopín, 2006). Tobin (1999) emphasizes that sustainable and resilient communities can minimize the consequences of disasters while also having the ability to quickly recover from these extreme events.

The term “resilience” itself comes from the Latin “resilio,” which means “to bounce back” (Klein, Nicholls, & Thomalla, 2003) (Cvetković, 2023b). Nowadays, resilience is acknowledged as an important field of study that covers a wide range of elements and facets (Cvetković, 2023; Goyal, 2019; Jaiye & Benjamine, 2021). This conceptual domain now includes societal and economic factors in addition to human characteristics (Tariq, Pathirage, & Fernando, 2021). Although it has been around over the previous 70–80 years, the resilience hypothesis has seen a resurgence, particularly in the recent two to three decades. Resilience theory’s main concern is with the qualities that people and systems have that allow them to withstand adverse events, such as natural and man-made disasters (Breda, 2001). As a result, resilience is now understood to encompass a wide range of ideas related to overcoming obstacles and effectively adjusting to one’s surroundings (McCubbin, 2001).

Resilience is seen as a crucial quality in the modern world that aids in overcoming uncertainty and difficulties (Cvetković, 2014b). This is especially evident in the study of various system dynamics and equilibriums in the field of resource economics (Kennedy & Linnenluecke, 2022). Roughly speaking, resilience turns into an essential skill that permits prosperity despite adversity, in addition to survival. To put it succinctly, resilience has advanced beyond traditional methods and is now a crucial component for people as well as society (Cvetković, 2023). This idea is becoming more and more relevant when thinking about a variety of difficult problems and offers vital guidance for creating a stronger social and economic framework.

The term “resilience” was used originally in 1973, expanding its meaning to include not only the system’s durability but also its extraordinary capacity to adapt to a variety of disturbances and withstand changes (Assarkhaniki, Rajabifard, & Sabri, 2020). Conversely, when talking about the resilience of materials like steel, the focus is on how well they can hold their structure and shape in the face of outside pressures (Ma, Zhou, Deng, & Xu, 2023). With this discovery, a fuller understanding of systems as dynamic entities that actively regulate their dynamics while simultaneously preserving stability will be possible. Systems are known for their remarkable flexibility and resilience to a wide range of obstacles, as well as their capacity to recognize and absorb changes (Holling, 1973).

The multidimensionality of the resilience concept—which ranges from human resourcefulness, endurance, leaps and rebirth to elasticity and material resilience like that of steel—is one of its key features (Kabir, Hossain, & Haque, 2022). (Parker, 2020). Diverse viewpoints on resilience are common, and they all add to our understanding of this intricate and all-encompassing idea. According to some authors (Cvetković, 2017), resilience may be defined more broadly as a measure of how well people and society adjust to changing conditions while seizing new possibilities.

Furthermore, Foster (2007) provides an additional framework, characterizing regional resilience as the area’s capacity to anticipate, anticipate, and effectively respond to disruptions as well as recover from them. Resilience, for instance, might entail having the capacity to endure and adjust to unforeseen circumstances (Cvetković, Bošković, & Ocal, 2021; Hochrainer-Stigler et al., 2021). This may include people’s capacity to bounce back from hardship or trauma swiftly and take decisive action to get beyond obstacles. Resilience is fundamentally the capacity to adjust, bounce back, and maintain integrity, whether that integrity is material or spiritual (Bronfman et al., 2023).

A deeper understanding of resilience is made possible by this multifunctional approach, which also serves as a basis for investigating how human psychology, social dynamics, and material attributes interact to influence resilience in diverse settings. According to Perrings (1998), resilience is a crucial indicator of a system’s ability to tolerate strain and unforeseen difficulties while maintaining stability in a changing and unpredictable environment. This method offers a deeper knowledge of how various system components interact and adjust to unanticipated occurrences by focusing on the system’s capacity to retain its integrity and basic operations under stress. However, other writers (Mileti, 1999) stress the importance of the local component of disaster resilience, emphasizing that a community must be able to resist major natural occurrences with minimal loss or damage.

Global perspectives are used to characterize resilience at the worldwide level, especially when discussing the international plan for disaster risk reduction. According to UNIDDR (2009), resilience is the capacity of systems, communities, or societies that are subjected to risks to withstand, assimilate, and appropriately respond to such risks. The reconstruction of essential fundamental structures and functions is also implied by the global concept of resilience. On a global scale, resilience is regarded as essential to attaining stability and sustainability in communities (U-NISDR, 2009). The Law on Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management of the Republic of Serbia (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia 87/18) defines resilience at the national level. According to this national definition, resilience represents the necessary ability of communities exposed to hazards to adequately respond to the challenges of various disasters.

The focus of community disaster resilience is on social groups’ abilities to recover from disasters and resume their pre-event functioning (Norris, Stevens, Pfefferbaum, Wyche, & Pfefferbaum, 2008; Cvetković, 2015). According to Maguire and Hagan (2007), it is distinguished by three main processes or characteristics that emerge in society during a disaster: the ability of social groupings to adapt to new conditions, recover quickly, and be resilient in the face of adversity. The diversity of persons within the community contributes significantly to this component since it fosters the creation of groups with differing degrees of resilience. It is important to stress that a variety of factors can influence how resilient social groupings are, such as sociodemographic traits and the accessibility of resources.

Previous studies have shown that dealing with disasters is often more challenging for older persons, which can have a detrimental effect on their resilience (Fuchs & Thaler, 2018). In addition, a social community can be defined as a collection of individuals with varying traits who are bound together by social ties, sharing similar viewpoints, and engaging in group activities in certain settings (Ostadtaghizadeh, Ardalan, Paton, Jabbari, & Khankeh, 2015). To establish a resilient community, this definition places a strong emphasis on the community’s capacity for cooperation and participation in disaster risk reduction efforts.

Starting from an undetermined level of community (societal) resilience to disasters in Serbia, this paper aims to delve into the intricate dynamics of community disaster resilience within the context of Serbia. Also, the study aims to thoroughly investigate and comprehend the various aspects of resilience exhibited by communities in the face of disasters, with a specific focus on assessing how demographic and socioeconomic factors contribute to and shape this resilience. By examining the demographic and socio-economic conditions, the research seeks to uncover patterns, correlations and influences that play a crucial role in determining how communities respond and adapt to disasters in Serbia. Through this investigation, the paper aims to contribute valuable insights into the factors that enhance or hinder community disaster resilience.

Also, this study aims to achieve a deeper understanding of how various socio-economic and specific demographic factors (gender, age, education, income level, employment status, etc.) influence communities’ ability to cope with the challenges posed by natural disasters or their level of resilience. Through the analysis of these factors, we will explore the mechanisms that contribute to or diminish societal resilience, all to identify key elements that can enhance resilience levels and provide guidelines for effective risk management.

2. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF DISASTER RESILIENCE

2.1. Conceptual Definition and Classification of Disaster Resilience

 

Resilience is now widely recognized as a significant area of research that encompasses diverse factors and aspects (Cvetković, 2023b). This conceptual sphere no longer confines itself solely to individual dimensions but also encompasses social and economic aspects (Tariq, Pathirage, & Fernando, 2021). Hence, resilience becomes a universal concept dealing with various aspects of overcoming challenges and successfully adapting to the environment (McCubbin, 2001). In today’s contemporary context, resilience is considered a crucial characteristic that helps confront uncertainty and complex challenges. This is particularly reflected in the field of resource economics, where various equilibria and dynamics of systems are studied (Kennedy & Linnenluecke, 2022).

Increasingly, resilience becomes a necessary tool that enables not only survival but also prosperity despite challenges. In short, resilience has continued to evolve, transcending classical approaches and becoming an indispensable factor for both individuals and society as a whole (Cvetković & Filipović, 2018). This concept has a growing impact on thinking about various complex challenges and provides key guidelines for building a more resilient society and economic structure.

In the current year 1973, innovative use of the term resilience emerged for the first time, enriching the context of describing not only the persistence of systems but also a wide range of their exceptional abilities to withstand changes and effectively respond to various disruptions (Assarkhaniki, Rajabifard, & Sabri, 2020). This pivotal moment marks the beginning of a deeper understanding of systems as entities that not only maintain their stability but also actively manage their dynamics, recognizing and absorbing changes with exceptional adaptability and resilience to various challenges (Holling, 1973).

Bhamra and his research team (Bhamra, Dani, & Burnard, 2011) extensively examined 74 scholarly articles dedicated to resilience, concluding that accurately defining this concept is extremely challenging. By considering various perspectives from the literature, researchers noted that the definition of resilience often varies, creating a challenge for unambiguous formulation. Additionally, their analysis emphasized the need for further research that would contribute to a better understanding of the diversity of interpretations of resilience in different disciplines and contexts.

One of the essential characteristics of the resilience concept is its multidimensionality, extending from bouncing back and human resourcefulness and endurance to elasticity and resilience as material properties like steel (Parker, 2020, Cvetković, 2016c). Resilience is often viewed through different perspectives, each contributing to understanding this complex and comprehensive concept. For example, one meaning of resilience relates to the ability to survive and adapt in unpredictable situations (Cvetković, Bošković, & Ocal, 2021; Cvetković & Bošković, 2021; Hochrainer-Stigler et al., 2021). This may include people’s ability to quickly recover from adversity or trauma, and spring into action to overcome challenges. It may also be associated with the human capacity to transform and grow from experiences of difficulty. This dimension of resilience points to the strength of human will and spirit, enabling them to build deeper understandings of themselves and their environment. In this context, resilience is not just passive survival but an active process of growth and development.

On the other hand, when discussing material resilience, such as steel, its ability to retain its shape and structure under the influence of external forces is emphasized (Ma, Zhou, Deng, & Xu, 2023). This property of materials like steel is often metaphorically used to describe the ability of individuals, communities, or societies to endure and resist various pressures or stressors. Essentially, the concept of resilience is deeply rooted in the ability to adapt, recover, and maintain integrity, whether it’s in the human spirit or material (Bronfman et al., 2023). This multifunctional approach allows for a broader understanding of resilience and provides a basis for exploring how different factors, including human psychology, social dynamics, and material properties, interact to shape resilience in different contexts.

Resilience is interpreted as a key parameter of a system’s capacity to resist stress and unexpected challenges while preserving stability in a dynamic and unpredictable environment (Perrings, 1998, Cvetković 2017a). This approach focuses on the system’s ability to maintain its fundamental functions and integrity under pressure, providing a deeper understanding of how different system components interact and adapt to unforeseen events. Additionally, the concept of resilience can be viewed from the perspective of the capacity of physical and human systems to provide an adequate response to the challenges of natural disasters (Cvetković, 2017).

This interpretation emphasizes the importance of system adaptability in facing unpredictable situations, exploring how human and physical resources can work together to effectively cope with disaster consequences. This approach includes analyzing how people, infrastructure, and resources collectively contribute to the overall resilience of the system. Some authors (Cvetković, 2017) extend the definition of resilience, describing it as a measure of adaptation of individuals and societies to changing circumstances while capitalizing on emerging opportunities. This perspective emphasizes society’s ability to adapt to changes and, instead of being passive recipients, proactively use new challenges for improvement and strengthening resilience. Furthermore, Foster (2007) adds a regional context, defining regional resilience as the region’s ability to anticipate, prepare for, and effectively respond to disruptions while successfully recovering from them.

This approach highlights the role of regional entities in enhancing overall resilience, recognizing the importance of anticipating and quickly responding to challenges arising from natural disasters or other unforeseen events. Resilience is seen as the system’s ability to absorb disturbances or major disruptions before there are significant changes in its structure (Neil Adger, 2000). This approach emphasizes the importance of system adaptation to unforeseen situations, preventing permanent changes in the system’s underlying structure. In doing so, variables and processes regulating behaviour change, enabling the system to adapt to new circumstances.

Wildavsky (1988) further contributes to understanding resilience, valuing it as the ability to face unexpected dangers once they manifest. His approach emphasizes learning from unforeseen events and adopting strategies for effective response when threats emerge. This adaptability and rapid response to events are key elements of overall resilience. On the other hand, some authors (Mileti, 1999) emphasize the local dimension of disaster resilience, indicating that a locality must be able to withstand extreme natural events without significant losses, damages, decreases in productivity, or quality of life, all without significant assistance from outside the community. The focus at the local level provides insight into specific challenges and resources available to each community, highlighting the importance of local autonomy and self-sufficiency in building resilient communities.

At the national level, resilience is defined following the provisions of the Law on Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management of the Republic of Serbia (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia 87/18). According to this national definition, resilience represents the necessary ability of communities exposed to hazards to adequately respond to the challenges of various disasters. This ability includes effective and timely recovery from the resulting consequences, including preserving and restoring the basic functions of the community. Key aspects of national resilience include stability and continuity in societal functioning during and after unforeseen situations.

At the international level, resilience is defined through a global perspective, especially according to the international strategy for disaster risk reduction. This international strategy characterizes resilience as the ability of systems, communities, or societies exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, and adequately respond to the consequences of hazards (UNISDR, 2009). The international definition of resilience also implies the restoration of vital basic structures and functions. The focus of this strategy is on developing and enhancing resilience worldwide to create sustainable and capable communities that can adequately respond to challenges arising from various disasters. Resilience is seen at the international level as a key factor in achieving stability and sustainability in societies worldwide (UNISDR, 2009).

The resilience of social communities to disasters has become a key societal goal attracting the attention of researchers and decision-makers in various sectors and scientific disciplines. Literature analysis has indicated a series of challenges that require attention, suggesting the significance of upcoming research. Existing shortcomings include insufficient study of the impact of social identity on building the resilience of social communities; lack of consensus on the content and scope of the concept of resilience, on specific dimensions and indicators of resilience of social communities; unclearly defined measures and scales of resilience of social communities; inadequate development of tools for measuring the resilience of social communities to disasters; lack of a universal framework for the resilience of social communities that can be adapted to different social communities; insufficiently developed procedures for designing and validating tools for measuring the resilience of social communities to disasters; unexplored systematic impacts of indicators of social identity on building the resilience of social communities to disasters; some frameworks for the resilience of social communities are specifically developed for a certain disaster, while others are focused on a specific geographical area; existing approaches inadequately develop strategies, recommendations, and programs to improve the resilience of social communities to disasters, etc.

Other challenges include (Cvetković, 2023): lack of methodology for engaging and empowering resilience in society, complexity in achieving consensus on the unique characteristics of resilient communities among researchers and policymakers, lack of researcher interest in examining the impact of social identity on society’s resilience to disasters due to a lack of available data at the local level, the existence of various disciplinary and methodological frameworks for analysis.

A social community can be viewed as a group of people with different characteristics, connected by social bonds, sharing common perspectives, and participating in collective actions in geographical locations or environments (Ostadtaghizadeh et al., 2015). This definition emphasizes the community’s ability to collaborate and engage in disaster risk reduction activities, pooling knowledge, experiences, and collective actions towards a common goal – building a resilient community. The geographic scope includes populations defined by administrative units such as municipalities, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and districts. Additionally, it underscores the importance of social cohesion and collective action within the community to effectively cope with and reduce the impact of disasters.

It recognizes the importance of shared values, mutual understanding, and pooling of resources and skills to enhance the overall resilience of the community. The focus on collective efforts and collaborative approaches highlights the interconnectedness of individuals within the community and their ability to unite for the common good. Therefore, it can be emphasized that the geographic emphasis on locations such as municipalities, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and districts acknowledges the different scales at which communities operate. Whether it’s a smaller, tightly-knit neighborhood or a larger administrative district, the concept of community remains adaptable and inclusive, recognizing that disaster risk reduction efforts need to be tailored to the specific characteristics and challenges of different geographic areas.

 

 

2.2. Dimensions of Disaster Resilience: Understanding the Multifaceted Aspects of Community Preparedness and Recovery

 

Dimensions of disaster resilience represent a key aspect of humanity’s sustainable and secure future. This complex concept encompasses a range of factors that intertwine to create a resilient social structure. Considering these dimensions allows us to better understand and plan responses to natural disasters, pandemics, technical failures, and other unforeseen events.

The primary step in building a resilient society is investing in prevention and preparedness (Cvetković et al., 2020). This includes adopting the latest technologies, developing educational programs on safety, conducting disaster simulations, and regularly updating emergency protocols. Investing in infrastructure resilient to various risks, such as strengthening construction standards, also plays a crucial role in minimizing damage (El-Mougher et al., 2023; Kabir et al., 2022; Rajani et al., 2023). The ability to rapidly adapt to changing conditions is key to mitigating the impact of disasters. This includes developing agile economic models, adaptable healthcare systems, and technologies that enable rapid responses to changes.

Disasters often know no boundaries, so global cooperation is crucial. The exchange of information, technology, and resources among different countries and organizations can significantly enhance the capacity to respond to various natural and anthropogenic disasters (Al-ramlawi et al., 2020; Cvetkovic, 2019; Iftikhar & Iqbal, 2023; Ocal, 2019). International initiatives for joint research, sharing experiences, and conducting joint exercises contribute to global resilience. Disaster resilience also depends on social cohesion within society. Developing a shared sense of responsibility towards all members of the community, regardless of social status or background, is crucial for effective crisis management. This aspect also includes strengthening mutual support and solidarity.

Preservation of natural resources and ecosystems is directly related to disaster resilience. Ecosystem sustainability contributes to climate stability, prevents extreme weather conditions, and reduces the risk of natural disasters (Chakma et al., 2020; Hussaini, 2020; Kumiko & Shaw, 2019; Cvetković, 2015a). Preserving biodiversity and sustainable agricultural practices contribute to long-term resilience to changes. The development of innovative technologies can be crucial for improving disaster resilience. This includes progress in areas such as disaster monitoring and prediction, communication technologies, medical research, and renewable energy technologies (Carla, 2019; Perić & Cvetković, 2019; Vibhas et al., 2019). In addition to physical preparation, it is important to develop psychological resilience within communities. Education on emotional health, providing support to individuals and communities during periods of stress, and promoting coping mechanisms for unforeseen situations play a key role in overall societal resilience.

Social disaster resilience focuses on the capacities of social groups to effectively cope with disasters, considering their ability to return to pre-event functioning (Norris et al., 2008, Cvetković, 2023d). It is characterized by three key processes or elements that manifest in the community when facing a disaster: the resilience of social groups in coping with consequences, rapid recovery capability, and adaptation to new circumstances (Maguire & Hagan, 2007).

One important aspect of this dimension is the diversity of individuals within the community, leading to the emergence of groups with varying levels of resilience. Previous research has identified that older adults generally face more difficulties in coping with disasters, which can negatively impact their resilience (Fuchs & Thaler, 2018). It’s important to emphasize that various factors, including sociodemographic characteristics and resource availability, can shape the resilience of social groups.

Social resilience, as a key dimension, can be measured at different levels, including communities, families, and other social groups. The measure of social resilience depends on various coping capacities, such as planning, human resources, economic resources, and other factors (Buckle, 2006). These capacities play a significant role in preserving social structure and societal functionality during and after catastrophic events.

In the disaster resilience model, the measure of social resilience encompasses the demographic characteristics of the community and its ability to maintain well-being during disasters (Cutter et al., 2008). This approach takes into account various factors, including age structure, socioeconomic conditions, education accessibility, and similar factors. Analyzing demographic characteristics provides a deeper understanding of how different segments of society can react to disasters, enabling the use of information for adjusting and improving existing resilience strategies. It’s important to note that such an approach to measuring social resilience integrates insights into how demographic factors and community resources collectively influence the level of resilience.

Studying and interpreting these interactions provide a holistic insight into the complexity of social systems during disasters. Through a multidisciplinary approach, researchers and risk management experts strive to understand how different dimensions of resilience interact and contribute to overall community resilience. Integrating economic, health, social, and infrastructural analyses provides a comprehensive insight into the challenges and opportunities faced by society during disasters.

Disaster resilience represents a crucial aspect of the capacity of communities and systems to confront various natural and human-made disasters and other challenges (Cvetković & Andrejević, 2016). This complex theme is often viewed through the lens of technological systems and units and social systems, emphasizing different aspects on various scales (Renschler et al.). On a smaller scale, the focus is directed towards the technical aspects of resilience, particularly when analyzing critical infrastructures. Here, technological capacities, innovations, and mechanisms that enable the preservation and functionality of key systems are explored.

Technology plays a crucial role in reducing risks and mitigating the consequences of disasters at this level. On a broader scale, considering the entire community, the focus expands to the interaction of different systems – human, ecological, and others. A holistic approach encompasses a complex set of factors that collectively contribute to maintaining the healthy functioning of society. The human factor becomes central, as the actions of individuals and communities at the individual and neighbourhood levels play a crucial role in achieving resilience (Cvetković et al, 2019).

Taking into account social networks, economic stability, education, and risk awareness, communities build capacities for an effective response to disasters. Resilience becomes a comprehensive process that integrates diverse aspects of community life. Systematic planning, education, and collaboration across different sectors of society are key to building resilience at the community level. Adapting to changing circumstances and collective efforts in creating a sustainable approach are essential elements of community protection and prosperity during disasters (Akter, Roy, & Aktar, 2023; Baruh, Dey, & Dutta, 2023; Cvetković & Andrić, 2023; Cvetković, Romanić, & Beriša, 2023; El-Mougher et al., 2023; Rajani et al., 2023).

Within the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research at the University at Buffalo in the United States, researchers have developed a four-dimensional resilience framework (R4) (Cvetković, 2014). This innovative methodology represents a synthesis of four key aspects: robustness, redundancy, adaptability, and speed: a) the first element of the R4 framework relates to the system’s ability to maintain functionality and structural stability under significant impacts of various harmful actions. Robust systems can absorb shocks and remain functional, which is crucial for preventing infrastructure collapse; b) the second aspect of the framework focuses on introducing redundancy into engineering systems. This involves duplicate or multiple components that can take over functions if one part fails. Redundant systems increase resilience and reduce the risk of complete loss of functionality; c) the third dimension of the R4 framework involves the adaptability of systems, which entails quickly redirecting resources and activities to minimize consequences. The ability to adapt quickly to changing conditions is crucial for a successful crisis response; d) finally, the R4 framework also includes the importance of speed in responding to earthquake events. Rapid response can significantly reduce damage and save lives. Systems with fast reactions and warning tools play a key role in minimizing losses. The examination and application of the R4 framework represent significant progress in the field of earthquake protection.

This integrative methodology provides a comprehensive approach to improving infrastructure resilience and protecting human lives in the event of earthquakes. The results of research using this framework will have far-reaching impacts on the development and enhancement of earthquake protection systems worldwide (Spiegel & Satterthwaite, 2013; Tang & Heinimann, 2018).

 

2.3. Measuring Disaster Resilience: Assessing Preparedness and Recovery Efforts

 

In the domain of disaster studies, research efforts are directed towards a deeper understanding of resilience through four key areas of interest (Zhou, Wang, Wan, & Jia, 2010). These research areas include: 1) resilience as a biophysical attribute; 2) resilience as a social attribute; 3) resilience of socio-ecological systems; and 4) the attribute of a specific geographic area. Although more than three decades have passed since active exploration of the resilience concept in the context of disasters, diverse epistemological foundations and methodological approaches contribute to different interpretations and dimensions of resilience within disaster research.

The first area focuses on understanding resilience as a biophysical attribute, exploring how natural systems and ecosystems manifest resilience in the face of challenges. This approach analyzes the adaptive capacities of biological entities and ecological systems to recover from the adverse impacts of disasters. By studying this biophysical aspect, researchers gain insight into the natural defence and renewal mechanisms in ecosystems.

The second research area is dedicated to examining resilience as a social attribute. The focus is on the capacities of social groups, communities, and societies to effectively respond to disasters, analyzing interpersonal dynamics and social structures. This approach recognizes the crucial role of human resources, mutual support, and shared values in building resilient societies.

The third area explores the resilience of socio-ecological systems, considering the complex interactions between people, societies, and nature. This holistic approach examines how socio-ecological systems operate in the context of disasters, emphasizing the interdependence between human activities and ecological factors. Analyzing this aspect helps in understanding the broader picture of resilience encompassing complex socio-ecological dynamics.

The fourth area focuses on the attribute of resilience of a specific geographic area. This dimension of research investigates how specific locations and environments influence the community’s ability to cope with disasters. The geographic context has a significant impact on vulnerability and resilience, and studying this attribute can develop a targeted understanding of the specific challenges and needs of different regions (Cvetković et al, 2014).

Despite these diverse approaches, it is important to highlight that understanding resilience in disaster studies faces challenges due to different interpretations and research contexts. Creating a comprehensive and integrative approach that includes intertwining these different dimensions of resilience can contribute to a deeper understanding and more effective approach to building resilient societies in a world facing numerous disaster challenges (Zhou et al., 2010).

Furthermore, it is possible to identify three distinct levels of social resilience, each characterized by its specificities: 1) resilience manifested in resistance to significant changes; 2) resilience expressed through effective resistance to minor marginal changes; and 3) resilience arising from openness and the ability to adapt to various challenges and changes in the environment (Dovers & Handmer, 1992; Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004). At the first level, societies may demonstrate resilience by strongly resisting significant changes that could threaten existing social order. This form of resilience often reflects a desire to preserve the status quo and traditional values.

At the second level, societies can develop resilience through the ability to subtly resist minor marginal changes. This type of resilience can be observed through the adaptation to minor social, economic, or cultural changes without disrupting the fundamental structures of society.

At the third level, resilience can be achieved through openness and the ability to adapt to a wide range of challenges and changes in the environment. This approach involves flexibility, adaptability, and readiness for change to maintain balance and functionality in a dynamic social and natural environment.

Essentially, the different levels of social resilience reflect the complexity of interpersonal relationships and reflect diverse strategies that societies employ to cope with changes. Understanding these levels of resilience contributes to the analysis of social dynamics and can inform approaches to strengthening social resilience in various contexts.

Regarding the enhancement of resilience, a key role is played by the development of a disaster resilience culture, which encompasses a range of key elements (Council, 2012, p. 2): These elements include: a) taking responsibility for disaster risks, emphasizing the need for active participation of all stakeholders in recognizing and addressing potential hazards; b) confronting challenges in establishing core resilience values in communities. This involves using disaster loss data to stimulate long-term commitments to increase resilience, raising awareness of the importance of promoting safety and preparedness; c) deand veloping and implementing tools or scales to monitor progress in improving resilience. Monitoring the effectiveness of measures and strategies is crucial for adjusting and improving resilience approaches in the future; d) building local capacity from the bottom up, where local communities actively contribute to the development and implementation of resilience initiatives, recognizing their role in the process; e) understanding national policies and practices for assisting communities in raising thein resilience levels. Coordination with a broader framework of national strategies plays a key role in ensuring synergy and support at all levels; d) identification and exchange of information on the responsibilities of all entities in building comprehensive resilience.

This transparency contributes to a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of all participants in achieving resilience. The guidelines mentioned not only represent practical steps for enhancing resilience but can also be seen as a national imperative. National recognition of the importance of disaster resilience lays the foundation for coordinated efforts at a broader level, contributing to strengthening the resilience of the entire society to potential threats and challenges.

The theory of resilience, although present over the last 70-80 years, has experienced a revitalization in the past two or three decades. This extensive research topic has attracted the attention of various professionals, including social workers, psychologists, sociologists, educators, and many others. The central question of resilience theory deals with the characteristics possessed by individuals and systems, that enable them to withstand adverse circumstances (Van Breda, 2001). On the other hand, social identity theory, a branch of interactionist social psychology, explores the function of self-concept, related cognitive processes, and social beliefs within the framework of group processes and intergroup relations. This theory, presented by Tajfel and colleagues in the late 1970s (Davis, Love, & Fares, 2019), was developinrom the early 1980s as a general explanation of group dynamics and the nature of social groups. Various sub-theories of social identity theory focus on aspects such as social influence, group norms, leadership within and between groups, motivations for self-esteem, reducing uncertainty, deindividuation, collective behavior, social mobilization, protests, marginalization, and deviation within groups (Hogg, 2016). Key processes related to social identity include assimilation within the group, pressure to adhere to group norms, and various forms of intergroup favoritism, including positive valuation of one’s group compared to the out-group. This wide range of approaches helps in understanding the dynamics of intergroup relations and contributes to research on how people and communities overcome challenges and adversities (Cvetković, 2023b).

 

From the “DROP” model (Disaster Resilience of Places), researchers (Cutter, Ash, & Emrich, 2014) constructed the Basic Community Resilience Index (BRIC). This index intends to develop a standardized measure that consolidates various aspects of resilience. It focuses on creating a metric that can be reproducible, taking into account diverse dimensions of resilience. This approach aims to integrate different types of resilience in a way that allows for measurement and comparison of the effectiveness of different communities. It is important to note that “BRIC” represents a step forward in the development of a methodology that considers the complexity and diversity of factors contributing to community resilience to disasters. BRIC views the community as the basic unit of analysis, or the interpersonal interactions that occur at a specific geographic location (Bronfman et al., 2023; Cutter et al., 2014). This approach aims for a comprehensive examination of key aspects contributing to community resilience, with each of the dimensions listed being considered as an important factor.

Social resilience is analyzed through interpersonal connections and the interconnectedness of community members, community capital explores levels of resources and support within the community, while economic resilience focuses on the ability to withstand economic challenges. Institutional resilience, infrastructure resilience, and environmental resilience are viewed as key factors contributing to the stability and vitality of the community in disaster situations. It is important to note that such an approach can provide a detailed understanding of different dimensions of resilience, enabling decision-makers and researchers to better identify key areas for improvement and strengthening community resilience. Additionally, a top-down approach allows researchers to carefully select indicators based on a comprehensive review of the literature or expert assessment (Bronfman et al., 2023).

Examining community resilience to disasters is a challenging process due to the complex interactions between people, communities, society, and the environment. Currently, there is a range of different conceptual frameworks proposed for measuring this concept (Neil Adger, 2000; Tobin, 1999). Generally, most of these framewosimilarly conceptualize disaster resilience way, focusing on similar factors that have the potential to reduce vulnerability and increase community resilience. These factors include economic resources, assets and skills, information and knowledge, support and support networks, access to services, and shared values within the community. However, the limitation of most of these frameworks is that they often focus attention only on a specific dimension of disaster resilience and do not pay enough attention to a broader understanding of this concept (Mayunga, 2007).

The proposed framework of social resilience, known as “5S,” represents a comprehensive approach to assessing social resilience. This innovative approach considers key characteristics and indicators relevant to this field, allowing for a deeper examination of crucial aspects of social resilience. It provides a solid foundation for analyzing and improving social resilience in various situations and circumstances. This approach not only enables precise evaluation of the current state of social resilience but also lays the groundwork for implementing targeted interventions and improvement strategies tailored to the specificities of each context.

The proposed framework of social resilience consists of five sub-dimensions of social resilience, namely social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equality, and social beliefs, comprising 16 characteristics and corresponding 46 indicators (Saja, Teo, Goonetilleke, & Ziyath, 2018):

  1. a) Social Structure: Studying social structure involves analyzing key social segments such as demographic factors, gender identity, and family organization. Additionally, socio-economic stratification within the community is examined, along with the various functions individuals perform within the community. This comprehensive analysis allows for a better understanding of societal dynamics and identifies key points for strengthening social resilience.
  2. b) Social Capital: Focusing on social capital includes studying the relationships within socio-economic groups formed based on family and local ties. It also analyzes networking capabilities that build economic and other connections beyond the group, as well as interactions between different social groups and their relationship with authorities and local institutions. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for enhancing cohesion within the community.
  3. c) Social Mechanisms/Competencies/Values: Researching social mechanisms involves studying the development of community goals and priorities. It also analyzes community engagement and competence in the resilience-building process, along with collective attitudes and shared value systems towards disaster coping and adaptation. This approach enables the identification of key components to support in improving social resilience.
  4. d) Social Equality and Diversity: Studying social equality and diversity involves analyzing approaches to a diverse set of resources, skills, and services. It also explores the process of inclusive resilience initiatives, with a particular emphasis on ensuring equality for people with specific needs to actively participate in disaster management. This approach promotes balance and fairness in community resource allocation.
  5. e) Social Beliefs/Culture/Faith: By analyzing social beliefs, culture, and religious aspects, the impact of social behavior, local cultural beliefs, and norms are explored. Studying values and practices based on faith helps understand how these factors contribute to shaping social resilience, providing deeper insights into cultural specificities to consider when developingcommunity-strengtheningg strategies.

In a global context, the analysis of community resilience to disasters can be divided into two key perspectives: objective and subjective methodologies (Béné et al., 2016). Objective approaches focus on quantifying disaster resilience independently of individual perceptions. These approaches concentrate on measuring characteristics defined outside the community members themselves, such as economic capacities, assets, and other measurable variables. Most resilience assessment frameworks often employ objective methods to analyze more concrete factors, such as income and assets, which can be more easily numerically expressed (Jones & Samman, 2016).

 

In researching these objective measures, developed indicators are often used as measurement tools in the form of survey questionnaires. For example, household surveys are commonly applied as relevant instruments for collecting validated data. These indicators provide a deeper insight into various aspects of resilience, enabling the study of a broader picture in different contexts. Their wide application in the literature contributes to building reliable datasets essential for further research. Additionally, subjective approaches consider individuals’ perceptions within the community regarding their own resilience to disasters. These approaches often take into account factors such as awareness, education, and subjective risk assessments. Integrating both approaches contributes to a holistic understanding of community resilience to disasters, enabling the development of effective risk management strategies (Jones & Samman, 2016).

 

 

3. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCING DISASTER RESILIENCE

 

In the global context, the analysis of community resilience to disasters can be divided into two key perspectives: objective and subjective methodologies (Béné et al., 2016). Objective approaches aim to quantify disaster resilience independently of individual perceptions. These approaches focus on measuring characteristics defined outside the community members, such as economic capabilities, assets, and other measurable variables. Most resilience assessment frameworks often use objective methods to analyze specific factors, such as income and property, which can be easily numerically expressed (Jones & Samman, 2016).

Examining community resilience to disasters represents a challenging process due to the complex interactions between people, communities, societies, and the environment. Currently, there are various conceptual frameworks proposed for measuring this concept (Adger, 2000; Tobin, 1999). Generally, most of these frameworks similarly conceptualize disaster resilience, focusing on similar factors that have the potential to reduce vulnerability and increase community resilience. These factors include economic resources, assets and skills, information and knowledge, support and support networks, access to services, and shared values within the community. However, the limitation of most of these frameworks is that they often focus attention only on a specific dimension of disaster resilience and do not give enough consideration to a broader understanding of this concept (Mayunga, 2007).

From the “DROP” model (Disaster Resilience of Place model), researchers (Cutter, Ash, & Emrich, 2014) constructed the Community Resilience Index (BRIC). The purpose of this index is to develop a standardized measure that consolidates various aspects of resilience. It focuses on creating a metric that can be reproduced, taking into account diverse dimensions of resilience. Alternatively, the BRIC (Community Resilience Index) considers the community as the fundamental unit of analysis, focusing on interpersonal interactions that occur in a specific geographical location (Bronfman et al., 2023; Cutter et al., 2014). This approach aims to comprehensively examine key aspects contributing to community resilience, with each of the mentioned dimensions considered as a crucial factor. Besides that, social resilience is analyzed through the community members’ interpersonal connections and cohesion, community capital explores levels of resources and support within the community, while economic resilience focuses on the ability to survive economic challenges.

The proposed framework of social resilience, known as the “5S,” represents a comprehensive approach to assessing social resilience. This innovative approach takes into account key characteristics and indicators relevant to this area, allowing a deeper consideration of the key aspects of social resilience. It provides a solid foundation for analyzing and enhancing social resilience in various situations and circumstances. The proposed framework of social resilience consists of five sub-dimensions of social resilience, namely social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, and social beliefs, comprising 16 characteristics and corresponding 46 indicators (Saja, Teo, Goonetilleke, & Ziyath, 2018): a) social structure; b) social capital; c) social mechanisms/competencies/values; d) social equity and diversity; e) social beliefs/culture/faith.

The resilience of social communities to disasters has become a crucial societal goal that attracts the attention of researchers and decision-makers in various sectors and scientific disciplines. A literature analysis has indicated several challenges that require attention, suggesting the significance of upcoming research (Cvetković, 2023): insufficient examination of the impact of social identity on building resilience in social communities; lack of consensus on the content and scope of the resilience concept, specific dimensions, and indicators of social community resilience, etc.

 

3.1. The Impact of Income on the Level of Disaster Resilience

 

Poor families lack material resources, such as adequate nutritional care and materials that promote cognitive development (such as books and technology), as well as reduced expectations regarding the life chances of their children (Wagnild, 2003). In another study, it was found that impoverished households were less resilient and were more likely to fall back into poverty due to COVID-19, whereas the opposite was true for wealthier households with high socioeconomic status (Ur Rahman, Jian, Junrong, & Shafi, 2021). Income has already been established as a significant indicator of adaptive capacity, responsible for reducing community resilience when responding to a natural disaster. It plays a crucial role in shaping how well a community can cope, recover, and adapt to ecological challenges, highlighting the importance of addressing economic disparities in building effective disaster response strategies (Deria, Ghannad, & Lee, 2020).

A steady income of families plays a key role in shaping children’s educational outcomes (Chevalier, Harmon, O’Sullivan, & Walker, 2013). This impact can be explained at several levels. Firstly, stable income enables families to provide for their children’s basic needs, such as quality nutrition, secure housing, and access to healthcare. These basic elements are directly linked to children’s physical and mental development, which can affect their ability to learn and succeed in school. Additionally, a steady income provides families with the opportunity to invest in their children’s education. This includes purchasing educational materials, books, and technology, and providing additional support, such as private lessons or extracurricular activities.

Children who have access to such resources often have better chances of success in the educational system. A stable income can reduce stress in the family, allowing parents to better focus on supporting and meeting the educational needs of their children. On the other hand, low-income families often face financial uncertainties that may hinder their focus on education (Chevalier et al., 2013). However, the vulnerability of individuals with lower socioeconomic status to the negative impacts of natural disasters is not limited to just the immediate consequences (Chevalier et al., 2013). In the response phase, a lack of financial resources often results in delayed or inadequate emergency assistance, making it difficult for impoverished communities to cope with the immediate aftermath of the disaster (Cannoodt, Mock, & Bucagu, 2012). This delayed response can contribute to an increase in the number of casualties, as essential services such as medical assistance and evacuation may not be immediately available to those in need.

Transitioning into the phases of recovery and rebuilding, economic inequalities become even more pronounced. Individuals and communities with limited financial means face difficulties in rebuilding their lives and infrastructure after a disaster (Comerio, 2014). Insurance, which is often more accessible to the wealthy, may be lacking among the economically disadvantaged, further hindering their recovery ability. Moreover, the psychological burden on individuals with lower incomes should not be overlooked. The experience of loss, displacement, and the struggle for recovery can lead to prolonged emotional trauma. The lack of adequate resources for mental health and support in these communities exacerbates the impact, leaving individuals vulnerable to mental health issues (Miller & Rasmussen, 2010).

Essentially, the disproportionate suffering of the poor during and after natural disasters presents a complex challenge that goes beyond immediate physical consequences. This underscores the need for comprehensive strategies addressing not only immediate response but also long-term efforts of rebuilding and resilience building, especially in economically vulnerable communities (Reid, 2013). Addressing systemic inequalities and ensuring equal access to resources and support systems are crucial steps in strengthening the overall adaptive capacity of vulnerable populations.

In a study conducted after Hurricane Katrina (Logan, 2006), researchers found that the lower economic strata of people suffered disproportionately greater material consequences, as a larger percentage of communities with lower incomes were located in areas that were flooded during the event itself. The geographic distribution of communities, as well as their socio-economic composition, was extensively analyzed in the study, revealing the correlation between lower income levels and increased vulnerability to hurricane-induced disasters. The study meticulously examined the geographic distribution of communities and their socio-economic composition, uncovering the link between lower income levels and increased vulnerability to the destructive impacts of hurricanes. The unfortunate consequence was that those with limited financial means were more likely to live in flood-prone areas, further exacerbating the challenges they faced during and after the disaster.

These results highlight the interconnection between socio-economic factors and the impacts of natural disasters, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions and policies addressing vulnerabilities associated with economic disparities in specific geographic regions. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of equitable urban planning and disaster preparedness strategies to mitigate the disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities facing such disasters.

 

3.2. The Impact of Employment on the Level of Disaster Resilience

 

A study conducted in China in 2018 (Cui, Han, & Wang, 2018) did not find a relevant statistical correlation between employment status and perceived societal resilience to earthquake-induced disasters. Such results clearly indicate that the employment status under study was not a significant factor influencing the overall perception of societal resilience to disaster challenges. Based on the results of flood-related research (Cvetković, 2016), it can be concluded that employed citizens demonstrate greater awareness and readiness regarding floods compared to the unemployed. A significantly larger number of employed individuals know floods compared to the unemployed.

Furthermore, it can be observed that employed individuals are more familiar with safety procedures and express greater readiness for evacuation. Employed citizens often mention being educated about floods in educational institutions and at the workplace. Also, they have better knowledge of the locations and handling of water valves, gas, and electrical switches compared to the unemployed. In terms of information sources, employed individuals are often informed at the workplace and through the Internet. Moreover, they express a greater desire for additional education through lectures. These results indicate the importance of raising awareness and education about floods among unemployed citizens to enhance the overall community preparedness.

In a study conducted at Yalova University in Turkey (Inal, Altıntaş, & Doğan, 2019), the correlation between general beliefs about disaster preparedness and various socio-demographic characteristics was examined, with a particular focus on the different influences of employment status. The overall score of general beliefs in disaster preparedness was statistically significantly associated with higher monthly income, higher employment status, previous experience with any disaster, and attending any disaster-related training. The results showed that respondents with higher monthly income and better employment status have more positive beliefs about general disaster preparedness.

Then, in the subsequent study conducted in Tehran (Najafi, Ardalan, Akbarisari, Noorbala, & Jabbari, 2015), it was found that the level of monthly income, previous experience with disasters, as well as place of residence and occupation, are significant factors that significantly influence the perception of disaster preparedness. On the other hand, no statistically significant association was found with gender, level of education, household size, type of housing, homeownership, and the position of the head of the household. Additionally, in a study on household preparedness for disasters in Bangladesh (Tohan, Kabir, Hoque, & Roy, 2023), a low level of preparedness was identified, and major predictors of preparedness were identified, such as gender, marital status, income level, previous experiences with disasters, loss of someone due to a disaster, presence of a member with special needs, homeownership, and material of which the house is made. However, the authors emphasize that these factors explained only 25.1% of the variability, indicating that there may be other factors at play.

 

3.3. The Influence of Marital Status on the Level of Disaster Resilience

 

The impact of marital status on society’s resilience to disasters can be a very interesting research question. It can be assumed that married couples often share responsibilities, resources, and response strategies in various disasters. This shared responsibility can lead to better organization and coordination in coping with the consequences of different natural and anthropogenic disasters. On the other hand, it can be assumed that individuals without partners may face challenges in making decisions independently and providing support during various disasters. Therefore, marital status can be a key factor in shaping societal resilience in facing disasters.

In their study (Tohan et al., 2023), the authors examined the relationship between earthquake concern and preparedness levels for responding to such situations. The research was conducted in areas with high seismic risk. Through telephone interviews, data were collected from 800 respondents from the mentioned areas. The results of the study indicate a higher likelihood of concern among respondents who have previously experienced earthquakes, among women, younger individuals, and among those who are not of Anglo-Saxon origin. Additionally, a higher likelihood of preparedness was found among respondents who expressed higher levels of concern, were married, and had lived at their current address for a longer period.

Furthermore, in a study (Solomon, Bravo, Rubio-Stipec, & Canino, 1993) examining the family role in the mental health of victims, it was found that the worst outcomes were observed among single parents and parents in marital unions who were exposed to the impacts of disasters. It was determined that perceived emotional support is an important moderator of the disaster’s effect on psychiatric distress, largely overriding the effect of the family role. Single parents in both studied areas who were exposed to the disaster had significantly reduced levels of available emotional support compared to single parents who were not exposed, suggesting that single parents are particularly vulnerable to losing access to emotional support after a disaster.

Then, in one of the studies (Hung, 2017), research was conducted involving heterosexual couples living in Florida. The study aimed to answer the question of how decision-makers in the three-phase decision-making process in households prepare for hurricanes. Survey results from 170 couples show that at least half of the households report making joint decisions during all three stages of decision-making, and joint decision-making is associated with a high level of preparedness in each phase. Households making joint decisions throughout the decision-making process have significantly higher levels of preparedness compared to households where women make decisions independently throughout the process or where no one makes decisions throughout the process.

Married people experience greater psychological well-being than those who are single, divorced, or widowed, largely because of the social connections and support they receive (Ross, 1995). Also, health status is influenced indirectly and in a non-specific manner by factors related to marriage, and a broad conceptual framework involving stress and social support serves as a basis for understanding these dynamics (Burman & Margolin, 1992). Besides that, Cotten (1999) found that individuals in marital unions exhibit superior mental and physical well-being compared to those who are not married.

Additionally, psychological distress is socially dispersed among and across the four marital status groups. Kim and Lee (2021) found that marital status influences the level of preparedness for bioterrorism, followed by age, education, perceived personal impact, perceived coping efficacy, perceived resilience, and perceived front-line preparedness. On the contrary, Cui et al. (2018) did not find evidence supporting the correlations between marital status and an individual’s perception of community resilience. Moreover, these findings are consistent with several other studies that have explored the level of resilience (Leykin, Lahad, Cohen, Goldberg, & Aharonson-Daniel, 2013; Pfefferbaum et al., 2016).

 

3.3. The Impact of Gender on the Level of Disaster Resilience

In research dedicated to analyzing the relationship between gender and resilience to various natural and man-made disasters, this topic emerges as an exceptionally current, challenging, and highly complex area of study (Combs et al., 2010; Drabek, 1969; Ikeda, 1995; Mano-Negrin & Sheaffer, 2004; Mehta, 2007; Mulilis, 1999; Myers, 1994; Norris, 1992; Rodríguez, Kennedy, Quarantelli, Ressler, & Dynes, 2009; Rüstemli & Karanci, 1999). The mentioned studies point towards a deeper understanding of the threat of natural disasters by women compared to men (Davidson & Freidenburg, 1996; Palm, 1995).

Some researchers, within their investigations, highlight the more significant preparedness of the female gender concerning responding to natural disasters, especially in terms of knowledge about them (Mano-Negrin & Sheaffer, 2004; Tomio, Sato, Matsuda, Koga, & Mizumura, 2014). Regarding men, researchers’ analyses (Able & Nelson, 1990) indicate that, in the context of disasters, they demonstrate a pronounced sense of responsibility regarding the commitment and maintenance of necessary supplies crucial for survival in disaster-induced situations. Additionally, men have shown a greater inclination towards taking preventive technical measures and using household protection means against potential natural disasters (Kabir et al., 2022; Szalay, Inn, Vilov, & Strohl, 1996). On the other hand, it can be emphasized that men often largely ignore warnings from relevant state authorities, particularly disregarding warnings from their spouses about natural disasters (Turner, Nigg, & Young, 1981).

In studies dedicated to exploring the relationship between gender and resilience to various natural and human-induced disasters, this topic emerges as an exceedingly timely, intricate, and challenging field of investigation (Combs et al., 2010; Thomas E Drabek, 1969; Ikeda, 1995; Mano-Negrin & Sheaffer, 2004; Mehta, 2007; Mulilis, 1999; Myers, 1994; Norris, 1992; Rodríguez et al., 2009; Rüstemli & Karanci, 1999). These studies indicate a deeper understanding of the threats of natural disasters by women compared to men (Davidson & Freidenburg, 1996; Palm, 1995). Some researchers emphasize the more significant preparedness of women in responding to natural disasters, particularly in terms of their knowledge about them (Mano-Negrin & Sheaffer, 2004; Tomio et al., 2014). Parallel to this, it has been noted that women most often access information about natural disasters through social networks, while official online sources are often not their first choice (Drabek, 1969). There is also a pronounced inequality in the representation of women in formal state organizations responsible for managing emergencies caused by natural disasters, which may be related to gender segregation and discrimination (Noel, 1990; Phillips, 1990).

On the other hand, analyses by researchers (Able & Nelson, 1990) indicate that men, in the context of natural disasters, demonstrate a strong sense of responsibility concerning the dedication and maintenance of necessary supplies crucial for survival. This obligation includes not only material resources such as food, water, and medical supplies but also strategic planning and the implementation of adequate security measures to reduce potential risks and consequences of natural disasters on households and individuals. Men often take an active role in organizing and maintaining supplies, including creating resource reserves to ensure long-term survival in the event of a disaster. Additionally, they are actively engaged in educating others about various safety protocols and disaster preparedness, contributing to raising awareness about the importance of preventive measures.

Their responsibility also involves making timely decisions during disasters, thus contributing to more efficient responses to the challenges that disasters may pose to households or communities (Able & Nelson, 1990). However, it is notable that men frequently ignore warnings from competent state authorities, particularly those issued by their spouses concerning natural disasters (Turner, Nigg, & Young, 1981). Research findings suggest the complexity and multidimensionality of awareness regarding natural disasters and preparedness for them, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of various factors, including gender. Consequently, efforts to develop programs and policies should prioritize promoting gender equality in decision-making processes while fostering awareness of the importance of collective preparedness to establish a more resilient community ready to confront the challenges posed by natural disasters.

 

3.3. The Influence of Age on the Level of Disaster Resilience

 

Regarding age, numerous studies from various fields have confirmed that older citizens exhibit significant readiness to respond to different disasters (Huerta & Horton, 1978; Melick & Logue, 1985; Murphy, 1994; Murrell & Norris, 1984). This underscores the considerable advantages and qualities of older individuals in various aspects of life. These longstanding experiences enrich their perspective, enabling them to analyze situations more quickly and make intelligent decisions. Providing accessibility and support in emergencies could significantly enhance their ability to respond effectively, simultaneously considering their physical needs and limitations (Durkin, Aroni, & Coulson, 1983; Johnson, Johnston, & Peters, 1989).

Enhancing resilience among older adults is promoted by prior life experiences, social networks, and spiritual beliefs (Timalsina & Songwathana, 2020). Elderly individuals in the United States exhibit notably lower levels of readiness for natural disasters compared to younger adults, with age, physical limitations, lower educational attainment, and income level being notable contributors (Al-Rousan, Rubenstein, & Wallace, 2014). Active and well-elderly individuals make a positive contribution to the resilience of communities during crises, indicating their potential as valuable assets for their communities (Cohen et al., 2016). Elderly survivors of Typhoon Haiyan exhibit resilience by demonstrating strength, engaging in self-regulating behaviour, and maintaining a positive mindset (Almazan et al., 2019). In post-disaster settings, individual resilience is adversely affected by factors such as age, health, and social conditions, while being female serves as a protective factor (Liddell & Ferreira, 2019).

 

3.3. The Influence of Education on the Level of Disaster Resilience

 

Engaging in educational initiatives, psychoeducational efforts, and providing parental guidance have the potential to encourage preparedness activities and may impact behaviour in the context of natural disasters (Sakurai & Sato, 2016). In the context of the relationship between education and disaster resilience, the findings of Drzewiecki, Wavering, Milbrath, Freeman, and Lin (2020) study indicated a greater adjusted prevalence odds ratio (POR) of resilience to natural hazard-induced disasters among adults with professional education, in contrast to those with no more than primary education. Feng, Hossain, and Paton (2018) discovered that enhancing disaster resilience within community settings can be achieved by tapping into the informal education derived from everyday activities.

In Thailand, education increases disaster preparedness primarily by influencing social capital and disaster risk perception, whereas this relationship is not observed in the Philippines (Hoffmann & Muttarak, 2017). Education contributes to fostering awareness of disaster safety and resilience from an early age, thereby enhancing community safety and resilience (Nifa, Abbas, Lin, & Othman). Preventive education and community capital are influential factors in disaster resilience, as illustrated in the Cohen-Harris Model of Urban Resilience which integrates efforts from families, organizations, and communities (Hamiel, Wolmer, Spirman, & Laor).

 

3.4. The Impact of Other Factors on the Level of Disaster Resilience

 

In the study of factors influencing household preparedness for disasters in South Korea (Kim & Kim, 2022), a socio-ecological model was developed encompassing measured interpersonal factors (general characteristics, prior disaster experience, anxiety, optimism, disaster risk perception, and disaster preparedness knowledge), institutional factor (field preparedness), community factor (community resilience), public policy factor (government preparedness), and household disaster preparedness. The results of this study indicate that predictors of household disaster preparedness were occupation, economic status, prior disaster experience, anxiety, disaster preparedness knowledge, field preparedness, and community resilience.

Resilience and disaster preparedness represent a complex socio-cognitive perspective continually explored within various scientific studies. Paton’s 2003 study, focusing on identifying and describing variables relevant to enhancing disaster preparedness, emphasizes key aspects in the process of preparing for natural disasters. In the initial phase, motivation for preparation depends on variables such as risk perception, critical awareness, and fear of natural disasters. These variables directly influence individuals’ motivation to engage in preparations (Paton, 2003). Tanaka’s 2005 work, addressing the impact of disaster education on population preparedness, raises questions about the suitability of various educational approaches. The authors analyze the types of education most effective in promoting citizens’ resilience to potential earthquakes. The paper defines a new citizen preparedness index, providing a measure to assess individuals’ level of preparedness for potential disasters (Tanaka, 2005).

On the other hand, Matsuda and Okada (2006) present a community diagnosis method aiming to enhance preparedness for natural disasters. Their research emphasizes individuals’ understanding of the importance of personal preparedness and highlights the necessity of a diagnostic approach in implementing preventive measures at the community level (Matsuda & Okada, 2006). Subsequently, Kapucu approaches the topic of household preparedness for disaster response and explores the role of non-profit organizations in enhancing citizens’ preparedness. The study reveals that although residents feel prepared, they are actually poorly prepared for disasters (Kapucu, 2008). Miceli and colleagues delve into researching citizens’ preparedness for floods. Their results show that residents are fairly well-prepared, and analyses indicate a positive correlation between disaster preparedness and risk perception (Miceli, Sotgiu, & Settanni, 2008).

Dooley and colleagues investigate the relationship between earthquake concern and community preparedness, confirming that a high level of concern increases readiness for this type of disaster (Dooley, Catalano, Mishra, & Serxner, 1992). Certain authors explore factors contributing to the overall low level of preparedness among residents who have experienced the aftermath of earthquakes, identifying social roles and discussions within informal networks as key indicators (Heller, Alexander, Gatz, Knight, & Rose, 2005). Russell and colleagues examine the current level of preparedness among residents of Los Angeles and San Francisco, analyzing changes following the 1971 Sylmar earthquake. The results reveal that residents are rarely prepared for certain aspects of disasters, such as storing food and water (Russell, Goltz, & Bourque, 1995). Mullis and colleagues apply the motivational protection theory to investigate the consequences of negative threats on citizens’ earthquake preparedness. Their results show that manipulation of negative threats significantly influences changes in individuals’ behavior and preparedness (Mulilis, Duval, & Lippa, 1990).

The last decade has brought new research approaching household and community disaster preparedness. Tomio and colleagues explore determinants of preparedness among residents in a Japanese city at both household and local community levels. Their results reveal insufficient levels of preparedness, particularly highlighting the association of individual preparedness with length of residency, marital status, and presence of older family members at the local community level (Tomio et al., 2014). Some authors address the issue of low preparedness among at-risk populations, examining demographic and psychological indicators of two aspects of earthquake preparedness. The results indicate significant psychological indicators, such as readiness to accept risk and perception of control, as key factors (Spittal, McClure, Siegert, & Walkey, 2008a).

Certain authors, such as Lindell and Perry, approach the topic of household adaptation to earthquake hazards, by reviewing previous research and emphasizing the need for improvement in analytical tools and theoretical aspects (Lindell & Perry, 2000). Finally, Spittal and colleagues consider the crucial role of preparedness as a dependent variable in studies of people’s response to natural disasters, especially earthquakes. The authors highlight the neglect of psychometric issues in the construction of preparedness measures and develop a reliable scale assessing individuals’ level of preparedness for potential disasters (Spittal, McClure, Siegert, & Walkey, 2008b; Spittal, Walkey, McClure, Siegert, & Ballantyne, 2006). This comprehensive analysis of existing research indicates a wide range of factors influencing disaster preparedness, from risk perception and fear to social networks and psychological indicators. Insights from these studies provide valuable understanding of the complexity of this societal phenomenon, opening avenues for further research and development of effective strategies to enhance citizen preparedness at a global level.

Numerous studies from various fields have confirmed that older adults demonstrate significant readiness to respond to various disasters (Huerta & Horton, 1978; Melick & Logue, 1985; Murphy, 1994; Murrell & Norris, 1984). This underscores the significant advantages and qualities of older individuals in various aspects of life. It can be assumed that older adults often possess rich experience and accumulated knowledge from different periods of their lives. These lifelong experiences enrich their perspective and enable them to analyze situations more quickly and efficiently, leading to intelligent decision-making. The ability to delve beneath the surface and grasp the essence of a problem is an important aspect of older individuals. Additionally, older adults often develop exceptional emotional intelligence. This aspect is crucial for successfully navigating complex social situations and interpersonal relationships. Their ability to recognize and understand emotions, both their own and others, enables them to be better communicators and mediators in times of conflict. Furthermore, older adults typically develop greater tolerance and willingness to cooperate.

Experience and lifelong learning have made them capable of appreciating diversity and different perspectives. They also possess well-developed problem-solving skills. Experience enables them to apply deep and complex analyses in addressing challenges. These skills can be useful in numerous contexts, whether resolving family issues, tackling business challenges, or addressing societal problems.

Despite older adults’ ability to respond better in disaster situations, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that they experience more serious consequences due to physical frailty that comes with age. Physical ageing can lead to various challenges, some of which may affect older adults’ ability to react effectively in certain situations. Physical weakness can limit their mobility and reaction speed. Slower movement and longer response times can be factors affecting the speed of their response in disaster conditions. This is an important aspect that requires additional attention and support from the environment, as well as society as a whole.

Furthermore, such type of physical weakness can lead to an increased risk of falls and injuries. Older individuals may have compromised balance and coordination, contributing to the possibility of accidents and injuries. In various disaster scenarios, reaction speed has been shown to be crucial in avoiding injuries and ensuring safety in most situations. Chronic illnesses and health issues can limit their capacity to respond in such disasters. Providing appropriate medical support and care is necessary to minimize the impact of physical weakness on their ability to react. It is highly important to raise awareness about the need for adapted programs and services that take into account the physical limitations of older individuals. Ensuring accessibility and support in emergency situations could significantly enhance their ability to respond effectively, while simultaneously considering their physical needs and limitations (Durkin, Aroni, & Coulson, 1983; Johnson, Johnston, & Peters, 1989).

4. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCHING DISASTER RESILIENCE

4.1. Research Issue and Questions

 

The research aims to investigate how socio-economic factors, including income, employment status, marital status, education, and risk perception, in conjunction with specific demographic characteristics such as gender and age, collectively influence a society’s resilience in effectively responding to various natural disasters. Understanding the interplay of these factors is crucial for mitigating material and human losses, safeguarding lives and assets, and expediting recovery post-disaster.

The study will delve into several demographic dimensions, including gender, age, income level, educational attainment, employment status, and marital status, as well as other demographic factors such as household size, location (urban/rural), and ethnicity, to comprehensively assess their impact on societal resilience to natural disasters. Key research questions guiding this investigation include:

  1. How do socio-economic factors, such as income and education, influence individuals’ preparedness and response to natural disasters across different demographic groups?
  2. What role does risk perception play in shaping community resilience, and how does it vary across demographic subgroups?
  3. Are there significant differences in resilience levels among demographic subgroups based on gender, age, marital status, employment status, household size, location, and ethnicity?
  4. How do demographic characteristics interact with socio-economic factors to either enhance or impede community resilience to natural disasters?
  5. What strategies can be developed to address the vulnerabilities identified within specific demographic groups and promote overall societal preparedness for natural disasters?

By exploring these questions and analyzing the complex dynamics between socio-economic and demographic factors, the research aims to provide insights that can inform the development of targeted interventions and policies aimed at enhancing community resilience and reducing the impact of natural disasters.

Societal resilience to these disasters represents a key factor in reducing material and human losses, protecting lives and assets, and facilitating swift recovery post-disaster. Through the analysis of these factors, the research will focus on identifying key elements that contribute to or constrain the resilience of the community, aiming to provide information that can support the development of effective strategies for risk management and enhance overall societal preparedness for natural disasters.

 

4.2. Research Subject

 

The research will focus on analyzing and understanding the impact of socio-economic factors (income, employment status, marital status, education, risk perception) and specific demographic factors (gender, age) on the ability of the community to cope with various natural disasters. The resilience of society to natural disasters is a key factor in reducing damages, protecting lives and property, as well as in the swift recovery after the disaster.

This research employed a comprehensive quantitative methods approach to investigate community (social) disaster resilience in Serbia, with a particular focus on demographic and socio-economic impacts (Figure 1). The survey was carried out utilising a questionnaire distributed and subsequently collected online from 321 participants during January 2024. The participants were invited to engage with the online questionnaire in their native language through the implementation of the snowball sampling method. This method involved initial participants recruiting others within their network, creating a chain reaction that contributed to the diverse pool of respondents. The central hypothesis focuses on the extent to which age, education and gender may predict the community (social) disaster resilience in the Serbia model (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, and social belief).

Figure 1. Research design of community (social) disaster resilience model. Source (Cvetković & Šišović, 2024)

 

4.3. Disciplinary Determination of the Research Subject

 

The research, by its nature and subject, is related to several scientific fields. The study analyzes communities, socio-economic factors, and their relationship with resilience. A sociological approach enables a better understanding of social interactions and relationships among community members. Analysis of socio-economic factors is directly related to the economic aspects of research, including resource access and development level.

Studying natural disasters and their effects on societies is linked to the discipline of disaster geography. This field examines the spatial and temporal aspects of disasters and their connection to socio-economic factors. Additionally, the research fits into the field of risk and disaster management, which focuses on risk reduction strategies, resilience building, and effective disaster management. Given the complexity of the topic, the research may adopt an interdisciplinary approach and integrate elements from various disciplines to better understand the issue.

 

4.4. Hypothetical Research Framework

 

The paper starts from the general hypothesis that there is a statistically significant correlation between demographic and socio-economic factors and societal resilience to disasters.

Firstly, the central hypothesis was tested, which aimed to determine whether gender, age, and educational level could predict community (social) disaster resilience (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and social belief) in Serbia. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the extent to which five scores of the subscales (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and social belief) were associated with eight demographic and socio-economic variables: gender, age, education level, marital status, employment status, monthly income, property ownership, household members (Figure 1). Analyses showed that the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homogeneity of variance had not been violated.

 

4.5. Research Objective

 

The scientific aim of the research entails a scientific description of the impact of socio-economic and demographic factors on the level of resilience of societal communities to disasters. This scientific description aims to investigate the complex relationships between these factors and society’s ability to adequately cope with disasters, protecting its population and infrastructure. The social goal of the research concerns establishing an index of societal resilience to disasters with the aim of providing specific recommendations for its enhancement.

Setting specific criteria for the development of this index will provide detailed insights into various aspects of resilience, enabling other researchers to analyze data and arrive at objective conclusions. Through this research, the intention is to develop a comprehensive index that will serve as a useful tool for assessing and improving the resilience of societal communities to disasters in Serbia.

 

4.6. Social and Scientific Justification of the Research

 

The social and scientific justification of the research is evident in the significance of this research endeavor at academic, practical, and societal levels. At the academic level, it can be emphasized that the research contributes to understanding the complex relationships between socio-economic factors and society’s ability to effectively cope with natural disasters. Building a theoretical framework and creating models will be enabled by the analysis of these factors, allowing for a deeper understanding of the interactions and impacts of the variables under consideration.

The scientific justification of this research stems from the unequivocal need to recognize and understand the factors contributing to society’s resilience to disasters. Identifying these factors provides a basis for further research and the development of strategies to enhance the ability of societal communities to adequately confront various disasters. All of this contributes to the development of the scientific discipline of risk management in emergencies.

From a societal perspective, the mentioned research is of great importance as it directly addresses issues of safety, and protection of human lives, and property, thus contributing to the improvement of societal prosperity. Taken comprehensively, it can be said that understanding socio-economic factors in the context of disasters contributes to easier and faster creation of policies, programs, and interventions aimed at reducing vulnerability, and inequality, and enhancing overall societal resilience.

 

4.7. Research Methods

 

In the framework of the envisaged study, a comprehensive approach was adopted, incorporating both primary and secondary data sources. The secondary data pool comprised insights gleaned from a thorough review of domestic and international literature. Conversely, primary data were procured through the administration of surveys utilizing an electronic questionnaire meticulously crafted and validated to serve the specific objectives of the research. A diverse arsenal of statistical techniques, spanning both parametric and non-parametric methodologies, was deployed for the meticulous analysis of the amassed data. Within the realm of descriptive statistics, a meticulous synthesis of all findings was undertaken, facilitating a succinct and transparent portrayal of the dataset. Conversely, the inferential statistical analyses delved deeper into the nuanced dynamics, seeking to elucidate the intricate interplay between various socio-economic factors and the resilience of society in the face of disasters.

The utilization of primary and secondary data streams represents a holistic approach, enriching the study’s scope and depth. By drawing upon existing research findings, the study anchored itself within the broader scholarly discourse, while the collection of primary data through tailored surveys ensured the attainment of insights tailored to the specific research inquiries. This multi-pronged data collection strategy not only enhances the robustness of the study but also imbues it with a nuanced understanding of the subject matter.

The employment of an electronic questionnaire for primary data collection underscores the study’s embrace of modern methodologies, leveraging technology to streamline the data-gathering process while ensuring reliability and validity. This methodological rigour is further underscored by the meticulous testing and validation procedures employed in the development of the questionnaire, mitigating potential biases and enhancing the credibility of the findings. The adoption of various statistical techniques for data analysis reflects a nuanced approach, catering to the diverse nature of the dataset and the intricacies of the research questions at hand. Descriptive statistics provide a comprehensive overview, distilling complex data into digestible insights, while inferential statistics furnish deeper insights into the underlying relationships and dynamics, shedding light on the determinants of societal resilience to disasters.

 

4.8. Study Area

 

The geographical expanse of the Republic of Serbia covers 88,499 square kilometres, positioning it at the intersection of central and south-eastern Europe within the Southern Pannonian Plain and the central Balkans. It shares borders with Hungary to the north, Romania to the northeast, Bulgaria to the southeast, North Macedonia to the south, Montenegro to the southwest, and Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to the west (Figure 2).

Between the 1970s and 2002, Serbia experienced approximately 5000 disasters and according to data from UNOCHA’s Reliefweb, floods were the most frequent disasters, with fifteen catastrophic floods occurring between 1988 and 2014 (Cvetković et al., 2021). From 2007 to 2016, Serbia witnessed around 20 disasters, resulting in 90 fatalities, 620 injuries, displacement of 1470 individuals, and material damage estimated at 2 million dollars (Cvetković, Öcal, & Ivanov, 2019). Serbia is situated in a region with moderate seismic activity, characterized by varying seismic intensity, frequency, and magnitude of earthquakes. The distribution of epicentres is irregular, posing challenges in identifying seismically active faults (Ocal, Cvetković, Baytiyeh, Tedim, & Zečević, 2020).

Historically, stronger earthquakes (with intensities of VIII–IX) were documented in locations including Rudnik, Lazarevac, Juhor, Krupanj, Jagodina, and Vitina from 1900 to 1970. However, since 1970, only three moderate-intensity earthquakes have been recorded in Kopaonik (a mountain), Mionica, and Trstenik (Marovic et al., 2002). Referring to official data sourced from the Emergency Situations Department of Serbia, there was a 50% increase in the number of fires in 2017 compared to the corresponding period in the preceding year. Additionally, as per the records maintained by the Directorate for Fire-Rescue Units of the Sector for Emergency Situations, spanning from 2012 to 2022, Serbia witnessed 38,279 residential fires.

Within these incidents, 665 individuals lost their lives, 1747 sustained injuries, and 2134 were successfully rescued (Cvetković et al., 2022a). For a comparative perspective over the years in the mentioned timeframe, the situation unfolded as follows (number of fires/deaths): 2012 (946/7), 2013 (836/6), 2014 (887/8), 2015 (827/5), 2016 (872/10), 2017 (899/18), 2018 (842/14), 2019 (796/10), 2020 (842/23), and 2021 (828/21) (V. M. Cvetković et al., 2022a). According to the National Strategy for Protection and Rescue (“Official Gazette of RS,” No. 86/2011 of November 18, 2011), Serbia experienced around 134,686 fires from 2003 to 2011. Notably, in 2020, fires in housing units claimed the lives of 51 individuals across Serbia. The Ministry of Interior reported that fire and rescue services conducted over 4000 interventions, with more than 3000 specifically addressing fire incidents.

Figure 2. Study area. Location of Serbia. Source (Cvetković & Šišović, 2024)

 

4.9. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics

 

The initial call to participate in an online survey was disseminated through social media platforms and distributed among the authors’ network and their connections. The respondents in this study, totalling 321 individuals, exhibit a diverse distribution across a range of socio-economic and demographic factors. In terms of gender, the sample comprises 32.7% male and 67.3% female participants. Age-wise, the distribution is as follows: 12.1% are up to 20 years old, 51.4% fall within the 20-30 age range, 12.1% are between 30-40 years old, another 12.1% are aged 40-50, and the remaining 12.1% are over 50. Educationally, the respondents vary widely: 7.1% completed primary school, 39.2% finished secondary school, 9.3% pursued higher education, 28.0% earned a bachelor’s degree, 14.6% achieved a master’s degree, and 1.5% attained a doctorate. Regarding marital status, 26.1% of respondents are single, 34.5% are in a relationship, 5.6% are engaged, 27.1% are married, and 6.5% are divorced. In terms of employment, 52.3% are employed, 39.2% are unemployed, and 8.4% are retired. Regarding ownership of property, 52.9% have personal ownership, 34.2% own property as a family member, and 12.7% rent their residence.

Household income distribution is as follows: 17.8% earn less than the average, 50.5% have an average income of 700 EUR, and 29.9% earn above average. The number of household members is varied, with 0.9% having up to 1 member, 17.8% having up to 2 members, 66.4% having up to 5 members, and 15% having over 5 members. Volunteering is prevalent among 53.2% of respondents, while 46.8% do not engage in volunteer activities. This comprehensive overview offers valuable insights into the socio-economic and demographic composition of the sample, providing a nuanced understanding of the surveyed population’s characteristics (Table 1).

Table 1. Basic socio-economic and demographic information of respondents (n = 321).

Variable Category Frequency %
Gender Male 105 32.7
Female 216 67.3
Age Up to 20

20-30

30-40

40-50

Over 50

39

165

39

39

39

12.1

51.4

12.1

12.1

12.1

Education Primary school

Secondary school

Higher education

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree

Doctorate

23

126

30

90

47

5

7.1

39.2

9.3

28.0

14.6

1.5

Marital status Single

In a relationship

Engaged

Married

Divorced

84

111

18

87

21

26.1

34.5

5.6

27.1

6.5

Employment Employed

Unemployed

Retired

168

126

27

52.3

39.2

8.4

Ownership of property Personal ownership

Family member’s ownership

Rented

170

110

41

52.9

34.2

12.7

Household income Less than average

On average (700 EUR)

Above average

57

162

96

17.8

50.5

29.9

Number of household members Up to 1 member

Up to 2 members

Up to 5 members

Over 5 members

3

57

213

48

0.9

17.8

66.4

15

Volunteering Yes

No

171

150

53.2

46.8

 

4.10. Questionnaire Design

 

The study employed an adapted version of the ‘5S’ social resilience framework (Saja et al., 2018), encompassing five sub-dimensions – social structure (10 variables), social capital (9 variables), social mechanisms (17 variables), social equity and diversity (13 variables), and social belief (13 variables). This customized framework includes 62 indicators, providing a thorough assessment of community (social) disaster resilience in the research context. The questionnaire examined citizens’ fundamental socio-economic and demographic characteristics, their attitudes towards the mentioned five sub-dimensions, as well as their engagement in preventive measures and their perception of resilience to various disasters.

A meticulously designed survey instrument was crafted, incorporating a combination of closed-ended queries and a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The initial segment of the questionnaire was dedicated to capturing the socio-demographic profile of the participants, thereby delving into the social context and gender distribution among respondents. Following this, subsequent sections of the questionnaire delved into a myriad of topics, encompassing inquiries about social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity, and social beliefs. This thoughtful approach aimed to comprehensively explore and analyze various facets of the social landscape, providing a nuanced understanding of the factors contributing to community (social) disaster resilience (Appendix A).

We referred to various published survey methodologies (Alshehri, Rezgui, & Li, 2015; Bronfman et al., 2023; Drzewiecki et al., 2020; Leykin et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2023; Ostadtaghizadeh et al., 2015; Pfefferbaum et al., 2016; Qasim et al., 2016; Renschler et al., 2010; Saja et al., 2018; Tariq et al., 2021) and modified them to suit the context of community (social) disaster resilience in Serbia.

A preliminary questionnaire test was carried out in Belgrade (central Serbia) in December 2023, involving 35 individuals, to assess the clarity and effectiveness of the questionnaire through online systems. Our study adhered to the principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration, which provides guidelines for socio-medical research involving human subjects.

Participants gave informed consent before participating in the study. The research protocol received approval from the Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management’s scientific research group review board, ID – 01012024.

 

4.11. Analyses

 

To explore the relationship between predictors and community (social) disaster resilience in Serbia, with a particular focus on demographic and socio-economic impacts, statistical methods including t-tests, one-way ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, and multivariate linear regression were employed. As the initial homogeneity test for variance indicated a violation of the assumption of homogenous variance, the results from two tests—Welsh and Brown–Forsythe—that are robust to the violation of this assumption were considered. The preliminary analysis revealed the application of the same test.

All tests were two-tailed, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS statistics (IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 26, New York, NY, USA). The internal consistency of Likert scales for the Social Structure Subscale (10 variables) is good with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81, Social Capital Subscale (9 variables) 0.84, Social Mechanisms Subscale (17 variables) 0.85, Social Equity Subsale (13 variables) 0.87, and Social Belief Subscale (13 variables) 0.87.

 

 

5. RESULTS RESEARCH

5.1. The predictors of community disaster resilience

 

Firstly, the central hypothesis was tested, which aimed to determine whether gender, age, and educational level could predict community (social) disaster resilience (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and social belief) in Serbia. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the extent to which five scores of the subscales (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and social belief) were associated with eight demographic and socio-economic variables: gender, age, education level, marital status, employment status, monthly income, property ownership, household members (Figure 3). Analyses showed that the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homogeneity of variance had not been violated.

 

The results of the multivariate regressions for the social structure subscale show that the most significant predictor is age (β = 0.22), explaining 3.61% of the variance in social structure. This is followed by marital status (β = 0.18, 2.25%), employment status (β = 0.15, 1.69%), and gender (β = 0.13, 1.44%). The remaining variables (e.g., education level, income, property ownership, and household members) were not significantly affected by social structure. This model (R2 = 0.09, Adj. R2 = 0.07, F = 4.22, t = 21.5, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 7% variance of social structure (Table 2).

Table 2. Results of a multivariate regression analysis concerning subscales (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, and social belief) for community (social) disaster resilience (n = 321).

Predictor

variable

Social

Structure

Social

Capital

Social

Mechanisms

Social

Equity-Diversity

Social

Beliefs

B SE β B SE β B SE β B SE β B SE β
Gender 0.262 0.114 0.130* 0.558 0.099 0.282** 0.262 0.115 0.129* 0.184 0.117 0.091 0.186 0.113 0.096
Age 0.646 0.182 0.223** 0.349 0.157 0.123* 0.243 0.182 0.083 0.038 0.186 0.013 0.220 0.180 0.079
Education 0.079 0.115 0.039 -0.824 0.099 -0.410** 0.176 0.115 0.085 0.167 0.118 0.081 -0.003 0.114 -0.002
Marital status 0.385 0.135 0.181* 0.520 0.117 0.249** 0.128 0.136 0.060 0.038 0.138 0.018 0.230 0.134 0.112
Employment -0.291 0.123 -0.154* -0.072 0.106 -0.038** -0.425 0.123 -0.222** -0.258 0.126 -0.136* -0.167 0.121 -0.091
Income -0.038 0.137 -0.015 -0.026 0.118 -0.011 -0.297 0.137 -0.119* -0.179 0.140 -0.072 -0.187 0.135 -0.078
Ownership -0.066 0.141 -0.027 -0.646 0.122 -0.266** -0.185 0.142 -0.074 -0.173 0.145 -0.070 -0.327 0.140 -0.137*
Members 0.045 0.331 0.008 1.214 0.286 0.216** -0.275 0.332 -0.048 -0.681 0.339 -0.118* -0.409 0.327 -0.074
Adjusted R2 0.075 0.289 0.087 0.045 0.039

*p≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; B: unstandardized (B) coefficients; SE: std. error; β: standardized (β) coefficients. Note: twenty years old, secondary school education, married, employed, below the average income of 700 EUR, property owner, up to 2 members have been coded as 1; 0 has been assigned otherwise.

 

Additional analyses revealed that the most significant predictor of social capital subscale was education (β = -0.41), explaining 15.21% of the variance in social capital. This is followed by gender (β = 0.28, 6.76%), property ownership (β = -0.26, 6.25%), marital status (β = 0.24, 4.41%), and number of household members (β = 0.21, 4.01%), and age (β = 0.27, 1.01%). The monthly income was not significantly affected by social capital. This model (R2 = 0.30, Adj. R2 = 0.28, F = 17.13, t = 28.58, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 28% variance of social capital (Table 2).

 

Regarding social mechanisms, analyses revealed that the most significant predictor was employment status (β = 0.41), explaining 4.84% of the variance in social mechanisms. This is followed by gender (β = 0.12, 1.22%), and income level (β = -0.11, 1.19%). The remaining variables were not significantly affected by social mechanisms. This model (R2 = 0.11, Adj. R2 = 0.08, F = 4.79, t = 24.95, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 8% variance of social mechanisms (Table 2).

 

Further analyses revealed that the most significant predictor of social equity and diversity subscale was employment status (β = 0.13), explaining 1.21% of the variance in social equity and diversity. This is followed by the number of household members (β = 0.11, 1.02%). The remaining variables were not significantly affected by social equity and diversity. This model (R2 = 0.06, Adj. R2 = 0.04, F = 2.70, t = 24.86, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 4% variance of social equity and diversity (Table 2 and Figure 4).

Figure 4. The predictors of community (social) disaster resilience.

 

Furthermore, analyses revealed that the most significant predictor of the social beliefs subscale was property ownership (β = -0.13), explaining 1.39% of the variance in social beliefs. The remaining variables were not significantly affected by social beliefs. This model (R2 = 0.06, Adj. R2 = 0.03, F = 2.59, t = 26.18, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 3% variance of social beliefs (Table 2).

5.2. Perception of preventive measures and disaster resilience

 

The following results present scale ratings for disaster preventive measures and disaster resilience levels, assessed on a scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high), based on responses from a total of 321 participants (Table 3). Regarding that, participants perceive a relatively high level of preventive measures (M = 3.50), indicating a strong awareness and proactive approach toward epidemic-related disasters. The perception of society’s resilience (M = 3.06) remains positive but slightly lower than preventive measures. On the other side, respondents express a notable emphasis on preventive measures (M = 3.13) for disasters related to extreme temperatures. The perception of society’s resilience (M = 2.95) is also relatively high, suggesting confidence in dealing with temperature-related challenges. For storms, participants show a moderate focus on preventive measures (M = 3.01). The perception of society’s resilience (M = 2.89) is in line with the preventive measures, indicating a balanced perspective on dealing with storm-related disasters (Table 3).

 

Similar to storms, respondents demonstrate a moderate emphasis on preventive measures (M = 3.01) for forest fires. The perception of society’s resilience (M = 2.82) is slightly lower but still suggests a reasonable level of confidence. For floods, participants prioritize preventive measures (M = 2.95), and the perception of society’s resilience (M = 2.82) aligns closely. This indicates a proactive stance and confidence in managing flood-related disasters. The focus on preventive measures (M = 2.67) for drought is moderate, and the perception of society’s resilience (M = 2.77) is in a similar range. This suggests a balanced approach to addressing challenges related to drought. For earthquakes, preventive measures (M = 2.90) show a moderate emphasis, and the perception of society’s resilience (M = 2.66) aligns closely. This indicates a cautious but relatively confident approach to earthquake-related disasters (Table 3).

 

On the other side, participants express a relatively lower emphasis on preventive measures for tsunamis (M = 1.63) and avalanches (M = 1.66). Also, the perception of society’s resilience for tsunamis (M = 2.19) and avalanches (M = 2.25) is slightly higher but remains relatively lower compared to other disaster types such as floods. For landslides, preventive measures (M = 2.19) are lower, and the perception of society’s resilience (M = 2.50) aligns with this trend. This suggests a less proactive stance toward landslide-related disasters. In the end, participants assign the lowest priority to preventive measures (M = 1.67) for volcanic eruptions, and the perception of society’s resilience (M = 2.23) is also relatively lower. This indicates a lower level of perceived preparedness for volcanic eruption-related disasters (Table 3).

Table 3. Scale ratings for disaster preventive measures, and disaster resilience levels (1 – very low, 5 – very high) (n = 321).

Disaster type Preventive measures for disasters Perception of society’s disaster resilience
M SD M SD
Earthquake 2.90 1.169 2.66 1.151
Landslides 2.19 1.151 2.50 1.071
Volcanic eruptions 1.67 1.085 2.23 1.308
Floods 2.95 1.251 2.82 1.185
Tsunamis 1.63 1.095 2.19 1.358
Avalanches 1.66 1.045 2.25 1.293
Drought 2.67 1.305 2.77 1.252
Extreme temper. 3.13 1.185 2.95 1.212
Storms 3.01 1.254 2.89 1.178
Epidemics 3.50 1.281 3.06 1.241
Forest fires 3.01 1.282 2.82 1.207

 

Further analysis showed that preventive measures are most commonly taken in the face of the hazards of epidemics (M = 3.50), extreme temperatures (M = 3.13), and storms (M = 3.01). This indicates a high level of awareness and a proactive approach to risks associated with epidemics, extreme temperatures, and storms.

 

The perception of society’s resilience is highest in the face of the hazards of epidemics (M = 3.06), followed by extreme temperatures (M = 2.95), and drought (M = 2.77). Respondents express a relatively high level of confidence in society’s ability to cope with epidemics, extreme temperatures, and drought (Table 3 and Figure 4).

 

Figure 5. Scale ratings for disaster preventive measures and disaster resilience levels.

 

On the other hand, the hazards of volcanic eruptions (M = 1.67), landslides (M = 2.19), and tsunamis (M = 1.63) show lower priorities in taking preventive measures, and the perception of society’s resilience is also lower in these cases. This indicates the need for additional efforts in raising awareness and preparedness for these specific types of hazards. This analysis reveals variations in the approach to taking preventive measures and the perception of society’s resilience depending on the type of natural hazard. Identifying these differences can serve as a basis for further planning and implementing interventions to enhance preventive strategies and strengthen overall societal resilience to various hazards (Table 3 and Figure 4).

 

5.3. Sustainable Development of Community (Social) Disaster Resilience Framework

 

In the continuation of the research on social resilience to disasters, participants were asked to objectively assess various attitudes regarding key dimensions of society, including social structure, capital, mechanisms, equality, and beliefs. The obtained attitude scores reflect their perceptions towards these crucial aspects that significantly influence the preparation and response to disasters, consequently impacting the societal resilience to disasters in Serbia. The mean values that were obtained for these subscales indicate that participants gave the highest ratings to beliefs within the social beliefs category (M = 2.76), while the lowest values were recorded in the social structure category (M = 2.46). Following this, the ratings for social equity and diversity (M = 2.66), social capital (M = 2.65), and social mechanisms (M = 2.59) are shown in Figure 5.

 

Figure 6. The mean values of the subscales (structure, capital, mechanisms, equality, and diversity, beliefs) of social resilience to disasters.

Regarding the assessment of social structure (M = 2.46), 10 attitudes were analyzed. According to the obtained results, the development of response services in disasters by different first responders received the highest rating (M = 2.93). This rating may indicate a level of trust in the work of such services and their readiness to assist with disasters. The second-rated attitude (M = 2.81) pertains to the level of leadership development in the community. Participants indicate a positive attitude towards the quality of leadership within the community, which could have an impact on effective management in various disasters. In the third place, the collaboration of local authorities with different entities relevant to preventive measures against disasters was evaluated (M = 2.61) (Table 4).

 

On the contrary, the lowest-rated attitudes were the development of financial resources for disaster management purposes (M = 2.24), the development of technological resources for disaster management purposes (M = 2.34), and the level of development of human resources for disaster management purposes (M = 2.37). Participants believe that there is room for improvement in financial resources for protection and rescue, indicating a lack of such funds and effective financial strategies for disaster management. Additionally, there is a clear emphasis on the need to enhance technological resources in all phases of disaster management.

 

Moreover, although a slightly higher rating was recorded, this also points to the need for an improvement in the development of human resources to improve the preparation for, mitigation of, response to, and recovery from disasters. Certainly, this may involve improving human resource management policies regarding the additional hiring, training, and further development of skilled personnel (Table 4). The analysis of attitudes regarding social structure shows that participants have a positive attitude towards the development of response services and leadership in the community while recognizing the need for improvements in financial, technological, and human resources. Also, the identified mean values indicate an overall neutral stance of the community towards the issues of disaster preparedness and response.

Table 4. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards social structure.

Attitudes M (SD)
Organization and structuring of the local community for disaster response 2.51 (1.08)
Access to essential services such as health, education, and social assistance 2.62 (1.14)
Quality of regulatory governance in disaster management 2.54 (1.11)
Quality of risk assessment and developed plans for protection and rescue 2.50 (1.16)
Level of development of human resources in society for protection and rescue 2.37 (1.05)
Level of development of financial resources in society for protection and rescue 2.24 (1.12)
Level of development of technological resources in society for protection 2.34 (1.00)
Collaboration of local authorities with all relevant entities 2.61 (1.08)
Development of response services in disasters—police, firefighting, etc. 2.93 (1.13)
Developed leadership in the community 2.81 (1.07)

 

Through further analysis, participants’ attitudes towards social capital (M = 2.65) were examined, encompassing nine attitudes. The obtained results indicate that the highest-rated attitude pertains to the “Level of mutual trust and support within the community” (M = 2.88). Such a result suggests a high level of mutual trust and support within the community, indicating a prerequisite for strong interpersonal bonds and a positive social environment. In second place, participants rated the “Existence and strength of social networks and connections” (M = 2.80) highly. This aspect, with a high rating, points to the existence of strong social networks, reflecting a robust interconnectedness among community members. In third place was the “Level of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses” (M = 3.10). The obtained value reflects a high degree of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses, which is significant for broader social connectivity (Table 5).

 

Conversely, the lowest-rated aspect concerns the “Existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness involving various socio-economic groups” (M = 2.42). The obtained result indicates that participants have a more negative attitude towards the existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness that involve various socio-economic groups. The second-lowest-rated attitude pertains to “Participation in volunteer activities and community projects” (M = 2.47).

 

This value unequivocally suggests that participants perceive a lower level of engagement in volunteer activities and various community projects. Of course, this may indicate the need for further encouragement of greater involvement in various volunteer activities and initiatives. In third place, the lowest-rated attitude concerns the “Strength of family ties and interactions within the community” (M = 2.43). Therefore, the strength of family ties and interactions within the community is at a lower level, which could negatively impact society’s resilience to disasters (Table 5).

 

Overall, the ratings show that participants perceive a high level of mutual trust and support, strong social networks and connections, and a high degree of interaction and collaboration with other communities. On the other hand, volunteer activities and projects received lower ratings, indicating potential room for improvement in encouraging community involvement. Mean values suggest a generally neutral stance towards dialogue with authorities, the involvement of different social groups in decision-making during disasters, and the existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness involving various socio-economic groups.

Table 5. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards social capital.

Attitudes M (SD)
Level of mutual trust and support within the community 2.88 (1.11)
Existence and strength of social networks and connections 2.80 (1.11)
Participation in volunteer activities and community projects 2.47 (1.03)
Regular dialogue and collaboration between local communities and authorities 2.48 (1.08)
Involvement of different social groups in decision-making and planning 2.53 (1.07)
The existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness 2.42 (1.09)
The existence and strength of economic cooperation between different groups 2.58 (1.14)
Level of interaction and collaboration with other communities and organiz. 3.10 (1.22)
Strength of family ties and interactions within the community 2.43 (1.17)

 

An analysis of the survey results regarding participants’ attitudes towards social mechanisms (M = 2.59) indicates that the highest-rated attitude is “Active community involvement in the implementation of disaster protection and preparedness measures” (M = 2.81). This value reflects the active engagement of the community in implementing protective and preparatory measures for disasters. The high rating suggests a positive attitude towards the active role the community plays in enhancing resilience and safety. In the second place is the “Level of flexibility and adaptability in dealing with unforeseen situations” (M = 2.72). Participants highlight the community’s high adaptability to unforeseen situations, which can be crucial for effective responses in disasters. In third place is the “Development of disaster insurance” (M = 2.71). Recognizing the importance of insurance indicates the community’s awareness of the necessity of financial protection in disasters (Table 6).

 

On the other hand, the lowest-rated aspect is “Household preparedness for disasters” (M = 2.39). This value suggests lower perceptions of household readiness to cope with disasters. For this reason, continuous efforts are needed to strengthen and improve household preparedness for disasters. The second-lowest-rated attitude is “Perception of disaster risks” (M = 2.40). This result indicates lower levels of perception of disaster risks, emphasizing the need to increase the awareness of potential dangers to enhance overall preparedness. Additionally, a lower level of citizen awareness of disaster risks (M = 2.48) is identified. This rating suggests that citizens may not have a sufficient level of awareness of potential disaster risks (Table 6).

 

The high values obtained for active community involvement, flexibility, adaptability, and the development of disaster insurance indicate a positive attitude towards specific social mechanisms. Conversely, the low ratings obtained for household preparedness, perception of risks, and citizen awareness suggest the need for a stronger focus on these aspects to improve overall community preparedness. The mean values also suggest a neutral stance towards education, cultural diversity, and citizen awareness of risks, indicating areas for further reflection and improvement.

 

Table 6. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards social mechanisms.

 

Attitudes M (SD)
Education and training for emergencies 2.66 (1.18)
Understanding and respecting cultural diversity 2.67 (1.17)
Level of personal and collective responsibility

towards community resilience

2.44 (1.08)
Community preparedness for disasters 2.48 (1.12)
Household preparedness for disasters 2.39 (1.12)
Perception of disaster risks 2.40 (1.14)
Implementation of campaigns to enhance disaster preparedness 2.46 (1.15)
Application of special measures to protect critical infrastructure 2.47 (1.13)
Citizen awareness of disaster risks 2.48 (1.20)
Capability of rapid evacuation and the existence of shelters 2.50 ()
The prompt decision-making ability of relevant institutions 2.63 (1.13)
Active community involvement in the implementation

of measures

2.81 (1.07)
Level of faith and optimism in the community’s

ability to face disasters

2.70 (1.03)
Level of flexibility and adaptability in dealing

with unforeseen situations

2.72 (1.18)
Collective willingness to learn from previous disasters 2.59 (1.15)
Effectiveness of early warning and people’s notification systems 2.62 (1.21)
Development of disaster insurance 2.71 (1.16)

 

Further analysis of the survey results regarding participants’ attitudes towards social equity and diversity (M = 2.66) reveals that the highest-rated attitude is related to the “Level of availability and access to key resources (water, food, shelter)” (M = 2.92). The obtained value indicates recognition of the importance of providing resources such as food and water for all community members during disasters. The second-rated attitude pertains to “Community readiness to address social injustices” (M = 2.85). This rating indicates a high level of community readiness to confront social injustices during disasters, implying an awareness of the need for an adequate response to social challenges before, during, and after disasters. The third-rated attitude is related to “Access to resources and services without discrimination” (M = 2.76). Participants demonstrate an awareness of and positive attitude towards access to resources and services without discrimination. All of this unequivocally suggests the importance of equal access for everyone, regardless of their specific demographic and socio-economic characteristics (Table 7).

 

In contrast, the lowest-rated attitudes are related to the “Existence of programs targeting specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, etc.” (M = 2.39). This value indicates significant challenges in recognizing and addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. Therefore, there is a need to work on improving access to support for such groups during disasters. In second place is the attitude related to “Measures to protect and promote the rights of minority groups” (M = 2.55). The score for this attitude indicates challenges in implementing measures to protect and promote the rights of minority groups during disasters. Hence, additional steps need to be considered to ensure adequate protection of the rights of minority groups during disasters. Finally, the third lowest-rated attitude is related to the “Involvement of various social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementation measures” (M = 2.54). This value suggests a need for improvements in involving different social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementing measures during disasters. It may also indicate the need for greater inclusivity in decision-making processes (Table 7).

 

Overall, the high scores regarding the availability of key resources and community readiness to address social injustices suggest a positive attitude towards aspects of equality and diversity. On the other hand, the low scores obtained for programs targeting the specific needs of vulnerable groups, the protection of minority rights, and the involvement of different social groups in planning indicate the need for improvement in these areas to ensure a fair and inclusive response to disasters.

 

Table 7. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards equity and diversity.

 

Attitudes M (SD)
Access to resources and services without discrimination 2.76 (1.11)
Measures to protect and promote the rights of minority groups 2.55 (1.05)
Community readiness to address social injustices 2.85 (1.16)
Level of availability and access to key resources

(water, food, shelter)

2.92 (1.18)
Access to medical services and emergency interventions 2.71 (1.04)
The extent of social aid and support 2.65 (1.04)
Presence and active participation of various social groups 2.72 (1.14)
The existence of programs targeting specific needs of vulnerable groups 2.39 (1.16)
Availability of personalized emergency plans: special needs 2.63 (1.13)
Access to transportation and evacuation: levels of mobility

and needs

2.59 (1.09)
Openness and adaptation of communication strategies 2.58 (1.09)
Involvement of various social groups in planning

and decision-making

2.54 (1.20)
Justice in access and participation in local

disaster management bodies

2.58 (1.09)

 

Finally, attitudes regarding social beliefs were examined (M = 2.76), and it was found that the highest recorded value pertained to the level of development of a disaster resilience culture (M = 3.03). This may indicate a high level of development of a culture resilient to disasters, as well as a positive attitude towards the development of community awareness and practices related to disaster preparedness and response. In second place is an assessment of the attitude regarding participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity (M = 2.92). The obtained results suggest significant participation in traditional and religious rituals that enhance collective identity. Therefore, there is a positive inclination toward preserving and strengthening collective identity through traditional and religious practices. In third place is the assessment of the attitude regarding the intensity and regularity of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals (M = 3.03). Hence, there is a positive attitude toward the community’s engagement in religious ceremonies and rituals (Table 8).

 

In contrast, the lowest-rated values are related to attitudes concerning trust in the work of social institutions and services during disasters (M = 2.45). It can be said that there are certain challenges regarding communities’ trust in the work of social institutions and the services provided during disasters. This may suggest the need to enhance trust in social institutions during catastrophes. Following this, there was an assessment of attitudes related to the influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community (M = 2.64). This value indicates the limited influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community. This may suggest a lower level of faith in the involvement of religious authorities in the decision-making process during disasters. Finally, in third place, was the assessment of attitudes concerning the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness and emergencies (M = 2.72). This value indicates challenges regarding the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness. This suggests the need for religious institutions to have a stronger focus on disaster preparedness (Table 8).

 

High ratings for attitudes such as the development of a culture resilient to disasters, participation in traditional and religious rituals, and regular involvement in religious ceremonies and rituals indicate a positive orientation toward tradition, faith, and culture. On the other hand, challenges regarding trust in social institutions during disasters, the limited influence of religious leaders in decision-making, and the need to improve the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness suggest areas that require additional attention and improvement to enhance society’s resilience to disasters.

 

Table 8. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards beliefs.

 

Attitudes M (SD)
Trust in the work of social institutions and services during disasters 2.45 (1.08)
Level of development of disaster resilience culture 3.03 (1.13)
Significance of cultural and religious values in the life of the community 2.81 (1.06)
Openness to dialogue and understanding between different cultural and religious groups 2.92 (1.16)
Participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity 2.92 (1.21)
Adherence to traditional social norms and values in the community 2.83 (1.20)
Level of individual involvement in local cultural activities and communal events 2.93 (1.21)
Respect for and preservation of local customs and traditions during and after disasters 2.94 (1.19)
Intensity and regularity of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals 2.83 (1.20)
Influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community 2.64 (1.07)
Intensity and regularity of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals 3.03 (1.14)
Activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness and emergencies 2.72 (1.23)
Local culture and tradition shape the interpretation of disasters 2.80 (1.21)

 

5.4. Influences of Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors on the Sustainable Development of Community (Social) Disaster Resilience Framework

 

The one-way ANOVA results show the correlation between education status and the following variables: social structure (p = 0.032); social capital (p = 0.000); social mechanisms (p = 0.040); social equity and diversity (p = 0.039); preventive measures (p = 0.000); and disaster resilience (p = 0.000). No statistically significant correlation was found with other variables (Table 9).

 

Further analyses revealed that respondents with a secondary school degree provided higher scores for social structure (M = 2.62; SD = 1.06) compared to those with a university degree (M = 2.30; SD = 0.80). Also, respondents with a secondary school degree provided higher scores for social mechanisms (M = 2.77; SD = 1.03) compared to those with a university degree (M = 2.44; SD = 0.85). Respondents with a secondary school degree provided higher scores for social equity and diversity (M = 2.80; SD = 1.11) compared to those with a university degree (M = 2.25; SD = 0.59).

 

It can be said that the findings indicate that respondents with a secondary school degree consistently provided higher scores across dimensions, including social structure, social mechanisms, and social equity and diversity, compared to those with a university degree.

 

Table 9. One-way ANOVA results regarding age, education, marital status, employment status, income level, ownership of property and household number members, and variables of the sustainable development of community (social) disaster resilience.

 

Variables Education Marital Status Employment Status Income Level Ownership of Property Household Members
F p F p F p F p F p F p
Social structure 2.98 0.032* 10.93 0.000** 4.68 0.010* 3.83 0.002* 2.07 0.128 4.09 0.018 *
Social capital 15.07 0.000** 13.66 0.000** 1.01 1.010 1.15 0.312 6.08 0.003 * 4.45 0.012 *
Social mechanisms 2.81 0.051 8.52 0.000** 9.07 0.000** 6.78 0.001 * 2.36 0.095 6.46 0.002 *
Social equality/diversity 2.79 0.056 6.72 0.000** 6.52 0.002* 7.61 0.001 * 2.17 0.115 5.54 0.004 *
Social beliefs 1.30 0.273 7.48 0.000** 4.43 0.013* 6.73 0.001 * 3.94 0.020 ** 11.30 0.000 **
Prevention measures 9.31 0.000** 4.54 0.004* 0.169 0.844 3.10 0.052 11.52 0.000 ** 1.32 0.267
Resilience perception 14.38 0.000** 16.19 0.000** 1.41 0.245 0.33 0.719 6.21 0.002 ** 6.03 0.003 *

* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.

 

On the other hand, the findings indicate that respondents with a university degree obtained higher scores for social capital (M = 2.96; SD = 0.82) compared to those respondents with a secondary school degree (M = 2.17; SD = 0.79). Moreover, respondents with a university degree provided higher scores for preventive measures (M = 2.77; SD = 0.86) compared to those respondents with a secondary school degree (M = 2.28; SD = 0.86). Similarly, respondents with a university degree provided higher scores for disaster resilience perception (M = 2.94; SD = 0.83) compared to those respondents with a secondary school degree (M = 2.18; SD = 0.78). These results suggest that respondents with a university degree reported higher scores for social capital, preventive measures, and disaster resilience perception in comparison to those respondents with a secondary school degree.

 

Further analysis revealed a correlation between employment status and the following variables: social structure (p = 0.010); social mechanisms (p = 0.000); social equity and diversity (p = 0.002); and social beliefs (p = 0.013). No statistically significant correlation was found with other variables (Table 4). Additional examinations demonstrate that employed respondents provided lower scores for social structure (M = 2.31; SD = 0.78) compared to unemployed respondents (M = 2.65; SD = 0.97).

 

Continued analysis shows that employed respondents provided lower scores for social mechanisms (M = 2.38; SD = 0.71) compared to retired respondents (M = 2.85; SD = 0.92). Also, employed respondents provided lower scores for social equity/diversity (M = 2.53; SD = 0.88) compared to unemployed respondents (M = 2.90; SD = 0.95). Furthermore, the analysis revealed that employed respondents provided lower scores for social beliefs (M = 2.67; SD = 0.90) compared to unemployed respondents (M = 2.93; SD = 0.79). Thus, unemployed respondents tend to rate social structure, equality/diversity, and beliefs more highly than employed respondents.

 

Upon further examination, a correlation was identified between ownership of property and the following variables: social capital (p = 0.003); social beliefs (p = 0.020); preventive measures (p = 0.000); and disaster resilience (p = 0.002). No statistically significant correlation was found with other variables (Table 9).

 

Respondents with personal property provided lower scores for social capital (M = 2.27; SD = 0.98) compared to respondents with family member ownership (M = 2.75; SD = 0.94). Similarly, respondents with personal property provided lower scores for social beliefs (M = 2.45; SD = 1.11) compared to respondents with family member ownership (M = 2.81; SD = 0.85). Moreover, respondents with personal property provided lower scores for preventive measures (M = 2.17; SD = 0.71) compared to respondents with family member ownership (M = 2.72; SD = 0.90). Furthermore, respondents with personal property provided lower scores for predisaster resilience (M = 2.26; SD = 1.03) compared to respondents with family member ownership (M = 2.74; SD = 0.93). Respondents who personally owned property consistently yielded lower scores across various dimensions, including social capital, social beliefs, preventive measures, and predisaster resilience, in comparison to respondents with family member ownership.

 

Regarding the household income, a correlation was identified with the following variables: social structure (p = 0.002); social mechanisms (p = 0.001); social equity and diversity (p = 0.001); and social beliefs (p = 0.001). No statistically significant correlation was found with other variables (Table 9).

 

Further analysis reveals that respondents with below-average household incomes provided lower scores for social mechanisms (M = 2.37; SD = 0.90) compared to those with average household incomes (M = 2.74; SD = 0.93). Likewise, respondents with below-average household incomes provided lower scores for social equity and diversity (M = 2.52; SD = 0.92) compared to those with average household incomes (M = 2.97; SD = 0.88). Additionally, respondents with below-average household incomes provided lower scores for social beliefs (M = 2.58; SD = 1.01) compared to those with average household incomes (M = 3.03; SD = 0.77). In contrast, respondents with below-average household incomes provided higher scores for social structures (M = 2.67; SD = 1.04) compared to those with average household incomes (M = 2.34; SD = 0.87). A detailed examination reveals that respondents with below-average household incomes consistently assigned lower scores across various dimensions.

 

Regarding the number of household members, a correlation was identified with the following variables: social structure (p = 0.018); social capital (p = 0.012); preventive measures (p = 0.002); social equity and diversity (p = 0.004); social beliefs (p = 0.000); and disaster resilience (p = 0.003). No statistically significant correlation was found with other variables (Table 5). Additional analysis indicates that respondents who are living in a household with two members provided lower scores for social structures (M = 2.20; SD = 0.94) compared to those who are living in a household with over four members (M = 2.65; SD = 0.95). On the contrary, respondents who are living in a household with over four members provided higher scores for social mechanisms (M = 2.73; SD = 0.93) compared to those who are living in a household with two members (M = 2.21; SD = 0.96).

 

Similarly, respondents who are living in a household with over four members provided higher scores for social equity and diversity (M = 2.75; SD = 0.91) compared to those who are living in a household with two members (M = 2.29; SD = 0.91). Furthermore, respondents who are living in a household with over four members provided higher scores for social beliefs (M = 2.86; SD = 0.86) compared to those who are living in a household with two members (M = 2.25; SD = 0.97). It was found that respondents who were living in a household with two to four members provided higher scores for disaster resilience (M = 2.80; SD = 0.98) compared to those who were living in a household with over four members (M = 2.38; SD = 0.74).

 

The analysis indicates that respondents in households with two members, generally, provide lower scores for social structures, while those in households with over four members tend to give higher scores for social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, and social beliefs. Additionally, respondents in households with two to four members demonstrate higher scores for disaster resilience compared to those in households with over four members.

 

Further examination showed a correlation between marital status and the following variables: social structure (p = 0.000); social capital (p = 0.000); social mechanisms (p = 0.000); social equity and diversity (p = 0.000); social beliefs (p = 0.000); preventive measures (p = 0.000); and disaster resilience (p = 0.000). No statistically significant correlation was found with other variables (Table 9).

 

Through further analysis, it was discovered that respondents who are single provided higher scores for social structure (M = 2.70; SD = 0.77) compared to those who are in a relationship (M = 2.33; SD = 0.92). Then, it was determined that respondents who were single provided higher scores for social capital (M = 3.03; SD = 1.04) compared to those who were in a relationship (M = 2.37; SD = 0.76). Also, it was determined that respondents who are single provided higher scores for social mechanisms (M = 2.97; SD = 0.94) compared to those who are in a relationship (M = 2.41; SD = 0.90).

 

Additionally, respondents who are single provided higher scores for social equality and diversity (M = 2.98; SD = 0.99) compared to those who are in a relationship (M = 2.62; SD = 0.82). Moreover, respondents who are single provided higher scores for social beliefs (M = 3.00; SD = 0.86) compared to those who are in a relationship (M = 2.62; SD = 0.81). In addition, respondents who are single provided higher scores for preventive measures (M = 2.84; SD = 0.99) compared to those who are who are divorced (M = 2.62; SD = 0.81).

 

Furthermore, respondents who are single provided higher scores for disaster resilience (M = 3.10; SD = 0.99) compared to those who are who are divorced (M = 2.35; SD = 0.79). The analysis reveals that single respondents consistently provided higher scores across various dimensions, including social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equality and diversity, social beliefs, preventive measures, and disaster resilience, compared to those in a relationship or divorced.

 

Further analyses found a relationship between age and social structure (r = 0.568), social mechanisms (r = −0.223), social equity and diversity (r = −0.213), and social beliefs (r = −0.229) (Table 10). Further analysis of the results shows that with the increase in the age of the respondents, their rating of social structure increases. On the other hand, a negative correlation was found, showing that with the increase in the age of the respondents, their rating for social mechanisms, social equity diversity and social beliefs decreases. Further investigation into the causes of this apparent relationship would be helpful to obtain a more thorough knowledge of the dynamics impacting the respondents’ perceptions.

Table 10. Pearson’s correlation results for the relationship between the sustainable development of community (social) disaster resilience and the age of the respondents.

 

Variables Sig. r
Social structure 0.000 ** 0.568
Social capital 0.733 −0.019
Social mechanisms 0.000 ** −0.223
Social equality and diversity 0.000 ** −0.213
Social beliefs 0.000 ** −0.229
Preventive measures 0.900 −0.007
Disaster resilience 0.568 −0.033

** p ≤ 0.01.

 

The results of the t-test suggest a statistically significant difference between males and females in terms of social capital (p = 0.00), preventive measures (p = 0.010), and disaster resilience (p = 0.032). We did not find a statistically significant difference between males and females in terms of social structure, social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, and social beliefs (Table 11).

 

The results of further analyses suggest that males, to a greater extent than females, rate the following variables higher: social capital (males M = 3.01; females M = 2.48); preventive measures (males M = 2.76; females M = 2.48); and disaster resilience (males M = 3.06; females M = 2.46) (Table 11).

Table 11. Independent samples t-test results between gender and the variables on sustainable development of community (social) disaster resilience.

 

Variable F t Sig.

(2-Tailed)

df Male

M (SD)

Female

M (SD)

Social structure 2.84 1.03 0.300 316 2.53 (0.90) 2.42 (0.96)
Social capital 6.56 4.52 0.000 ** 310 3.01 (1.04) 2.48 (0.81)
Social mechanisms 14.31 1.49 0.177 316 2.70 (0.77) 2.54 (1.03)
Social equality 1.32 1.03 0.300 316 2.74 (0.86) 2.62 (0.98)
Social beliefs 1.91 0.92 0.357 314 2.82 (0.92) 2.72 (0.91)
Preventive measures 2.01 2.60 0.010 * 313 2.76 (0.98) 2.48 (0.83)
Disaster resilience 4.63 5.15 0.032 * 316 3.06 (1.02) 2.46 (0.83)

* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.

 

The results of the t-test suggest a statistically significant difference between volunteers and non-volunteers in terms of perception of disaster resilience (p = 0.035). No statistically significant differences were observed between volunteer and non-volunteers concerning social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, social beliefs, and preventive measures (Table 8). The results of further analyses found that volunteers, to a greater extent than non-volunteers, rate disaster resilience highly (volunteer M = 2.76; non-volunteer M = 2.54) (Table 12).

Table 12. Independent samples t-test results between volunteering and the variables on the sustainable development of community (social) disaster resilience.

Variable F t Sig.

(2-Tailed)

Df Yes

M (SD)

No

M (SD)

Social structure 3.91 −1.14 0.251 316 2.40 (0.90) 2.52 (0.98)
Social capital 0.02 1.69 0.092 316 2.74 (0.96) 2.56 (0.88)
Social mechanisms 4.21 0.72 0.468 316 2.63 (0.91) 2.55 (0.99)
Social equity and diversity 0.00 0.59 0.554 316 2.69 (0.94) 2.63 (0.96)
Social beliefs 0.11 0.60 0.544 316 2.79 (0.91) 2.72 (0.91)
Preventive measures 0.43 0.73 0.461 316 2.61 (0.93) 2.53 (0.85)
Disaster resilience 0.03 2.11 0.035 * 316 2.76 (0.97) 2.54 (0.89)

* p ≤ 0.05.

 

 

5.5. Results of Descriptive Statistical Analysis of Community Disaster Resilience

 

The study included approximately 321 participants. The sample adequately represents both genders, with a higher number of female participants (67.3%) compared to male participants (32.7%). Such data distribution offers interesting opportunities for analyzing differences and similarities between genders in the context of the variables under investigation (Table 13).

 

Table 13. Overview of the sample of participants by gender.

 Gender Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
 Males 105 32.7 32.7 32.7
 Females 216 67.3 67.3 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

In this study, the sample consists of a total of 321 participants, who are classified into different categories of educational status. The research shows that the largest number of participants have a high level of education (37.4%), followed by the majority having a secondary level of education (29.9%). After that, a significant number of participants have completed master’s studies (16.8%), while a smaller number of participants have a doctorate (1.9%). Only 3 participants (.9%) have primary education, while the higher education category includes 30 participants (9.3%) (Table 14).

Table 14. Overview of participants’ education.

 

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Doctorate 6 1.9 1.9 5.6
Master’s 54 16.8 16.8 22.4
Elementary 3 .9 .9 23.4
Secondary 96 29.9 29.9 53.3
College 30 9.3 9.3 62.6
High School 120 37.4 37.4 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

The study encompassed a wide range of marital and relationship statuses among the participants, providing important insights into social dynamics and relationships among different groups. The largest portion of the sample consists of participants who are in a relationship (34.6%). This is followed by participants who are married (27.1%) or single (26.2%), further highlighting the diversity of statuses in marital and non-marital life. A smaller number of participants fall into the category of divorced (6.5%) and engaged (2.8%), which, although less represented groups, also contribute to understanding various social aspects of participants’ lives and can serve as a basis for further research (Table 15).

Table 15. Overview of Participants’ Marital Status.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Married 87 27.1 27.1 29.9
Divorced 21 6.5 6.5 36.4
Single 84 26.2 26.2 62.6
In a relationship 111 34.6 34.6 97.2
Engaged 9 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

A significant number of participants state that they are employed (52.3%), while at the same time, there is a certain number of participants who are not in employment (39.3%). A small percentage of participants are retired (5.6%), indicating the presence of age diversity within the sample of participants. This diversity regarding participants’ employment status opens up the possibility for researching how employed and unemployed individuals may approach disaster preparedness differently and how they may cope with various emergency situations (Table 16).

Table 16. Overview of Participants Regarding Their Employment Status

 

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Unemployed 126 39.3 39.3 42.1
Retired 18 5.6 5.6 47.7
Employed 168 52.3 52.3 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

The study included a total of 321 participants, enabling a detailed insight into various aspects of household structure in which the participants live. When it comes to the number of household members, the results of this research reveal diversity in the number of members. Most participants stated that they live in a household with 4 members (40.2%), which may indicate a common family size in the given context. Subsequently, a significant number of participants reported living in a household with 2 members (15.9%). Some participants mentioned living in households with 3 or 5 members (13.1%), which also represents a significant portion of the sample. On the other hand, the smallest number of participants reported living alone in their household (0.9%) or with only 1 person (1.9%), indicating the presence of participants leading independent lives.

 

The diversity of the sampled population is reflected in the fact that there are participants who stated that there are many members within their household, such as 6 (3.7%), 7 (3.7%), or 8 (1.9%) household members. These data provide valuable insights into the diversity of household structures in society and can serve as a basis for further research on family dynamics and lifestyles, as well as how the number of household members contributes to enhancing resilience to disasters (Table 17).

Table 17. Overview of Participants Regarding the Number of Household Members.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
0 3 0.9 1.0 1.0
1 6 1.9 2.0 2.9
2 51 15.9 16.7 19.6
3 42 13.1 13.7 33.3
4 129 40.2 42.2 75.5
5 42 13.1 13.7 89.2
6 12 3.7 3.9 93.1
7 12 3.7 3.9 97.1
8 6 1.9 2.0 99.0
Total 321 100.0

 

The results of this research on participants’ housing arrangements provide significant insights into the diversity of living conditions within the studied population. It is evident that the majority of participants stated that they live in a house/apartment owned by a family member (72.0%). This may reflect stable financial and housing conditions within the participants’ families.

 

On the other hand, a smaller percentage of participants reported living in a house/apartment rented from a third party (8.4%), indicating financial challenges or temporary living arrangements. Additionally, a certain number of participants mentioned living in a house apartment owned by themselves (17.8%).

 

This diversity in housing arrangements highlights the importance of considerably different living environments within the surveyed population. Researching such housing statuses can be useful in understanding how various forms of housing can impact participants’ readiness and response in case of catastrophic events, providing insights into the risks and resources available and crucial for mitigating risks Table 18).

Table 18. Overview of participants according to ownership of the house/apartment they live in.

 

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Your ownership 57 17.8 17.8 19.6
Family membership ownership 231 72.0 72.0 91.6
Ownership of a third party from whom you are renting 27 8.4 8.4 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

The results of this study provide insights into the financial conditions of participants at the household level, revealing significant differences in average incomes. The most prevalent group of participants reported that their average household income exceeds the average of 80,000 dinars (50.5%). This indicates a significant portion of participants with a comfortable standard of living and a stable economic situation in their households.

 

Conversely, there is a certain number of participants whose average household income is below the average of 80,000 dinars (17.8%), indicating economic challenges and a lack of financial resources in those households. Additionally, a significant number of participants stated that the average approximate income at the household level is around 80,000 dinars on average (29.9%), suggesting a middle group of participants with an average economic status.

 

These different financial situations of participants can have significant implications for their lifestyle, stability, and opportunities for economic advancement. This information is of paramount importance for understanding socio-economic dynamics in society, as well as their impact on society’s resilience to disasters (Table 19).

Table 19. Overview of Participants Regarding Household Average Incomes.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Below average of 80,000 dinars 57 17.8 17.8 19.6
Above average of 80,000 dinars 162 50.5 50.5 70.1
An average of 80,000 dinars 96 29.9 29.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

The results of this study provide insight into participants’ involvement in volunteer activities and their ability to contribute to the community. The data show that a significant portion of participants (52.3%) reported having volunteered at some point in their lives. This reveals the existence of a considerable group of people willing to participate and contribute to the community through voluntary work. Volunteering can positively impact community resilience to disasters, as it involves various activities such as emergency preparedness, disaster relief, and recovery efforts.

 

The greater the number of people willing to volunteer, the greater the possibility for the community to respond more quickly and effectively to catastrophic events and to recover more swiftly. Conversely, the smaller proportion of participants who have never volunteered (46.7%) may limit resources and opportunities for responding to disasters, especially in situations requiring significant community engagement. Stimulating volunteering and raising awareness of its importance can be an important part of a strategy to enhance community resilience to disasters (Table 20).

Table 20. Overview of participants based on whether they have ever volunteered.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Yes 168 52.3 52.3 53.3
No 150 46.7 46.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

The results of this research provide insight into the level of fear among participants regarding catastrophic events and their readiness to face potential dangers. The data show that the majority of sampled participants expressed fear of disasters (55.1%). This fear may result from various factors, including past experiences and media exposure to disasters. This is significant for disaster resilience because recognizing and acknowledging the existence of risks can be the first step in taking measures to reduce and overcome them. Conversely, there is a certain portion of participants who reported no fear of disasters (43.9%).

 

While it may seem positive that this group of participants is less susceptible to fear, it is important to note that excessive confidence can lead to insufficient preparedness for disasters. In certain situations, fear can serve as a driver for taking protective measures and improving preparedness, especially in terms of disaster response plans. Additionally, this fear can be positive when it encourages people to engage in community efforts and prepare actions for disaster protection. Therefore, understanding the level of fear of disasters among participants can serve as an important indicator for building disaster resilience in the community. Raising awareness about the importance of preparedness and taking actions to reduce risks can be a step toward building a more resilient and safer community (Table 21).

Table 21. Overview of Participants Regarding Fear of Disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Yes 177 55.1 55.1 56.1
No 141 43.9 43.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Different perceptions regarding knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of earthquake resilience, arise from the surveyed sample. Specifically, the majority of participants assessed their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures for earthquakes as neither sufficient nor insufficient (37.4%), while a certain number of participants rated their knowledge as insufficient to some extent (19.6%), and quite a few participants considered their knowledge to be absolutely insufficient (13.1%). On the other hand, there are participants who believe that their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures are somewhat sufficient (14.0%), as well as participants who stated that their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures are absolutely sufficient (11.2%) (Table 22).

Table 22. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of earthquake resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 42 13.1 13.7 13.7
Disagree 63 19.6 20.6 34.3
Neutral 120 37.4 39.2 73.5
Agree 45 14.0 14.7 88.2
Strongly agree 36 11.2 11.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Different perceptions regarding the knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of landslide resilience, emerge from the surveyed sample. The largest number of respondents believe that they absolutely do not know and do not undertake preventive measures sufficiently (35.5%), while some consider their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures to be insufficient to some extent (24.3%). Additionally, a certain number of respondents rated their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures as neither sufficient nor insufficient (21.5%). On the other hand, there are respondents who believe that they know and undertake preventive measures for landslide protection to an absolute extent (2.8%), as well as those who consider their knowledge not absolute, but sufficiently to some extent (12.1%) (Table 23 and Figure 6).

 

Table 23. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of landslide resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 114 35.5 36.9 36.9
Disagree 78 24.3 25.2 62.1
Neutral 69 21.5 22.3 84.5
Agree 39 12.1 12.6 97.1
Strongly agree 9 2.8 2.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 7. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of landslide resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

 

Different perceptions of knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to volcanic eruptions, emerge from the surveyed sample. The majority of respondents believe they absolutely do not have sufficient knowledge and do not undertake preventive measures (62.6%), while there are also those who consider their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures to be insufficient to some extent (14.0%). Additionally, a certain number of respondents rated their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures as neither sufficient nor insufficient (12.1%). On the other hand, some respondents believe they have an absolute knowledge and undertake preventive measures for protection from volcanic eruptions (3.7%), as well as those who consider their knowledge not absolute but sufficiently adequate to some extent (3.7%) (Table 24 and Figure 7).

Table 24. Overview of respondents’ answers to evaluating knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to volcanic eruptions, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 201 62.6 65.0 65.0
Disagree 45 14.0 14.6 79.6
Neutral 39 12.1 12.6 92.2
Agree 12 3.7 3.9 96.1
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 8. Overview of respondents’ answers to evaluating knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to volcanic eruptions, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

Different perceptions about knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to floods, emerge from the surveyed sample. The largest number of respondents believe that their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as their resilience to floods, are neither sufficient nor insufficient (29.9%), while a certain number of respondents consider their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures to be somewhat sufficient (20.6%) (Table 25 and Figure 8).

Table 25. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of flood resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 51 15.9 16.5 16.5
Disagree 57 17.8 18.4 35.0
Neutral 96 29.9 31.1 66.0
Agree 66 20.6 21.4 87.4
Strongly agree 39 12.1 12.6 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 9. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of flood resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5.

There are also those who rate their knowledge of these measures as absolute (12.1%). On the other hand, a few respondents stated that they consider their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures to be absolutely insufficient (15.9%) or insufficient to some extent (17.8%) (Table 25 and Figure 8).

 

Different perceptions regarding the knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to tsunamis, emerge from the surveyed sample. The majority of respondents assessed their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures as absolutely insufficient (65.4%) or insufficient to some extent (12.1%).

 

On the other hand, a very small number of respondents rated their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as their level of tsunami resilience, as absolutely sufficient (3.7%) or sufficiently to some extent (4.7%). Additionally, a portion of respondents opted to rate their knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures as neither sufficient nor insufficient (9.3%) (Table 26 and Figure 9).

Table 26. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question of assessing knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of tsunami resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 210 65.4 68.6 68.6
Disagree 39 12.1 12.7 81.4
Neutral 30 9.3 9.8 91.2
Agree 15 4.7 4.9 96.1
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

Figure 10. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question of assessing knowledge and undertaking of preventive measures, as well as the level of tsunami resilience, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

Different perceptions regarding the knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of avalanche resistance, emerge from the surveyed sample. The majority of respondents (62.6%) stated that their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as their level of avalanche resistance, are absolutely insufficient. Around 14.0% of respondents expressed the opinion that they are somewhat insufficient, while an equal percentage (14.0%) stated that their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures are neither sufficient nor insufficient. Only a small percentage of respondents reported being somewhat (3.7%) or absolutely (2.8%) satisfied with their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures (Table 27 and Figure 10).

Table 27. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question of assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of avalanche resistance, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 201 62.6 64.4 64.4
Disagree 45 14.0 14.4 78.8
Neutral 45 14.0 14.4 93.3
Agree 12 3.7 3.8 97.1
Strongly agree 9 2.8 2.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 11. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question of assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of avalanche resistance, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

Different perceptions regarding knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to drought, emerge from the surveyed sample. The largest number of respondents rated their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures as neither sufficient nor insufficient (26.2%), while a certain number of respondents rated their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as their resistance to drought, as absolutely sufficient (9.3%) or sufficiently to some extent (17.8%). On the other hand, there are respondents who indicated that they know and undertake preventive measures to an absolutely insufficient extent (25.2%) or to some insufficient extent (17.8%) (Table 28 and Figure 11).

Table 28. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to drought, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 81 25.2 26.2 26.2
Disagree 57 17.8 18.4 44.7
Neutral 84 26.2 27.2 71.8
Agree 57 17.8 18.4 90.3
Strongly agree 30 9.3 9.7 100.0
            Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 12. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to drought, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

Different perceptions regarding knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to extreme temperatures, emerge from the surveyed sample. The majority of respondents believe they know and undertake preventive measures to protect against extreme temperatures to some extent (29.9%), while some consider their efforts to be entirely sufficient (11.2%).

 

In contrast, a certain number of respondents expressed that they have an absolutely insufficient (9.3%) or somewhat insufficient (21.5%) understanding and implementation of preventive measures for protection against extreme temperatures. Additionally, some respondents stated that their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures are neither sufficient nor insufficient (22.4%) (Table 29 and Figure 12).

Table 29. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to extreme temperatures, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 30 9.3 9.9 9.9
Disagree 69 21.5 22.8 32.7
Neutral 72 22.4 23.8 56.4
Agree 96 29.9 31.7 88.1
Strongly agree 36 11.2 11.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 13. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to extreme temperatures, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Different perceptions about knowledge and taking preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to storms, emerge from the surveyed sample. The majority of respondents believe that their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures for protection against storms is neither sufficient nor insufficient (26.2%), followed by those who find their knowledge and implementation somewhat insufficient (22.4%) or absolutely insufficient (13.1%). In contrast, there are respondents who consider their resistance to storms, as well as their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, somewhat sufficient (21.5%) or even sufficiently absolute (14.0%) (Table 30 and Figure 13).

Table 30. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to storms, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 42 13.1 13.5 13.5
Disagree 72 22.4 23.1 36.5
Neutral 84 26.2 26.9 63.5
Agree 69 21.5 22.1 85.6
Strongly agree 45 14.0 14.4 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 14. Overview of respondents’ answers to the question assessing knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resistance to storms, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

The results of the research on knowledge of preventive measures and the level of resilience of respondents to epidemics are presented. The majority of respondents are represented in the categories of neither sufficient nor insufficient (23.4%), to some extent sufficient (23.4%), and absolutely sufficient (28.0%). These results indicate that a significant number of respondents assess their knowledge and application of preventive measures as moderate or high. A smaller but still significant portion of respondents falls into the categories of absolutely insufficient (8.4%) and somewhat insufficient (14.0%), indicating the need for additional education and awareness of preventive measures. This information is of great importance for understanding the preparedness for combating epidemics in the community, which can serve as the basis for forming effective programs and measures for public health protection (Table 31 and Figure 14).

Table 31. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to epidemics, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 27 8.4 8.7 8.7
Disagree 45 14.0 14.4 23.1
Neutral 75 23.4 24.0 47.1
Agree 75 23.4 24.0 71.2
Strongly agree 90 28.0 28.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 15. Overview of respondents’ answers to assess their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to epidemics, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Different perceptions regarding the knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to forest fires, emerge from the surveyed sample. The majority of respondents rated their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures as neither sufficient nor insufficient (29.0%). 15% indicated their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures were entirely sufficient, while 18.7% considered them sufficiently effective to some extent. In contrast, some respondents rated their knowledge and implementation of preventive measures, as well as their resilience to forest fires, as entirely insufficient (15.0%) or insufficient to some extent (17.8%) (Table 32 and Figure 15).

Table 32. Overview of respondents’ answers to evaluating knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to forest fires, on a scale from 1 to 5.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 48 15.0 15.7 15.7
Disagree 57 17.8 18.6 34.3
Neutral 93 29.0 30.4 64.7
Agree 60 18.7 19.6 84.3
Strongly agree 48 15.0 15.7 100.0
Total 306 95.3 100.0

 

 

 

Figure 16. Overview of respondents’ answers to evaluating knowledge and undertaking preventive measures, as well as the level of resilience to forest fires, on a scale from 1 to 5.

 

5.5.1. Participants’ Perception of Social Structure as a Component of Resilience

 

When it comes to respondents’ attitudes regarding the organization and structuring of the local community for disaster management, the majority of respondents believe that the communities are neither fully organized nor unorganized and structured for disaster management. Some respondents indicated that they believe their communities are absolutely (19.6%) or to some extent (21.5%) not organized and structured for disaster management, while on the other hand, there is a certain number of respondents who consider their communities to be to some extent (16.8%) or fully (5.6%) organized and structured for disaster management (Table 33 and Figure 16).

Table 33. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the organization and structuring of the local community for disaster management.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 63 19.6 20.2 20.2
Disagree 69 21.5 22.1 42.3
Neutral 108 33.6 34.6 76.9
Agree 54 16.8 17.3 94.2
Strongly agree 18 5.6 5.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 17. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the organization and structuring of the local community for disaster management.

 

The research has shown that there is a certain number of respondents who believe that the population absolutely (18.7%) or to some extent (30.8%) lacks access to basic services during disasters. Conversely, a smaller number of respondents believe that access to basic services, such as healthcare, education, and social assistance, is absolutely (4.7%) or to some extent (10.3%) available to the entire population (Table 34 and Figure 17).

 

Table 34. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to basic services such as healthcare, education, and social assistance during disasters.

 

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 60 18.7 19.4 19.4
Disagree 99 30.8 32.0 51.5
Neutral 102 31.8 33.0 84.5
Agree 33 10.3 10.7 95.1
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 18. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to basic services such as healthcare, education, and social assistance during disasters.

The majority of respondents consider the quality of regulatory governance in disaster management to be absolutely unsatisfactory (39.3%) or unsatisfactory to some extent (19.6%). Conversely, a small number of respondents still believe that the quality of regulatory governance is satisfactory to a large extent (5.6%) or absolutely satisfactory (9.3%). A certain number of respondents (21.5%) believe that the quality of regulatory governance in disaster management is neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory (Table 35 and Figure 18).

Table 35. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the quality of regulatory governance in disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 126 39.3 41.2 41.2
Disagree 63 19.6 20.6 61.8
Neutral 69 21.5 22.5 84.3
Agree 18 5.6 5.9 90.2
Strongly agree 30 9.3 9.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 19. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the quality of regulatory governance in disasters.

 

The majority of respondents consider the quality of disaster risk assessment and preparedness plans to be neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory. A large number of respondents believe that the quality is satisfactory to some extent (20.6%), while there are also those who find the quality of disaster risk assessment and preparedness plans to be entirely satisfactory (7.5%). In contrast, there are those who perceive the quality to be largely unsatisfactory (18.7%), as well as respondents who indicate that the quality is absolutely unsatisfactory (16.8%) (Table 36 and Figure 19).

Table 36. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the quality of implementation of disaster risk assessment and preparedness plans.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 54 16.8 17.6 17.6
Disagree 60 18.7 19.6 37.3
Neutral 102 31.8 33.3 70.6
Agree 66 20.6 21.6 92.2
Strongly agree 24 7.5 7.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 20. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the quality of implementation of disaster risk assessment and preparedness plans.

 

These data represent an overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of development of human resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue. A total of 321 respondents participated in the study. It is evident that the highest percentage of respondents, i.e., 43%, expressed the opinion that the level of development of human resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue is absolutely unsatisfactory. Following that, there are attitudes that the level of development of human resources is largely unsatisfactory (18.7%). In contrast, respondents who believe that the level of development of human resources is largely satisfactory constitute 6.5% of the total number of respondents, while a certain number of respondents consider the level of development of human resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue to be absolutely satisfactory (10.3%) (Table 37 and Figure 20).

Table 37. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of human resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 138 43.0 45.1 45.1
Disagree 60 18.7 19.6 64.7
Neutral 54 16.8 17.6 82.4
Agree 21 6.5 6.9 89.2
Strongly agree 33 10.3 10.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

The data provide insights into respondents’ attitudes regarding the development of human resources for disaster protection and rescue. While a minority perceives the level of development as satisfactory, the predominant sentiment is one of dissatisfaction. This underscores the pressing need for comprehensive efforts to enhance preparedness and resource allocation, ensuring effective disaster management and community safety.

 

Figure 21. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of human resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue.

These data represent an overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of financial resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue. A total of 321 respondents participated in the study. The largest number of respondents, 37.4%, expressed the opinion that the level of financial resources for disaster protection and rescue is absolutely unsatisfactory. This is followed by the category of opinion that the level of financial resources is somewhat unsatisfactory (18.7%). Category 3 comprises 22.4% of respondents. Categories of opinion that the level of financial resources in society for disaster protection and rescue is somewhat satisfactory (6.5%) and absolutely satisfactory (8.4%) have the lowest percentages of the total number of respondents (Table 38 and Figure 21).

Table 38. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of financial resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 120 37.4 40.0 40.0
Disagree 60 18.7 20.0 60.0
Neutral 72 22.4 24.0 84.0
Agree 21 6.5 7.0 91.0
Strongly agree 27 8.4 9.0 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 22. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of financial resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue.

 

These data represent an overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of technological resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue. A total of 321 respondents participated in the study. Approximately 19.6% of respondents expressed the opinion that the level of technological resources for disaster protection and rescue is absolutely unsatisfactory. About 18.7% of respondents expressed the opinion that the level of resources is somewhat unsatisfactory (Table 39 and Figure 22).

 

A certain number of respondents stated that the level of resources is neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory (29.0%), while there are respondents who believe that the level of technological resources is somewhat (17.8%) or absolutely (9.3%) satisfactory (Table 39 and Figure 22).

Table 39. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of technological resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 63 19.6 20.8 20.8
Disagree 60 18.7 19.8 40.6
Neutral 93 29.0 30.7 71.3
Agree 57 17.8 18.8 90.1
Strongly agree 30 9.3 9.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 23. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of development of technological resources in society for the purposes of disaster protection and rescue.

 

The study covered the attitudes of respondents regarding the cooperation of local authorities with all relevant stakeholders in designing preventive measures. Respondents assessed this cooperation on a scale from 1 to 5, where a rating of 1 indicated absolutely unsatisfactory attitudes, while a rating of 5 indicated absolutely satisfactory attitudes. A total of 321 respondents participated in the study. The results show that 13.1% of respondents expressed the view that the cooperation is absolutely unsatisfactory, while 12.1% rated the cooperation as absolutely satisfactory. There is also a significant number of respondents (21.5%) who consider the cooperation to be somewhat unsatisfactory, while 18.7% have the opinion that it is somewhat satisfactory. The highest number of respondents (30.8%) expressed a neutral stance regarding this cooperation, meaning they believe that the cooperation is neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory (Table 40 and Figure 23).

Table 40. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the cooperation of local authorities with all relevant stakeholders in designing preventive measures.

 

Category

Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 42 13.1 13.6 13.6
Disagree 69 21.5 22.3 35.9
Neutral 99 30.8 32.0 68.0
Agree 60 18.7 19.4 87.4
Strongly agree 39 12.1 12.6 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 24. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the cooperation of local authorities with all relevant stakeholders in designing preventive measures.

The research results provide an overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of disaster response services, including the police, fire and rescue units, emergency medical services, civil protection, etc. A total of 321 respondents participated in the study. The results show that 15.9% of respondents expressed the view that disaster response services are absolutely underdeveloped, while 16.8% of respondents stated that they consider the services to be largely underdeveloped. The largest number of respondents (34.6%) expressed the opinion that the services are neither developed nor underdeveloped. Then, 21.5% of respondents believe that the services are largely developed, while only 8.4% of respondents think that the services are absolutely developed (Table 41 and Figure 24).

Table 41. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of disaster response services – police, fire and rescue units, emergency medical services, civil protection, etc.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid поценти Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 51 15.9 16.3 16.3
Disagree 54 16.8 17.3 33.7
Neutral 111 34.6 35.6 69.2
Agree 69 21.5 22.1 91.3
Strongly agree 27 8.4 8.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

Figure 25. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of disaster response services – police, fire and rescue units, emergency medical services, civil protection, etc.

The research results provide insights into respondents’ attitudes towards the development of leadership in the community. A total of 321 respondents participated in the study. Percentage-wise, 12.1% of respondents expressed the view that leadership in the community is absolutely unsatisfactory, while 19.6% considered it to be largely unsatisfactory. The highest percentage, 31.8% of respondents, expressed the opinion that leadership is neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory. Additionally, 17.8% of respondents believed that leadership in the community is at a very satisfactory level, while 15.9% considered it to be at the highest level (Table 42 and Figure 25).

Table 42. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of leadership in the community.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 39 12.1 12.5 12.5
Disagree 63 19.6 20.2 32.7
Neutral 102 31.8 32.7 65.4
Agree 57 17.8 18.3 83.7
Strongly agree 51 15.9 16.3 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

Figure 26. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of leadership in the community.

5.5.2. Participants’ Perception of Social Capital as a Component of Resilience

 

The research results provide insights into respondents’ attitudes towards the level of mutual trust and support within the community. A total of 321 respondents participated in the study. Percentage-wise, 15.9% of respondents expressed the view that the level of mutual trust and support in the community is at an absolutely low level, while 22.4% considered it to be at a very low level. The largest number of respondents, 31.8%, expressed the opinion that the level of mutual trust and support within the community is neither low nor high. Additionally, 15.9% of respondents believed that it is at a very high level, while 10.3% considered it to be at the absolutely highest level (Table 43 and Figure 26).

Table 43. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of mutual trust and support within the community.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 51 15.9 16.5 16.5
Disagree 72 22.4 23.3 39.8
Neutral 102 31.8 33.0 72.8
Agree 51 15.9 16.5 89.3
Strongly agree 33 10.3 10.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 27. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of mutual trust and support within the community.

 

The study, which encompassed a total of 321 respondents, examined their attitudes towards the existence and strength of social networks and connections. The results show that the majority of respondents believe that social networks and connections to some extent do not exist or are not adequate (34.6%). Following this category are respondents who did not express an opinion either on the existence or non-existence of social networks and connections (28.0%). Conversely, a smaller portion of respondents expressed the opinion that social networks and connections do exist and are largely adequate (13.1%) or even completely agree with this (4.7%). However, it is important to note that there is also a significant number of respondents who believe that social networks and connections absolutely do not exist (17.8%). These results indicate the diversity of respondents’ attitudes towards social networks and highlight a wide range of opinions among them (Table 44 and Figure 27).

Table 44. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence and strength of social networks and connections.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 57 17.8 18.1 18.1
Disagree 111 34.6 35.2 53.3
Neutral 90 28.0 28.6 81.9
Agree 42 13.1 13.3 95.2
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 28. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence and strength of social networks and connections.

 

The research results show significant diversity in respondents’ attitudes towards participation in volunteer activities and community projects. The largest number of respondents does not express either a positive or negative stance (32.7%), indicating indecision or neutrality regarding participation in volunteer activities and community projects. Following this, the majority of respondents show very high interest and participate to a large extent (26.2%) or completely (18.7%) in all volunteer activities. On the other hand, a smaller number of respondents expressed negative attitudes, either indicating absolute disinterest in this area (6.5%) or very little participation in activities of this type (6.5%) (Table 45 and Figure 28).

Table 45. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards participation in volunteer activities and community projects.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 60 18.7 19.2 19.2
Disagree 84 26.2 26.9 46.2
Neutral 105 32.7 33.7 79.8
Agree 42 13.1 13.5 93.3
Strongly agree 21 6.5 6.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 29. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards participation in volunteer activities and community projects.

 

When it comes to the attitudes of respondents regarding the existence of regular dialogue and cooperation between local communities and authorities, we can conclude that there is significant interest and need for such forms of communication and collaboration. The majority of respondents hold the view that such collaboration is at a very low level (29.9%) or that it does not exist at all (19.6%) (Table 46 and Figure 29).

Table 46. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence of regular dialogue and cooperation between local communities and authorities.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 63 19.6 20.2 20.2
Disagree 96 29.9 30.8 51.0
Neutral 90 28.0 28.8 79.8
Agree 48 15.0 15.4 95.2
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

However, there is a portion of respondents who believe that cooperation between local communities and authorities completely meets all criteria (4.7%) or is largely satisfactory (15.0%). Additionally, a large number of respondents indicated that they believe cooperation between local communities and authorities is neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory (28.0%). These results indicate the importance and need for strengthening communication and cooperation between local communities and authorities, as well as variations in the attitudes of respondents participating in the study (Table 46 and Figure 29).

 

Figure 30. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence of regular dialogue and cooperation between local communities and authorities.

 

The research results show different perceptions among respondents regarding their attitudes towards the possibility of various social groups participating in decision-making and planning processes in the event of disasters. The largest number of respondents does not have a pronounced stance on this issue (30.8%), while there is a higher percentage of respondents who agree that the possibility of participation is very limited (22.4%) or completely impossible (25.2%). In contrast, a certain number of respondents believe that there is a very high possibility of participation by various social groups in decision-making and planning processes during disasters (15.0%), while there are also those who consider participation to be absolutely accessible to different social groups (4.7%) (Table 47 and Figure 30).

Table 47. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the possibility of participation by various social groups in decision-making and planning processes during disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 81 25.2 25.7 25.7
Disagree 72 22.4 22.9 48.6
Neutral 99 30.8 31.4 80.0
Agree 48 15.0 15.2 95.2
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 31. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the possibility of participation by various social groups in decision-making and planning processes during disasters.

 

The research results indicate that the largest number of respondents believe that local disaster preparedness initiatives involving various socioeconomic groups exist, but to a very limited extent (32.7%), while there is also a significant number of respondents who state that such initiatives do not exist at all (22.4%). On the other hand, a small number of them mention that initiatives of this kind are absolutely accessible (2.8%) or that they exist and operate to a large extent (11.2%). Additionally, a large number of respondents are not sufficiently familiar with this topic (27.1%), meaning they do not believe that such initiatives exist or do not exist, indicating the need for further education of the population on topics in this field (Table 48 and Figure 31).

 

Table 48. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence of local disaster preparedness initiatives involving various socioeconomic groups.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 72 22.4 23.3 23.3
Disagree 105 32.7 34.0 57.3
Neutral 87 27.1 28.2 85.4
Agree 36 11.2 11.7 97.1
Strongly agree 9 2.8 2.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 32. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the existence of local disaster preparedness initiatives involving various socioeconomic groups.

When it comes to respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence and strength of economic cooperation between different socioeconomic groups, we can notice that the majority of respondents agree that cooperation either does not exist at all (32.7%) or is at a very low level (27.1%). Additionally, some respondents hold a neutral stance, meaning they do not have a pronounced opinion on the existence of this cooperation (26.2%). In contrast, we can observe a small number of respondents emphasizing that cooperation is at a very high level (9.3%) or that this cooperation meets all conditions and criteria (3.7%) (Table 49 and Figure 32).

Table 49. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence and strength of economic cooperation between different socioeconomic groups.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 105 32.7 33.0 33.0
Disagree 87 27.1 27.4 60.4
Neutral 84 26.2 26.4 86.8
Agree 30 9.3 9.4 96.2
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

A minority of respondents hold a more optimistic view, emphasizing the existence of robust economic cooperation between diverse socioeconomic groups. This minority includes individuals who perceive cooperation to be at a very high level or believe that it meets all conditions and criteria. These contrasting perspectives underscore the complexity of socioeconomic dynamics and the varied perceptions regarding the extent of collaboration and integration across different segments of society.

 

Understanding the diverse attitudes towards economic cooperation is crucial for informing policy formulation and social interventions aimed at fostering inclusive growth and reducing inequalities. By addressing underlying factors contributing to skepticism or optimism, stakeholders can work towards enhancing cooperation and promoting equitable economic opportunities for all members of society. Moreover, efforts to bridge divides and promote dialogue between socioeconomic groups can contribute to building trust, strengthening social cohesion, and ultimately fostering sustainable development.

 

Figure 33. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence and strength of economic cooperation between different socioeconomic groups.

 

The study, which involved 321 respondents, examined their attitudes toward the level of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses. The research results reveal significant diversity in respondents’ attitudes. The majority of participants (35.5%) expressed a neutral stance on this issue, followed by a significant number of people who believe that interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses are very limited (29.9%) or non-existent (23.4%). However, it is important to note that there is a minority of respondents who believe that interaction exists to a large extent (6.5%) or that it exists and meets all necessary criteria (2.8%). These results suggest the importance and need for increased efforts in promoting and facilitating interaction and collaboration between different communities and organizations (Table 50 and Figure 33).

Table 50. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 75 23.4 23.8 23.8
Disagree 96 29.9 30.5 54.3
Neutral 114 35.5 36.2 90.5
Agree 21 6.5 6.7 97.1
Strongly agree 9 2.8 2.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

Figure 34. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the level of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses.

In this study, the attitudes of participants regarding the strength of family bonds and interactions within communities were analyzed. A total of 321 participants took part in the survey. The largest number of respondents did not express a strong opinion regarding the strength of family bonds and community interactions (36.4%). Following that, participants largely believe that there is a very strong strength in family bonds and interactions (23.4%) or even that it is expressed in absolutely high values (18.7%). Fewer respondents expressed the view that the strength of family bonds and community interactions is not significant (15.0%) or that it does not exist at all (3.7%). These results provide insight into the participants’ attitudes toward family ties and community, which can be useful for developing programs and policies that support family values and community, as well as their impact on community resilience to disasters (Table 51 and Figure 34).

Table 51. Overview of participants’ attitudes regarding the perception of the strength of family bonds and interactions within communities.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 60 18.7 19.2 19.2
Disagree 75 23.4 24.0 43.3
Neutral 117 36.4 37.5 80.8
Agree 48 15.0 15.4 96.2
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 35. Overview of participants’ attitudes regarding the perception of the strength of family bonds and interactions within communities.

 

5.5.3. Participants’ Perception of social mechanisms as a Component of Resilience

 

The results of the research on education and training for emergencies provide significant insight into participants’ perceptions on this topic. The most notable conclusion is that a large number of respondents (37.4%) are unsure whether such education and training exist or not, indicating the need for better communication and availability of information about the existence of such programs. There are also those participants who believe that such programs are available to all citizens and meet all standards and quality criteria (8.4%) (Table 52 and Figure 35).

Table 52. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence and quality of education and training for emergencies.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 42 13.1 13.5 13.5
Disagree 57 17.8 18.3 31.7
Neutral 120 37.4 38.5 70.2
Agree 66 20.6 21.2 91.3
Strongly agree 27 8.4 8.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Additionally, we can observe that participants’ attitudes vary significantly. On one hand, there is a considerable portion of respondents who believe that education and training for emergencies are either rare or of insufficient quality (17.8%), suggesting potential shortcomings in existing programs. At the same time, there is a portion of participants who believe that such training does not exist at all (13.1%), which could be concerning in the context of security and preparedness for emergencies. On the other hand, there is also an optimistic perspective, with some respondents believing that emergency training programs are available in some form (20.6%) (Table 52 and Figure 35).

 

Figure 36. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence and quality of education and training for emergencies.

The results of the research on understanding and respecting cultural diversity provide valuable insights into the respondents’ attitudes on this matter. The most significant conclusion is that a large number of respondents (37.4%) do not have a definite stance on the existence of understanding and respect for cultural diversity. This may indicate the need for additional education or information on the importance of cultural diversity and ways to promote it in the community. The attitudes of the respondents vary significantly. There is a certain portion of respondents who believe that understanding and respecting cultural diversity exist to a small extent (24.3%) or do not exist at all (12.1%). However, there is also an optimistic view, as some respondents mention that understanding and respecting cultural diversity are prevalent to a large extent (16.8%), and there are those who believe that it occurs at the highest level of understanding and respect (6.5%). These results indicate the existence of positive examples and successful initiatives in promoting cultural diversity, but also suggest that there is room for additional efforts in this segment of society (Table 53 and Figure 36).

Table 53. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence of understanding and respect for cultural diversity.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 39 12.1 12.5 12.5
Disagree 78 24.3 25.0 37.5
Neutral 120 37.4 38.5 76.0
Agree 54 16.8 17.3 93.3
Strongly agree 21 6.5 6.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 37. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the existence of understanding and respect for cultural diversity.

 

The results of the survey on respondents’ attitudes towards the level of personal and collective responsibility for community resilience and safety in disasters provide an important insight into people’s perception of this crucial issue. The most prominent conclusion is that a large number of respondents (37.4%) have a neutral stance on this issue. This may indicate a general uncertainty or indecision regarding their involvement and impact on community resilience to disasters. Additionally, a significant number of respondents believe that the level of personal and collective responsibility is very low (21.5%) or that such responsibility does not exist at all (12.1%). These results may indicate the need for greater engagement and education in communities about the importance of disaster responsibility and the role that each individual can play in creating a safer environment. On the other hand, there is also an optimistic approach, where a certain number of respondents believe that the level of responsibility is high (17.8%) or meets all standards (8.4%). These results may reflect the existence of successful programs and initiatives that have educated their members about their role in maintaining community safety in the event of a disaster (Table 54 and Figure 37).

Table 54. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of personal and collective responsibility for community resilience and safety in disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 39 12.1 12.5 12.5
Disagree 69 21.5 22.1 34.6
Neutral 120 37.4 38.5 73.1
Agree 57 17.8 18.3 91.3
Strongly agree 27 8.4 8.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

Figure 38. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of personal and collective responsibility for community resilience and safety in disasters.

 

The study shows that a large number of respondents (39.3%) do not have a specific opinion on community preparedness for disasters. This indicates possible uncertainty or lack of awareness regarding the community’s level of preparedness for challenges that may arise in the event of a disaster. Additionally, a significant number of respondents believe that their community is very poorly prepared for disasters (24.3%) or not prepared at all (11.2%). However, there are also more optimistic attitudes, with some respondents considering the community to be highly prepared for disasters (15.9%), while a small number believe that the community is absolutely prepared for all types of disasters (5.6%). These positive attitudes may reflect successful programs and initiatives in communities that have invested in readiness and response to catastrophic events. In summary, these results highlight the need for better education, resources, and planning to enhance community preparedness for disasters, as well as raising awareness of the importance of this issue within the community (Table 55 and Figure 38).

Table 55. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards community preparedness for disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 36 11.2 11.7 11.7
Disagree 78 24.3 25.2 36.9
Neutral 126 39.3 40.8 77.7
Agree 51 15.9 16.5 94.2
Strongly agree 18 5.6 5.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 39. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards community preparedness for disasters.

 

When it comes to respondents’ attitudes regarding household preparedness for disasters, the most prominent conclusion is that the majority of respondents (35.5%) believe their household is very poorly prepared for disasters, indicating the need for improvement in preparedness at the individual household level. Additionally, a significant portion of respondents believe their household is not prepared at all (16.8%).

 

However, there is also a smaller portion of respondents who have expressed confidence in their household’s preparedness, to a large extent (8.4%) or completely (4.7%). These attitudes may reflect the existence of effective rescue plans and disaster preparedness in certain households. On the other hand, a large number of respondents have no definite opinion on their household’s preparedness for disasters (31.8%), which may indicate indecision or a lack of information on how to adequately prepare for potential catastrophic events. In summary, these results highlight the importance of promoting awareness of disaster preparedness at the household level and providing resources and education to help people better prepare for potential challenges (Table 56 and Figure 39).

Table 56. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding household preparedness for disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 54 16.8 17.3 17.3
Disagree 114 35.5 36.5 53.8
Neutral 102 31.8 32.7 86.5
Agree 27 8.4 8.7 95.2
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 40. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding household preparedness for disasters

 

The results of the survey on respondents’ attitudes towards disaster risk perception are marked by a diversity of opinions. An interesting finding is that a significant portion of participants (29.9%) express that they have no specific opinion on disaster risks, which may indicate a lack of awareness of potential dangers that disasters can bring. Similarly, another large portion of respondents (29.9%) state that they have very little fear of these risks, reflecting a more relaxed approach to potential hazards. A notable portion of respondents (20.6%) declare that they have no fear of disaster risks at all.

 

Such attitudes may have various causes, including previous experience with disasters, lack of information about risks, or an unrealistic sense of security. On the other hand, a smaller portion of respondents (13.1%) express a high level of fear of disasters, while an even smaller number (3.7%) state that their perception of disaster risks is at the absolute highest level.

 

These results indicate the significance of various factors that can influence how people perceive and respond to disaster risks. Understanding these attitudes and perceptions can be of great importance for designing effective disaster risk reduction programs and educational campaigns aimed at increasing awareness and readiness to respond to potential hazards (Table 57 and Figure 40).

Table 57. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards disaster risk perception.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 66 20.6 21.2 21.2
Disagree 96 29.9 30.8 51.9
Neutral 96 29.9 30.8 82.7
Agree 42 13.1 13.5 96.2
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

The range of attitudes exhibited by respondents towards disaster risks underscores the multifaceted nature of perception and response mechanisms. A considerable portion of respondents may attribute their attitudes towards disasters to past experiences, a lack of information about risks, or an unfounded sense of security. These factors, whether rooted in personal encounters with disasters or gaps in risk awareness, shape individuals’ perceptions and readiness to confront potential hazards.

 

Conversely, a smaller yet significant proportion of respondents express heightened levels of fear towards disasters, while an even smaller subset acknowledges the gravity of disaster risks at the highest level. These attitudes highlight the presence of individuals who are acutely aware of the potential consequences of disasters and harbor genuine concerns regarding their impact.

 

Figure 41. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards disaster risk perception.

 

In the majority of cases, respondents do not have a definite opinion on the implementation of disaster preparedness campaigns (33.6%), while many of them believe that the implementation of such campaigns is very limited (27.1%) or that they do not exist at all (19.6%). On the other hand, a smaller number of respondents express the opinion that these campaigns are very good and widely implemented (13.2%). Additionally, a small number of respondents stated that the implementation of disaster preparedness campaigns is fully and extensively present at the highest level (3.7%) (Table 58 and Figure 41).

Table 58. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the implementation of disaster preparedness campaigns.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 63 19.6 20.2 20.2
Disagree 87 27.1 27.9 48.1
Neutral 108 33.6 34.6 82.7
Agree 42 13.1 13.5 96.2
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 42. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the implementation of disaster preparedness campaigns.

 

The results of the research on respondents’ attitudes towards the implementation of special measures for protecting critical infrastructure show significant diversity in opinions. A significant portion of respondents (23.4%) state that the implementation of special measures does not exist at all, indicating possible weaknesses or inefficiencies in infrastructure protection systems regarding the prevention and mitigation of potential disaster consequences. Additionally, some respondents believe that special measures for infrastructure protection are implemented to a very limited extent (30.8%), suggesting the need for improvement and enhancement of existing protection measures. On the other hand, there are respondents with more positive opinions about the implementation of special measures for infrastructure protection. 12.2% of them consider that the implementation of these measures is prevalent to a large extent, while 3.7% believe it is prevalent to an absolute extent. These results underscore the need for analysis and improvement of critical infrastructure protection systems to increase readiness and responsiveness to potential threats and disasters (Table 59 and Figure 42).

Table 59. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the implementation of special measures for protecting critical infrastructure.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 75 23.4 23.6 23.6
Disagree 99 30.8 31.1 54.7
Neutral 93 29.0 29.2 84.0
Agree 39 12.1 12.3 96.2
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 43. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward the implementation of special measures for protecting critical infrastructure.

The results of the survey regarding respondents’ attitudes toward citizens’ awareness of disaster risks show diverse perceptions and levels of awareness of these risks. The largest proportion of respondents (30.8%) does not have a defined stance on citizens’ awareness of risks, indicating the need for additional education and information in this area.

 

However, there are also more optimistic views, where 13.1% of respondents believe that citizens are largely aware of risks, while 6.5% are convinced that they are absolutely aware of risks. In any case, these results emphasize the importance of continuous education, information, and raising awareness about disaster risks to achieve better preparedness and responsiveness in the event of potential disasters (Table 60 and Figure 43).

Table 60. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on citizens’ awareness of disaster risks.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 63 19.6 20.0 20.0
Disagree 90 28.0 28.6 48.6
Neutral 99 30.8 31.4 80.0
Agree 42 13.1 13.3 93.3
Strongly agree 21 6.5 6.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

A significant portion of respondents (28.0%) believes that citizens are aware of risks to a very small extent, which also indicates the need for improving awareness and education about disasters and potential risks. Additionally, a smaller portion of respondents (19.6%) believes that citizens are not aware of risks at all, which could be concerning, especially if this situation is real and if there are risks that are neglected or underestimated.

 

Figure 44. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on citizens’ awareness of disaster risks.

 

Research results on respondents’ attitudes regarding the possibility of rapid evacuation and the existence of shelters reveal diversity in opinions and perceptions. The majority of respondents (34.6%) have no definite opinion on whether rapid evacuation is possible or on the existence of shelters, which may indicate a lack of information or awareness on these matters. This result may suggest the need for improved communication and education on evacuation plans and the existence of shelters.

 

A portion of respondents (10.3%) expressed the view that rapid evacuation is not possible and that shelters do not exist. Another portion of respondents (20.6%) stated that they believe rapid evacuation is very difficult, indicating various obstacles or challenges that may affect the speed of evacuation. However, there are also more optimistic views, with 15.9% of respondents believing that rapid evacuation is possible within a short period, while 17.8% believe that rapid evacuation is possible and that shelters exist. Enhanced education, information, and raising awareness about evacuation plans can be crucial in increasing preparedness and reducing risks in the event of a disaster (Table 61 and Figure 44).

Table 61. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the possibility of rapid evacuation and the existence of shelters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 33 10.3 10.4 10.4
Disagree 66 20.6 20.8 31.1
Neutral 111 34.6 34.9 66.0
Agree 51 15.9 16.0 82.1
Strongly agree 57 17.8 17.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 45. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the possibility of rapid evacuation and the existence of shelters.

 

The research represents an assessment of respondents’ attitudes regarding the possibility of making rapid decisions in relevant institutions, without bureaucratic complications. The results show significant variation in respondents’ perceptions. The largest proportion of respondents (33.6%) assesses their attitudes on this issue as average, which may indicate that there is some degree of swift decision-making in institutions, but it is also considered to be reversible. A portion of respondents (28.0%) believes that the possibility of rapid decision-making is not at a sufficiently high level, suggesting the need for reforms and improvements in existing procedures.

 

Another significant portion of respondents (18.7%) rate the possibility of rapid decision-making as low. On the other hand, only a small number of respondents (9.3%) assess that the possibility of rapid decision-making in relevant institutions is at a sufficiently high level. Finally, only a small portion of respondents (5.6%) evaluate decision-making procedures as very effective and without significant bureaucratic complications. Overall, the results of this research underscore the need for improving the decision-making process in relevant institutions to enhance efficiency and the ability to respond quickly to community challenges and needs (Table 62 and Figure 45).

Table 62. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the possibility of making rapid decisions in relevant institutions, without bureaucratic complications.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 90 28.0 29.4 29.4
Disagree 60 18.7 19.6 49.0
Neutral 108 33.6 35.3 84.3
Agree 30 9.3 9.8 94.1
Strongly agree 18 5.6 5.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 46. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the possibility of making rapid decisions in relevant institutions, without bureaucratic complications.

 

The research provides an overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the active involvement of the community in implementing protection and preparedness measures. The majority of respondents (31.8%) assess the community’s active involvement as average, indicating a certain level of cooperation and engagement, but suggesting that more efforts are needed to improve this area. Subsequently, a significant number of respondents (26.2%) rate the community’s involvement as moderate, suggesting that there is some degree of collaboration, but also room for improvement and expansion of community participation. On the other hand, a smaller portion of respondents (18.7%) perceive the community’s active involvement as absolutely low. However, there is also an optimistic view from a small number of respondents (8.4%) who rate the community’s active involvement as high (13.1%) or even absolute (8.4%) (Table 63 and Figure 46).

 

Table 63. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the active involvement of the community in implementing protection and preparedness measures.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 60 18.7 19.0 19.0
Disagree 84 26.2 26.7 45.7
Neutral 102 31.8 32.4 78.1
Agree 42 13.1 13.3 91.4
Strongly agree 27 8.4 8.6 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 47. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the active involvement of the community in implementing protection and preparedness measures.

 

The study thoroughly examines the attitudes of respondents regarding the level of faith and optimism in the community’s ability to cope with disasters. The majority of respondents (29.0%) assess the level of faith and optimism in the community’s ability as very low or express that they do not exist at all (16.8%). Subsequently, a significant portion of respondents (28.0%) rates the level of faith and optimism as average, indicating that there is optimism but also room for improvement in the community’s ability to cope with disasters. However, there is also a more optimistic view reflecting that faith and optimism in the community’s ability to cope with disasters exist to some extent (14.0%) or that optimism and faith in the community’s ability are at the highest level possible (8.4%) (Table 64 and Figure 47).

Table 64. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of faith and optimism in the community’s ability to cope with disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 54 16.8 17.5 17.5
Disagree 93 29.0 30.1 47.6
Neutral 90 28.0 29.1 76.7
Agree 45 14.0 14.6 91.3
Strongly agree 27 8.4 8.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 48. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of faith and optimism in the community’s ability to cope with disasters.

 

The research has shown that the largest number of respondents do not have a specific opinion on the level of flexibility and adaptability in addressing unforeseen situations (34.6%), while there is also a significant number of respondents who believe that this level is very low (25.2%) or that it does not exist at all (23.4%). In contrast, there are those who believe that the level of flexibility and adaptability is at an absolute maximum (3.7%) or at a high level, but with room for improvement (10.3%). These results emphasize the importance and need for continuous improvement of the ability to adapt and be flexible in addressing unforeseen situations, which is crucial for readiness and responsiveness in the face of various challenges (Table 65 and Figure 48).

Table 65. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of flexibility and adaptability in addressing unforeseen situations.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 75 23.4 24.0 24.0
Disagree 81 25.2 26.0 50.0
Neutral 111 34.6 35.6 85.6
Agree 33 10.3 10.6 96.2
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 49. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the level of flexibility and adaptability in addressing unforeseen situations.

 

The research presents an overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence of collective willingness to learn from previous disasters and improve future responses. The results of this study reveal a widespread prevalence of negative perceptions among respondents. The highest number of respondents (34.6%) assesses the existence of collective willingness to learn from previous disasters as average, indicating a certain degree of awareness of the importance of learning from experience. Subsequently, a significant number of respondents (27.1%) assesses the existence of collective willingness to learn as moderately low, suggesting a lack of motivation or engagement in learning from past mistakes, with some respondents indicating that there is no collective willingness to learn from previous disasters at all (22.4%). However, a small number of respondents (6.5%) assesses the existence of collective willingness to learn as very high, reflecting optimistic perceptions about readiness to learn and improve in the future. Finally, a small portion of respondents (7.5%) believes that the collective willingness to learn is at a high level but partially falls short of the needs for improving future responses. In summary, these results point to the need for strengthening awareness and motivation for learning from previous disasters, which is crucial for building more resilient and prepared communities in the future (Table 66 and Figure 49).

Table 66. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence of collective willingness to learn from previous disasters and improve future responses.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 72 22.4 22.9 22.9
Disagree 87 27.1 27.6 50.5
Neutral 111 34.6 35.2 85.7
Agree 24 7.5 7.6 93.3
Strongly agree 21 6.5 6.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 50. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence of collective willingness to learn from previous disasters and improve future responses.

 

According to the analysis of the obtained results, we can observe that the largest number of respondents do not have a definite opinion on the effectiveness of the early warning and alerting systems, and similarly, a large number of respondents believe that the effectiveness of the system is very low (26.2%) or that it does not exist or does not function at all (27.1%). In contrast, a small number of respondents believe in the absolute effectiveness of the early warning system (4.7%) (Table 67 and Figure 50).

Table 67. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the effectiveness of early warning and alerting systems.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 87 27.1 27.6 27.6
Disagree 84 26.2 26.7 54.3
Neutral 93 29.0 29.5 83.8
Agree 36 11.2 11.4 95.2
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 51. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the effectiveness of early warning and alerting systems.

 

The study on the development of disaster insurance according to respondents’ attitudes shows various levels of perception and assessment. Over a third of the respondents (28.0%) give the lowest rating to their attitudes, indicating significant dissatisfaction or inadequacy in the field of disaster insurance development. Another significant number of respondents (23.4%) expressed similar attitudes, giving a rating of 2.

 

Only a small portion of respondents (4.7%) expressed the highest attitudes towards the development of disaster insurance, assigning category 5, while there are respondents who are very satisfied with the development of disaster insurance (11.2%). Overall, the research results depict a wide spectrum of respondents’ attitudes, with the majority expressing some dissatisfaction with the development of disaster insurance (Table 68 and Figure 51).

Table 68. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of disaster insurance.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 90 28.0 29.1 29.1
Disagree 75 23.4 24.3 53.4
Neutral 93 29.0 30.1 83.5
Agree 36 11.2 11.7 95.1
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.9 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

A substantial proportion of respondents, comprising over a third of the sample, express the lowest rating for their attitudes. This indicates a notable level of dissatisfaction or perceived inadequacy regarding the progress in disaster insurance development. Similarly, a significant number of respondents share similar sentiments, highlighting concerns and areas for improvement within the realm of disaster insurance. Conversely, only a minority of respondents demonstrate the highest levels of satisfaction with the development of disaster insurance. While a small portion expresses the utmost satisfaction, a slightly larger group acknowledges a positive outlook on the advancements in this field. Nonetheless, the overall distribution of attitudes portrays a prevalent sentiment of dissatisfaction among the majority of respondents.

 

These findings underscore the importance of addressing perceived shortcomings and enhancing efforts in disaster insurance development. By understanding the nuanced perspectives of stakeholders, policymakers and insurance providers can identify key areas for intervention and implement targeted strategies to improve accessibility, coverage, and effectiveness of disaster insurance schemes. Moreover, fostering dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders can facilitate the co-creation of solutions that align with the needs and expectations of communities, ultimately contributing to more robust disaster risk management frameworks.

 

Figure 52. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards the development of disaster insurance.

5.5.4. Perception of Participants Regarding Social Justice as a Component of Resilience

 

Research results on access to resources and services without discrimination highlight a wide prevalence of various attitudes among respondents. The majority of respondents expressed a belief that these resources and services are available to a very limited extent (26.2%) or even not available at all (24.3%), which may indicate the presence of systemic barriers or discriminatory practices. Additionally, a significant portion of respondents stated that these resources and services are available under certain conditions or situations but not at an adequate level (29.9%), indicating inefficiency and inequality in access. Conversely, there is a portion of respondents who believe that resources and services are available to a very large (11.2%) or even absolute extent (5.6%), which may reflect positive experiences or attitudes of certain groups. These results emphasize the need for increased efforts in building a system that ensures equal and equitable access to all resources and services without discrimination, which is essential for building a fair and inclusive society (Table 69 and Figure 52).

Table 69. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward access to resources and services without discrimination.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 78 24.3 25.0 25.0
Disagree 84 26.2 26.9 51.9
Neutral 96 29.9 30.8 82.7
Agree 36 11.2 11.5 94.2
Strongly agree 18 5.6 5.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

Figure 53. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward access to resources and services without discrimination.

 

Research results on respondents’ attitudes toward measures for the protection and promotion of minority rights reveal diverse perceptions and beliefs among respondents. A significant number of respondents (29.9%) expressed dissatisfaction with measures for the protection and promotion of minority rights, which may indicate existing ineffective systems and a field of inequality in this area. Additionally, the majority of respondents (29.0%) stated that they have reservations regarding measures for the protection and promotion of minority rights, which may indicate the need for improving existing standards and practices (Table 70 and Figure 53).

Table 70. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward measures for the protection and promotion of minority rights.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 72 22.4 22.9 22.9
Disagree 96 29.9 30.5 53.3
Neutral 93 29.0 29.5 82.9
Agree 36 11.2 11.4 94.3
Strongly agree 18 5.6 5.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 54. Overview of respondents’ attitudes toward measures for the protection and promotion of minority rights.

Furthermore, there is a portion of respondents (22.4%) who believe that measures for the protection and promotion of minority rights are at the lowest level, indicating inadequate treatment towards the rights and needs of minority communities. However, there is also a small portion of respondents (5.6%) who believe that measures for the protection and promotion of minority rights are at the highest level, which may reflect existing positive experiences or confidence in existing systemic support. These results highlight the need for a more detailed analysis and actions to improve in this area, in order to ensure equal and adequate status for all minority groups in society (Table 70 and Figure 53).

 

Research results on the community’s readiness to address social injustices reveal a wide spectrum of attitudes among respondents. The largest number of respondents (31.8%) expressed confidence in a moderate level of community readiness to confront social injustices, which may indicate existing awareness and engagement in addressing these issues.

Table 71. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the community’s readiness to address social injustices.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 84 26.2 26.9 26.9
Disagree 72 22.4 23.1 50.0
Neutral 102 31.8 32.7 82.7
Agree 30 9.3 9.6 92.3
Strongly agree 24 7.5 7.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Additionally, a significant portion of respondents (26.2%) stated that there is insufficient readiness within the community, indicating the need for additional efforts and resources in this area. Moreover, there is a smaller portion of respondents (22.4%) who believe that the community’s readiness falls below expectations, reflecting existing problems and challenges in the field of social justice. However, a small number of respondents (7.5%) expressed confidence in a high level of community readiness, which may reflect existing successful initiatives or belief in the community’s potential for change. Another small portion of respondents (9.3%) expressed a less optimistic stance, emphasizing the need for additional work and engagement in this area. In summary, these results indicate a diversity of attitudes and the need for additional actions in building more prepared and resourceful communities that address social injustices (Table 71 and Figure 54).

 

Figure 55. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the community’s readiness to address social injustices.

 

The majority of respondents believe that the level of availability and access to key resources during and after disasters is neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory (29.9%), while numerous respondents indicated that this level is largely unsatisfactory (25.2%) or that they have no access to key resources during and after disasters at all (24.3%). On the other hand, a smaller number of respondents stated that resources are available to a large extent (13.1%) or even in absolute terms (5.6%) (Table 72 and Figure 55).

Table 72. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of availability and access to key resources (water, food, shelter) during and after disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 78 24.3 24.8 24.8
Disagree 81 25.2 25.7 50.5
Neutral 96 29.9 30.5 81.0
Agree 42 13.1 13.3 94.3
Strongly agree 18 5.6 5.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 56. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of availability and access to key resources (water, food, shelter) during and after disasters.

 

Research on access to medical services and emergency interventions regardless of socioeconomic status during disasters reveals different perceptions among respondents. The majority of respondents (35.5%) expressed confidence in a moderate level of availability of medical services and emergency interventions, regardless of socioeconomic status during disasters. About a quarter of respondents (25.2%) expressed dissatisfaction with the availability, which may indicate existing challenges in the healthcare system under disaster conditions. There is also a portion of respondents (17.8%) who believe that the availability of medical services and emergency interventions is at the lowest level, which may point out critical points in the healthcare system during disasters. However, a small number of respondents (6.5%) expressed confidence in a high level of availability of medical services and emergency interventions, reflecting an optimistic view regarding the capacity of the healthcare system to cope with catastrophic events. Given these diverse perceptions, these results underscore the need for the existence and improvement of mechanisms to ensure equal access to healthcare services in all situations, regardless of socioeconomic status (Table 73 and Figure 56).

Table 73. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to medical services and emergency interventions regardless of socioeconomic status during disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 57 17.8 18.3 18.3
Disagree 81 25.2 26.0 44.2
Neutral 114 35.5 36.5 80.8
Agree 39 12.1 12.5 93.3
Strongly agree 21 6.5 6.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 57. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to medical services and emergency interventions regardless of socioeconomic status during disasters.

 

Research results on the extent of social assistance and support available to different groups in the community during disasters reveal significant differences in respondents’ attitudes. The largest portion of respondents (37.4%) expressed confidence in a moderate extent of social assistance and support available to different groups in the community during disasters. Approximately 18.7% of respondents stated that there is insufficient social assistance and support, which may indicate existing challenges and inefficiencies in the disaster relief system. Additionally, 16.8% of respondents believed that the extent of social assistance and support is at the lowest level, emphasizing the need for improving capacity and resources in this area. However, a small portion of respondents (9.3%) expressed optimism regarding the extent of social assistance and support, reflecting existing positive experiences or beliefs in systemic mechanisms. Finally, 15.0% of respondents expressed a moderate level of optimism in this area, highlighting the need for additional efforts and improvements. These results indicate the need for enhancing and expanding social networks and resources to enable effective and adequate assistance to all groups in the community during catastrophic events (Table 74 and Figure 57).

Table 74. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the extent of social assistance and support available to different groups in the community during disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 54 16.8 17.3 17.3
Disagree 60 18.7 19.2 36.5
Neutral 120 37.4 38.5 75.0
Agree 48 15.0 15.4 90.4
Strongly agree 30 9.3 9.6 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 58. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the extent of social assistance and support available to different groups in the community during disasters.

 

When it comes to the attitudes of respondents regarding the presence and active participation of various social groups in the planning and implementation of resilience initiatives, the majority consider that it exists, but not to a sufficient extent (28.3%), while many believe that the active participation of various social groups is very limited (25.2%) or nonexistent (14.0%). In contrast, a very small number of respondents believe that the presence and participation of various social groups are prevalent to a very large (16.8%) or absolute extent (3.7%) (Table 75 and Figure 58).

Table 75. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the presence and active participation of various social groups in planning and implementing resilience initiatives.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 45 14.0 14.3 14.3
Disagree 81 25.2 25.7 40.0
Neutral 123 38.3 39.0 79.0
Agree 54 16.8 17.1 96.2
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 59. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the presence and active participation of various social groups in planning and implementing resilience initiatives.

 

The research shows that the largest number of respondents are not sufficiently aware of the existence of programs targeting the specific needs of vulnerable groups (38.3%) or are aware to a very limited extent (19.6%), while many state that they know nothing about such programs or that they do not exist (18.7%) (Table 76 and Figure 59).

Table 76. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence of programs targeting specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, or migrant communities.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 60 18.7 19.2 19.2
Disagree 63 19.6 20.2 39.4
Neutral 123 38.3 39.4 78.8
Agree 36 11.2 11.5 90.4
Strongly agree 30 9.3 9.6 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 60. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the existence of programs targeting specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, or migrant communities.

On the other hand, we can observe that a smaller number of respondents positively stated that such a program is fully developed (9.3%) or that it exists but can be further improved (11.5%) (Table 76 and Figure 59).

 

When it comes to the availability of personalized emergency plans for individuals with special needs, a very large number of respondents believe that they are of very poor quality or difficult to access (28.0%) or that they do not exist at all (19.6%). Additionally, some respondents have no specific opinion on the matter, thus rating them with a median value (29.0%). Only 6.5% of respondents believe that personalized emergency plans for individuals with special needs are fully developed and accessible to all who need them, while 14% believe that they exist and are largely adequate but have room for improvement in quality (Table 77 and Figure 60).

Table 77. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the availability of personalized emergency plans for individuals with special needs.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 63 19.6 20.2 20.2
Disagree 90 28.0 28.8 49.0
Neutral 93 29.0 29.8 78.8
Agree 45 14.0 14.4 93.3
Strongly agree 21 6.5 6.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 61. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the availability of personalized emergency plans for individuals with special needs.

 

The research results indicate that a large number of respondents are largely dissatisfied with transportation and evacuation that should accommodate different levels of mobility and needs (27.1%) or believe that such an approach to transportation and evacuation does not exist at all (20.6%). A smaller number of respondents have a more positive attitude towards this issue, stating that such an approach is largely (12.1%) or fully (9.3%) developed. Additionally, a certain number of respondents do not have a pronounced opinion (29.0%) (Table 78 and Figure 61).

Table 78. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to transportation and evacuation that caters to different levels of mobility and needs.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 66 20.6 21.0 21.0
Disagree 87 27.1 27.6 48.6
Neutral 93 29.0 29.5 78.1
Agree 39 12.1 12.4 90.5
Strongly agree 30 9.3 9.5 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 62. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding access to transportation and evacuation that caters to different levels of mobility and needs.

 

Regarding respondents’ attitudes towards openness and adaptation of communication strategies for different linguistic and cultural communities, the majority of participants, at 37.4%, rated attitudes with the third category. However, it is noticeable that 18.7% and 21.5% of respondents fall into the lowest categories, indicating the need for additional efforts in these areas.

 

Participants who believe that adapting communication strategies for different linguistic and cultural communities is adequate to a full extent (8.4%) or to a very large extent (13.1%) should not be overlooked either. If these results are correctly interpreted and taken into account, they can serve as a useful basis for the development of training and educational programs in this area, aiming to gradually improve attitudes and abilities to adapt communication for different cultures and linguistic communities (Table 79 and Figure 62).

Table 79. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards openness and adaptation of communication strategies for different linguistic and cultural communities.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 60 18.7 18.9 18.9
Disagree 69 21.5 21.7 40.6
Neutral 120 37.4 37.7 78.3
Agree 42 13.1 13.2 91.5
Strongly agree 27 8.4 8.5 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

The recognition among participants that adapting communication strategies for diverse linguistic and cultural communities is adequate to a significant extent highlights a positive outlook towards fostering inclusive communication practices. These findings signify a willingness among individuals to acknowledge the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity in communication processes. Moreover, they underscore the potential for leveraging these perceptions as a foundation for the development of targeted training and educational programs.

 

Figure 63. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards openness and adaptation of communication strategies for different linguistic and cultural communities.

As the research indicates, a very large number of respondents do not have a pronounced stance on the participation of various social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementation of crisis management measures (43.9%), which may indicate the need for additional education and campaign development in this area  (Table 80 and Figure 63).

Table 80. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the participation of various social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementation of crisis management measures.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 51 15.9 16.0 16.0
Disagree 63 19.6 19.8 35.8
Neutral 141 43.9 44.3 80.2
Agree 36 11.2 11.3 91.5
Strongly agree 27 8.4 8.5 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 64. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the participation of various social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementation of crisis management measures.

Additionally, we observe that a certain portion believes that their representation in these activities is very low (19.6%) or non-existent (15.9%). In contrast, among the respondents, there are those who believe that the participation of different social groups in crisis management activities is prevalent to a large extent (11.2%) or even fully realized (8.4%) (Table 80 and Figure 63).

 

Research results on respondents’ attitudes towards fairness in access to and participation in local crisis management bodies indicate that the largest portion of respondents expressed a neutral stance (35.5%), meaning they have a neutral view on this issue. Subsequently, a significant number of respondents belong to the category suggesting certain reservations or issues in these aspects (28.0%) or who have no confidence in the fairness of local crisis management bodies at all (18.7%). A small portion of respondents expressed maximally positive attitudes regarding justice and participation in these bodies (3.7%), which may indicate the need for additional research or improvement in these aspects (Table 81 and Figure 64).

Table 81. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards justice in access to and participation in local crisis management bodies.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 60 18.7 18.9 18.9
Disagree 90 28.0 28.3 47.2
Neutral 114 35.5 35.8 83.0
Agree 42 13.1 13.2 96.2
Strongly agree 12 3.7 3.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 65. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards justice in access to and participation in local crisis management bodies.

 

5.5.5. Perception of Participants Regarding Social Beliefs as a Component of Resilience

 

The research shows that the largest number of respondents have a moderate level of trust in social institutions and services during disasters (29.9%), while a significant number of respondents emphasize having very little trust (29.0%) or no trust at all in the effective functioning of social institutions and services during disasters (12.1%). Additionally, there is considerable diversity in attitudes regarding this issue, as a considerable number of respondents express very high (17.8%) or complete (10.3%) trust in the functioning of disaster services (Table 82 and Figure 65).

Table 82. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding trust in the work of social institutions and services during disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 39 12.1 12.3 12.3
Disagree 93 29.0 29.2 41.5
Neutral 96 29.9 30.2 71.7
Agree 57 17.8 17.9 89.6
Strongly agree 33 10.3 10.4 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 66. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding trust in the work of social institutions and services during disasters.

 

In terms of the level of development of disaster resilience culture, the largest number of respondents indicated that they believe the disaster resilience culture is at a moderate level (33.6%), as well as at a very low level (24.3%), while a few consider that the disaster resilience culture does not exist at all (12.1%). Additionally, it can be observed that 16.8% of respondents believe that the disaster resilience culture is at a very high level, and some believe it has reached full development and utility (12.1%) (Table 83 and Figure 66).

Table 83. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of development of disaster resilience culture.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 39 12.1 12.3 12.3
Disagree 78 24.3 24.5 36.8
Neutral 108 33.6 34.0 70.8
Agree 54 16.8 17.0 87.7
Strongly agree 39 12.1 12.3 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 67. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the level of development of disaster resilience culture.

 

The research results indicate that the largest number of respondents consider cultural and religious values in community life to have moderate significance (38.3%), followed by a significant portion of them who perceive them as having very low significance (28.0%) or no significance at all (13.1%). On the other hand, there are respondents who believe that the significance of cultural and religious values is very high (14.0%) or that they are entirely significant to community events (5.6%) (Table 84 and Figure 67).

Table 84. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the significance of cultural and religious values in community life.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 42 13.1 13.2 13.2
Disagree 90 28.0 28.3 41.5
Neutral 123 38.3 38.7 80.2
Agree 45 14.0 14.2 94.3
Strongly agree 18 5.6 5.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 68. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the significance of cultural and religious values in community life.

 

 

When it comes to openness to dialogue and understanding between different cultural and religious groups, a higher number of respondents have a negative attitude towards this issue. Specifically, 16.8% of respondents believe that understanding between different groups either does not exist (16.8%) or is at a very low level (22.4%) (Table 85 and Figure 68).

Table 85. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards openness to dialogue and understanding between different cultural and religious groups.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 54 16.8 17.0 17.0
Disagree 72 22.4 22.6 39.6
Neutral 138 43.0 43.4 83.0
Agree 39 12.1 12.3 95.3
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Additionally, many respondents expressed a neutral stance on this issue, considering that openness is neither sufficient nor insufficient (43.0%). In contrast, 12.1% of respondents believe that openness to dialogue is at a high level or is fully guaranteed (4.7%) (Table 85 and Figure 68).

 

The research findings reveal a diversity of perspectives among respondents regarding the level of openness to dialogue within their communities. A considerable portion of respondents adopt a neutral stance on this issue, suggesting a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding dialogue and communication. This neutrality may stem from varying interpretations of what constitutes sufficient openness or from a recognition of the contextual factors that influence the dynamics of dialogue within communities.

 

In contrast, a minority of respondents express confidence in the high level or full guarantee of openness to dialogue within their communities. This indicates a subset of individuals who perceive robust mechanisms in place for facilitating constructive communication and exchange of ideas. These findings underscore the importance of exploring the factors that contribute to perceived levels of openness to dialogue and identifying strategies to foster more inclusive and effective communication channels within communities.

 

Figure 69. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards openness to dialogue and understanding between different cultural and religious groups.

 

The results of the survey on respondents’ attitudes towards participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity show different levels of engagement among participants in these activities. The majority of participants, at 32.7%, belong to the third category, indicating involvement and participation in traditional and religious rites.

 

However, it is noticeable that a significant portion of respondents, 15.9%, are in the lowest category, with a large number of respondents (27.1%) in the second category, indicating potential for improving engagement or developing interest in participating in these rituals. Nevertheless, there is a smaller portion of respondents who participate moderately (15.9%) or very frequently (7.5%) in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity (Table 86 and Figure 69).

 

Table 86. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 51 15.9 16.0 16.0
Disagree 87 27.1 27.4 43.4
Neutral 105 32.7 33.0 76.4
Agree 51 15.9 16.0 92.5
Strongly agree 24 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 70. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity.

 

The survey on respondents’ attitudes towards adherence to traditional social norms and values in the community reveals various perceptions and adoption of these norms. The largest number of respondents, at 31.8%, belongs to the third category, indicating the presence of a significant portion of participants who moderately adhere to traditional norms and values. However, it is noticeable that there is also a large number of respondents emphasizing that they do not adhere to traditional social norms and values in the community at all (29.0%) or adhere to them to a very limited extent (23.4%). Additionally, it can be observed that there is a smaller number of respondents who adhere to traditional social norms and values in the community to a great extent (9.3%) or completely (5.6%) (Table 87 and Figure 70).

Table 87. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards adherence to traditional social norms and values in the community.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 93 29.0 29.2 29.2
Disagree 75 23.4 23.6 52.8
Neutral 102 31.8 32.1 84.9
Agree 30 9.3 9.4 94.3
Strongly agree 18 5.6 5.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 71. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards adherence to traditional social norms and values in the community.

 

When it comes to the level of individuals’ involvement in local cultural activities and communal manifestations, we can observe that the majority of respondents are not satisfied with the level of involvement and believe it does not exist (18.7%), while some indicate that individuals are involved in local cultural activities, but to a very small extent (25.2%). Additionally, some respondents are satisfied with the level of individual involvement completely (7.5%) or to a large extent (11.2%), but they believe there is room for further development in terms of even greater involvement of individuals in local cultural activities and communal manifestations (Table 88 and Figure 71).

Table 88. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the level of individuals’ involvement in local cultural activities and communal manifestations.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 60 18.7 18.9 18.9
Disagree 81 25.2 25.5 44.3
Neutral 117 36.4 36.8 81.1
Agree 36 11.2 11.3 92.5
Strongly agree 24 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

Figure 72. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the level of individuals’ involvement in local cultural activities and communal manifestations.

 

The research results indicate that a very small number of respondents stated that local customs and traditions are fully (5.6%) or largely (12.1%) respected and preserved during and after disasters. Additionally, it is observed that more respondents agree that they are respected to a moderate extent (36.4%) or a very low extent (26.2%), while there are also those who mention that local customs and traditions are not respected at all during and after disasters (18.7%) (Table 89 and Figure 72).

Table 89. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards respecting and preserving local customs and traditions during and after disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 60 18.7 18.9 18.9
Disagree 84 26.2 26.4 45.3
Neutral 117 36.4 36.8 82.1
Agree 39 12.1 12.3 94.3
Strongly agree 18 5.6 5.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

The findings of the research shed light on the intriguing dynamics surrounding the preservation and respect for local customs and traditions during and after disasters. It is evident from the data that only a minimal proportion of respondents reported that local customs and traditions are fully or largely respected and preserved during such challenging times. This revelation prompts a deeper exploration into the factors contributing to this phenomenon and its implications for disaster management and community resilience.

 

One notable observation is the prevalence of respondents who perceive that local customs and traditions are respected to a moderate or very low extent during and after disasters. This suggests a disconnect between the aspirations of communities to uphold their cultural heritage and the actual implementation of practices that honor and preserve these traditions amidst crisis situations. Such findings underscore the importance of understanding the socio-cultural context in disaster response and recovery efforts.

 

Furthermore, the presence of respondents who indicate that local customs and traditions are not respected at all during and after disasters raises concerns regarding cultural sensitivity and inclusivity in disaster management strategies. Failure to acknowledge and integrate local knowledge systems and cultural practices into disaster response initiatives can exacerbate vulnerabilities and hinder effective community engagement.

Figure 73. Overview of respondents’ attitudes towards respecting and preserving local customs and traditions during and after disasters.

 

The study on respondents’ attitudes towards the intensity and regularity of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals reveals various perceptions among participants regarding this aspect. The majority of participants (31.8%) occasionally participate in religious rituals. However, attention should be paid to a significant number of respondents in lower categories, who do not participate at all (19.6%) or participate but to a very limited extent (27.1%) in religious ceremonies and rituals. Additionally, we notice a smaller number of respondents who are completely (4.7%) or very satisfied (15.9%) with the community’s participation in religious ceremonies and rituals (Table 90 and Figure 73).

 

Table 90. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the intensity and frequency of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid

Percentages

Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 63 19.6 19.8 19.8
Disagree 87 27.1 27.4 47.2
Neutral 102 31.8 32.1 79.2
Agree 51 15.9 16.0 95.3
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 74. Overview of respondents’ attitudes on the intensity and frequency of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals.

 

The results of the research indicate that the majority of respondents

consider religious leaders and institutions to moderately influence decision-making in the community (31.8%), while at the same time, many believe they have no influence at all (26.2%) or have very little influence (20.6%). However, there are respondents who believe that the influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community is very significant (14.0%) or is an integral part of decision-making (6.5%) (Table 91 and Figure 74).

Table 91. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 84 26.2 26.4 26.4
Disagree 66 20.6 20.8 47.2
Neutral 102 31.8 32.1 79.2
Agree 45 14.0 14.2 93.4
Strongly agree 21 6.5 6.6 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

 

Figure 75. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community.

 

In terms of the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness, it is noticeable that the majority of respondents believe that religious institutions carry out such activities to a moderate extent (29.9%) or very little (30.8%). Additionally, there is a larger number of respondents who believe that religious institutions do not conduct any activities at all (17.8%) compared to those who think they undertake all activities within their capabilities (4.7%) or at least most of them (15.9%) (Table 92 and Figure 75).

Table 92. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness and emergencies.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 57 17.8 17.9 17.9
Disagree 99 30.8 31.1 49.1
Neutral 96 29.9 30.2 79.2
Agree 51 15.9 16.0 95.3
Strongly agree 15 4.7 4.7 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

The research findings reveal a diverse range of perceptions among respondents regarding the extent to which religious institutions engage in disaster preparedness efforts. It is notable that a significant portion of respondents perceive religious institutions to be moderately or minimally involved in disaster preparedness activities. This suggests a gap between the expectations placed on religious organizations as community anchors and their actual involvement in proactive disaster risk reduction initiatives. This finding prompts a critical examination of the factors influencing the level of engagement of religious institutions in disaster preparedness.

 

Moreover, the data highlight a considerable proportion of respondents who believe that religious institutions do not conduct any disaster preparedness activities at all. This disparity between perceived and actual engagement levels raises questions about the visibility and effectiveness of disaster preparedness efforts led by religious institutions. It underscores the need for increased transparency, accountability, and collaboration among stakeholders to optimize the contributions of faith-based organizations in disaster resilience-building.

 

On the other hand, it is encouraging to note that a minority of respondents acknowledge that religious institutions undertake all or most of the disaster preparedness activities within their capabilities. This highlights instances of effective collaboration between religious organizations and local communities in addressing disaster risks and enhancing resilience. These examples serve as valuable case studies for understanding best practices and facilitating knowledge sharing within the broader disaster management community.

 

Figure 76. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness and emergencies.

The results of the survey on respondents’ attitudes regarding the influence of local culture and tradition on the interpretation of disasters reveal significant insights into the diverse perceptions of participants. The majority of participants (34.6%) expressed their views that local culture and tradition moderately shape the interpretation of disasters. (Table 93 and Figure 76).

Table 93. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the influence of local culture and tradition on the interpretation of disasters.

Category Frequency Percentages Valid Percentages Cumulative Percentages
Strongly disagree 78 24.3 24.5 24.5
Disagree 78 24.3 24.5 49.1
Neutral 111 34.6 34.9 84.0
Agree 42 13.1 13.2 97.2
Strongly agree 9 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 321 100.0 100.0

 

Figure 77. Overview of respondents’ attitudes regarding the influence of local culture and tradition on the interpretation of disasters.

However, it is worth noting a fairly even distribution among categories that are rated more negatively, in the sense that local culture and tradition have no influence at all (24.3%) or shape the interpretation of disasters, but to a very limited extent (24.3%). There is also a lesser participation in higher categories, where respondents believe that local culture and tradition fully (2.8%) or to a large extent (13.1%) shape the interpretation of disasters. Based on these results, it can be concluded that it is important to further explore the various aspects of the influence of local culture on the perception of disasters and develop approaches that take into account diverse attitudes and opinions within the community (Table 93 and Figure 76).

 

 

6. DISCUSION

In this monography, we present the findings of a quantitative study that explores how demographic and socioeconomic factors impact community (social) disaster resilience. The results of the multivariate regression analyses, across various community disaster resilience subscales, indicate that age emerged as the most significant predictor for the social structure subscale. The results obtained can be explained by the fact that older individuals may contribute to shaping a community’s social structure, based on prior life experiences, social networks, and spiritual beliefs (Cohen et al., 2016; Timalsina & Songwathana, 2020).

 

Their prolonged exposure to community dynamics and disaster-related events might lead to a more nuanced understanding of the social leadership structures, and the effectiveness of response services (Almazan et al., 2019; Liddell & Ferreira, 2019). Besides that, additional examinations revealed a correlation between age and dimensions such as social structure, social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, and social beliefs. Subsequent scrutiny of the outcomes indicates that as the respondents’ age increases, there is a positive association with higher ratings for social structure.

 

Conversely, a negative correlation was identified, indicating that as the age of the respondents advances, the ratings for social mechanisms, social equity diversity, and social beliefs tend to decrease. This inclination might be attributed to a range of factors such as accumulated life experiences, historical perspectives, and potentially deeper involvement in community affairs (Huerta & Horton, 1978; Melick & Logue, 1985; Murphy, 1994; Murrell & Norris, 1984). Older individuals, having witnessed and participated in various community activities over time, might harbour a more optimistic view of the existing social structures and leadership dynamics (Van Rijsbergen, Jaworska, Rousselet, & Schyns, 2014).

 

Moreover, historical context plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions. Older generations have lived through different eras characterized by distinct socio-political climates. Their viewpoints may be influenced by past experiences of societal change, cultural shifts, and historical events. These experiences can instill a sense of resilience and adaptability, leading to a more tempered assessment of contemporary social dynamics.

However, it’s essential to acknowledge potential limitations in this interpretation. While age can offer valuable insights into social attitudes, it’s not the sole determinant. Other factors, such as education, socioeconomic status, and cultural background, also contribute to individuals’ perspectives on social issues. Additionally, the observed negative correlation might vary across different demographic groups and cultural contexts. Furthermore, the interpretation of age-related trends in social attitudes should be approached with caution. While older individuals may possess a wealth of experience, they may also exhibit biases or resist change due to entrenched beliefs. Therefore, a nuanced understanding of age-related dynamics requires consideration of individual differences and the intersectionality of various factors shaping social perceptions.

 

At the same time, education stood out as the primary predictor for the social capital subscale. The findings indicate that respondents with a secondary school degree consistently provided higher scores across dimensions, including social structure, social mechanisms, and social equity and diversity, compared to those with a university degree. This positive association may be attributed to several factors linked to higher education, such as increased social awareness, communication skills, and a broader perspective on community dynamics (Cvetković & Stanišić, 2015; Drzewiecki et al., 2020; Feng et al., 2018; Hoffmann & Muttarak, 2017).

 

Besides that, respondents with a university education reported higher scores across social capital, preventive measures, and disaster resilience perception compared to respondents with a secondary school degree. Moreover, individuals with a university education may perceive higher levels of social connectedness, engagement, and support. They might also be more proactive in taking preventive measures and demonstrate a greater perception of resilience in the face of disasters compared to those with a secondary school degree (Nifa et al. 2017).

 

Additionally, employment status proved to be the most influential predictor for both social mechanisms and social equity-diversity subscales, with property ownership being the key predictor for the social beliefs sub-scale. Further analysis revealed a correlation between employment status and the following variables: social structure; social mechanisms; social equity and diversity; and social beliefs. Unemployed respondents tend to rate social structure, equality/diversity, and beliefs to a greater extent compared to employed respondents. One possible explanation is that unemployed respondents may have more time to engage in community-related activities and reflection (Lim & Sander, 2013), leading to a heightened awareness and assessment of social structures, equality, diversity, and beliefs. On the other hand, employed individuals may have a more structured daily routine, potentially limiting their direct involvement in community matters (Kroll & Lampert, 2011; Scheid, 1993; Wanberg, 2012).

 

Upon further examination, respondents who personally own property consistently yielded lower scores across various dimensions, including social capital, social beliefs, preventive measures, and predisaster resilience, in comparison to respondents who have family member ownership. It is possible that owners of personal property experience less support or resources from the community in disasters (Beatley, 1998; Riad, Norris, & Ruback, 1999). Additionally, there may be differences in risk perception and readiness for preventive measures between owners of personal property and those with family member ownership. Regarding the household income, a correlation was identified with the following variables: social structure, mechanisms, equity and diversity; and social beliefs.

 

A detailed examination reveals that respondents with below-average household incomes consistently assigned lower scores across various dimensions. Specifically, in comparison to those with average household incomes, respondents with below-average incomes provided lower scores for social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, and social beliefs. It can be assumed that individuals with below-average household incomes may face economic constraints (Adeagbo, Daramola, Carim-Sanni, Akujobi, & Ukpong, 2016; Li, 2007), affecting their perceptions of social mechanisms, equity and diversity, and social beliefs. Lower income levels might limit access to resources and opportunities (Pereira & Oliveira, 2020), influencing the way individuals assess community aspects related to social structure and beliefs.

 

Further examination reveals that respondents residing in households with two members tend to assign lower scores for social structures, whereas those in households with more than four members are inclined to give higher ratings for social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, and social beliefs. Furthermore, respondents in households with two to four members exhibit elevated scores for disaster resilience in comparison to those in households with more than four members. A potential explanation for these findings could be that individuals in smaller households may perceive limitations or challenges in the social structures within their community (Contoyannis, Jones, & Rice, 2004). On the other hand, those in larger households might experience a greater sense of interconnectedness (Foster et al., 2017), contributing to more positive evaluations of social mechanisms, social equity and diversity, as well as social beliefs.

 

Further examination showed the correlation between marital status and the analysis reveals that single respondents consistently provided higher scores across various dimensions, compared to those in a relationship or divorced. The relationship between marital status and these dimensions may imply that being single is associated with specific attitudes or behaviours that contribute to a more positive evaluation of social capital, preventive measures, and disaster resilience. This finding aligns with the research conducted by Kim and Lee (2021), who similarly identified the influence of marital status on the preparedness levels for bioterrorism. The connection between marital status and disaster-related attitudes underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of individual characteristics in shaping community resilience perceptions. Contrary to that, our results are not in line with Cui et al. (2018), who did not find evidence supporting correlations between marital status and an individual’s perception of community resilience. Furthermore, these findings align with several other studies that have investigated the level of resilience (Leykin et al., 2013; Pfefferbaum et al., 2016).

 

The calculated mean value of the community (social) disaster resilience index, falls within the lower range of possible values on a Likert scale from 1 to 5. This suggests that the overall level of disaster resilience within the community is relatively modest. The value being closer to the lower end of the scale, indicates that there may be room for improvement in enhancing the community’s resilience to disasters. Considering that Khan et al. (2022) found that the resilience index was higher in high-income countries (Switzerland, Germany, France, New Zealand, and Australia) followed by upper-middle, lower-middle, and low-income economies, such as the middle-income economy in Serbia, the results are somewhat expected (Zhang & Huang, 2018).

 

The examination of specific subscales highlights that participants bestowed the highest ratings on the social beliefs subscale, emphasizing a positive perception in this dimension. On the contrary, the social structure subscale received the lowest ratings, indicating potential vulnerabilities in this aspect of community resilience. Furthermore, the assessment of other subscales showed descending order ratings: social equity and diversity, social capital, and social mechanisms. A potential explanation for the low scores on the social structure subscale could be a lack of resources, organization, or effective mechanisms within the community that support proper disaster risk management (Cvetković et al., 2023; Cvetković et al., 2021).

 

Further analysis showed that preventive measures are most commonly taken in the face of the hazards of epidemics, extreme temperatures, and storms. The perception of society’s resilience is highest in the face of the hazards of epidemics, followed by extreme temperatures, and drought. Respondents express a relatively high level of confidence in society’s ability to cope with epidemics, extreme temperatures, and drought. These findings could be influenced by the perceived severity (Cvetković, Nikolić, Nenadić, Ocal, & Zečević, 2020; Cvetković, Öcal, et al., 2019; Sattler, Kaiser, & Hittner, 2000; Wirtz & Rohrbeck, 2018) and frequency of these specific hazards (Appleby-Arnold, Brockdorff, Jakovljev, & Zdravković, 2018; Bollettino et al., 2020), as well as existing awareness and preparedness initiatives (Kusumastuti, Arviansyah, Nurmala, & Wibowo, 2021) customized for these types of disasters. Also, this indicates a high level of awareness and a proactive approach to risks associated with epidemics, extreme temperatures, and storms (Cvetković et al., 2022b).

 

On the other hand, the hazards of volcanic eruptions, landslides, and tsunamis show lower priorities in taking preventive measures, and the perception of society’s resilience is also lower in these cases. The results obtained in this way may indicate a low level of perception of the hazards of such events, considering that, except for landslides, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis, are not typical for the region of Serbia (Cvetković et al., 2019). Also, this indicates the need for additional efforts in raising awareness and preparedness for these specific types of hazards. This analysis reveals variations in the approach to taking preventive measures and the perception of society’s resilience depending on the type of natural hazard. Identifying these differences can serve as a basis for further planning and implementing interventions to enhance preventive strategies and strengthen overall societal resilience to various hazards (Kusumastuti et al., 2021).

 

The obtained results of mean values for subscales indicate that participants gave the highest ratings to beliefs within the social beliefs category, while the lowest values were recorded in the social structure category. Following this, the ratings for social equity and diversity, social capital, and social mechanisms are next. The examination of perspectives on social structure indicates that participants view the advancement of response services and community leadership positively while acknowledging areas for enhancement in financial, technological, and human resources (Asadzadeh, Pakkhoo, Saeidabad, Khezri, & Ferdousi, 2020; Kusumastuti et al., 2021). Additionally, the calculated mean values suggest a generally neutral community stance regarding disaster preparedness and response matters.

 

In terms of social capital, the overall evaluations indicate that participants hold a perception of elevated mutual trust and support, robust social networks and connections, and extensive interaction and collaboration with other communities. Conversely, volunteer activities and projects received lower ratings, suggesting a possible need for enhancement in promoting community engagement (Kumar & Kumar, 2020).

 

Mean values indicate a generally neutral stance towards dialogue with authorities, involvement of diverse social groups in decision-making during disasters, and the existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness involving various socio-economic groups. In the realm of social mechanisms, the elevated values obtained for active community involvement, flexibility, adaptability, and the promotion of disaster insurance underscore a positive attitude towards specific social mechanisms. Conversely, the low ratings for household preparedness, risk perception, and citizen awareness indicate the necessity for a more robust focus on these aspects to enhance overall community preparedness. Besides that, mean values also suggest a neutral stance towards education, cultural diversity, and citizen awareness of risks, signalling areas for further reflection and improvement within the domain of social mechanisms.

 

Commendably high scores for the availability of key resources and community readiness to address social injustices reflect a positive attitude towards aspects of equity and diversity. Conversely, low scores for programs targeting the specific needs of vulnerable groups (Baker, Baker, & Flagg, 2012), protection of minority rights, and the involvement of different social groups in planning indicate the need for improvement in these areas to ensure a fair and inclusive response to disasters. Elevated assessments concerning aspects such as fostering a disaster-resilient culture (Albanese et al., 2008), active engagement in traditional and religious practices, and consistent participation in religious ceremonies signify a favourable inclination towards tradition, faith, and cultural values. Conversely, issues related to trust in social institutions during disasters, the restricted influence of religious leaders (Cvetković, Romanić, & Beriša, 2023) in decision-making processes, and the necessity for enhancing the efficacy of religious institutions in disaster preparedness (Sheikhi, Seyedin, Qanizadeh, & Jahangiri, 2021) highlight domains necessitating additional scrutiny and improvement to augment community disaster resilience.

 

The limitations of our study include (1) potential bias may exist in the process of choosing individuals to participate in the survey and complete questionnaires or an uneven representation of certain groups in the study sample, (2) insufficiently representative sample of respondents, (3) researchers lack complete control over the environment in which respondents participate in online surveys, leading to diverse conditions that can influence response consistency, (4) restrict the ability to ask additional questions or seek clarifications from respondents, reducing the depth of understanding individual responses, (5) the absence of physical presence could pose challenges in monitoring alterations in respondent behaviour or recognizing issues throughout the survey.

 

 

7. CONCLUSION

The resistance of social communities to natural disasters represents an important research area in the field of disaster studies. By enhancing the level of such resistance, the fundamental prerequisites for the safe functioning of society in various unforeseen events are achieved. This scientific monograph delves into the intricate dynamics of community disaster resilience, shedding light on the interplay between demographic and socioeconomic factors. Through a rigorous quantitative study, the research investigates how variables such as age, education, employment status, and property ownership influence the resilience of communities to disasters of varying magnitudes.

Utilizing multivariate regression analysis, the study identifies key predictors across different dimensions of community disaster resilience. It uncovers nuanced insights, revealing the differential impact of demographic and socioeconomic factors on various aspects of resilience. Among the findings, age, education, employment status, and property ownership emerge as significant predictors, shaping the overall resilience profile of communities. The calculated mean value of the community disaster resilience index provides a comprehensive overview, indicating a modest level of resilience across the studied communities. Notably, the analysis highlights variations in resilience across different subscales, with social beliefs garnering the highest ratings and social structure scoring the lowest. This disparity underscores the complex nature of community resilience and the need for targeted interventions to address specific vulnerabilities.

Furthermore, the research offers valuable insights into the prevalence of preventive measures adopted by communities to mitigate disaster risks. Epidemics, extreme temperatures, and storms emerge as the most common focus areas for preventive measures, reflecting societal priorities in disaster preparedness. Interestingly, the study also delves into societal perceptions of disaster resilience, revealing divergent attitudes towards different types of hazards. While epidemics, extreme temperatures, and drought are perceived to have higher resilience levels, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and tsunamis are viewed with comparatively lower confidence. This discrepancy in perception underscores the importance of understanding community attitudes and beliefs in shaping disaster resilience strategies.

 

In essence, this monograph contributes to the growing body of knowledge on community disaster resilience by providing empirical evidence and nuanced insights into the factors influencing resilience levels. By identifying predictors, assessing resilience indices, and exploring societal perceptions, the research informs evidence-based approaches for enhancing community resilience and fostering sustainable disaster risk reduction strategies.Distinct subscales underscore variations, emphasizing the importance of targeted interventions. Positive views on response services and community leadership coexist with a generally neutral stance on disaster preparedness. Social capital reflects mutual trust, with space for increased community engagement. Social mechanisms indicate positive attitudes but underscore the need for enhanced household disaster preparedness, risk perception, and citizen disaster awareness. High scores in addressing social injustices reveal positive attitudes, but lower ratings for specific programs suggest areas for improvement. Cultural aspects demonstrate positive attitudes towards traditions, faith, and cultural values, with challenges in trust during disasters and the role of religious leaders pointing to potential improvements. Correlations between education status, marital status, and various dimensions highlight nuanced relationships impacting community disaster resilience. The study offers a basis for focused interventions across a variety of criteria and sheds light on areas that might want improvement. By adding to our knowledge of Serbian community disaster resilience, this study helps practitioners and policymakers create focused interventions and promote a more just and resilient society that can withstand a variety of calamities. Aside from that, this study significantly advances our knowledge of community (social) resilience in the face of various natural disasters, with an emphasis on the effects of demographic and socioeconomic factors.

The identification of key predictors such as age, education, employment, and property ownership provides researchers with a foundation for further investigations and analyses. The research results indicate the need for differentiated approaches in studying community resilience to various types of disasters, providing new insights into complex sociodemographic factors. This paper carries significant social implications that can be utilized in the development of policies and practices to enhance community (social) disaster resilience in Serbia. These results can be used as a starting point for the creation of educational initiatives, awareness-raising campaigns, and community support systems for anticipating and responding to various calamities.

Results of the analysis across various dimensions of community resilience to disasters indicate a significant role of age as a predictor of social structure. These findings can be explained by the fact that older individuals, thanks to their previous life experiences, social networks, and spiritual beliefs, contribute to shaping the social structure of the community. Their prolonged exposure to disaster-related events allows them a subtler understanding of social structures and the effectiveness of responses in such situations. Further examinations also suggest a correlation between age and dimensions such as social structure, social mechanisms, social justice and diversity, as well as social beliefs. Subsequent analysis suggests that older participants have a positive association with higher ratings for social structure, while ratings for social mechanisms, social justice and diversity, as well as social beliefs, decrease as the age of participants progresses. This trend can be attributed to factors such as accumulated life experiences, historical perspectives, and deeper involvement in communal activities over time.

Concurrently, education emerges as a key predictor for the sub-scale of social capital. Participants with a high school diploma consistently rate higher across dimensions including social structure, social mechanisms, and social justice and diversity compared to those with a university degree. This positive correlation can be attributed to increased social awareness, communication skills, and a broader understanding of community dynamics that come with higher education. Additionally, participants with a university education report higher ratings for social capital, preventive measures, and perception of disaster resilience compared to those with a high school diploma. These individuals with a university education likely experience higher levels of social connectedness, engagement, and support, thus being more inclined towards taking proactive measures and showing greater resilience perception in facing disasters compared to their peers with a high school diploma.

Furthermore, employment has been shown as the most significant predictor for the sub-scales of social mechanisms, social justice and diversity, while property ownership is a key predictor for the sub-scale of social beliefs. Additional analysis reveals associations between employment and various variables, including social structure, social mechanisms, social justice and diversity, as well as social beliefs. Unemployed participants often give higher ratings regarding social structure, equality/diversity, and beliefs compared to employed participants. This study further demonstrates that individuals who own personal property consistently give lower ratings across various dimensions, including social capital, social beliefs, preventive measures, and resilience to disasters, compared to individuals who own property within family ownership. Detailed analysis reveals that participants with below-average income consistently assign lower ratings across various dimensions. Specifically, compared to those with average income, participants with below-average income give lower ratings for social mechanisms, social justice and diversity, and social beliefs.

Additional analysis reveals that individuals residing in households with two members usually give lower ratings to social structures, while those in households with more than four members tend to give higher ratings to social mechanisms, social justice and diversity, as well as social beliefs. Furthermore, the research indicates a correlation between marital status and ratings, with single individuals consistently giving higher ratings across different dimensions compared to those who are in a relationship or divorced. This relationship between marital status and various dimensions may indicate that the existence of singles has specific attitudes or behaviors that contribute to a more positive valuation of social capital, preventive measures, and disaster resilience.

The average value of the index measuring community (social) resilience to disasters, calculated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, is in the lower range of values. This implies that the overall level of resilience to disasters in the community is relatively moderate. The proximity of values to the lower end of the scale suggests potential room for improvement in community resilience to disasters. Further analysis shows that preventive measures are most commonly taken before dangers such as epidemics, extreme temperatures, and storms. The perception of society’s resilience is highest against dangers from epidemics, followed by extreme temperatures and drought. Participants express a relatively high level of confidence in society’s ability to cope with epidemics, extreme temperatures, and drought.

A detailed analysis of all obtained research results indicates that the general hypothesis predicting a statistically significant correlation between socio-economic factors and social resilience to disasters can be confirmed. Based on the defined hypotheses, data analyses show and confirm two specific assertions: a) the influence of sociological factors on the level of social resilience to disasters is confirmed; b) the influence of economic factors on the level of social resilience to disasters is also confirmed. These results direct our understanding of the relationship between different aspects of socio-economic factors and the ability to withstand disasters in society.

On a societal level, the results of this research point to key areas where there is a need to enhance the capacity to resist and overcome the effects of disasters. From a fairness perspective, the focus should be on the older population, as a group that has been shown to be a significant factor in social resilience. Raising awareness and providing resources for the elderly can be crucial in encouraging their active participation in the community and increasing overall social resilience. Tailoring educational campaigns and programs to groups with lower levels of education can also be part of a strategy to increase awareness and preparedness in these population groups. Education about disaster prevention and response measures can significantly impact readiness and information provision, thereby raising the level of social resilience.

The scientific implications of this research can enrich the field of social sciences and disaster studies. These studies can serve as a starting point for more detailed analyses of factors contributing to social resilience. New studies can explore specific aspects of older citizens or individuals with low education, contributing to a better understanding of their role in disaster preparedness and response processes. Ultimately, the applications of the results of this research can be broad and include support for the development of policies, programs, and interventions in the field of disaster management. Scientists and practitioners can use this knowledge to better direct resources and efforts towards building a more resilient and prepared society to face the challenges of disasters.

 

 

8. APPENDIX A  – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

 

  1. What is your gender: a) Male b) Female
  2. How old are you? _________(write number)
  3. What is your education level?
  4. a) Elementary b) Secondary c) Higher d) Bachelor’s e) Master’s f) Doctorate
  5. What is your marital status?
  6. a) Single b) In a relationship c) Engaged d) Married e) Divorced f) Widowed
  7. What is your employment status?
  8. a) Employed b) Unemployed c) Retired
  9. Number of household members? ________________________ (write the number)
  10. The house/apartment at your residence address is:
  11. a) Personal property b) Owned by a family member c) Rented
  12. What are your approximate average household incomes?
  13. a) Below the average; b) Average (700 EUR); c) Above the average
  14. 9. Have you ever volunteered?
  15. a) Yes b) No
  16. 1 Do you have a fear of disasters?
  17. a) Yes b) No

 

  1. On a scale of 1 to 5, rate your implementation of preventive measures and perception of society’s disaster resilience (1 – to the least extent, 5 – to the greatest extent).

 

Disaster type Implemented preventive measures for disasters Perception of disaster resilience
Earthquake
Landslides
Volcanic eruptions
Floods
Tsunamis
Avalanches
Drought
Extreme temperatures
Storms
Epidemics
Forest fires

 

  1. On a scale of 1 to 5, evaluate the following attitudes (1 – entirely unsatisfactory, 5 – entirely satisfactory).

 

Attitudes (1 – entirely unsatisfactory, 5 – entirely satisfactory).
SOCIAL STRUCTURE Organization and structuring of the local community for disaster response
Access to essential services such as health, education, and social assistance during disasters
Quality of regulatory governance in disaster management
Quality of risk assessment and developed plans for protection and rescue
Level of development of human resources in society for protection and rescue
Level of development of financial resources in society for protection and rescue
Level of development of technological resources in society for protection and rescue
Collaboration of local authorities with all relevant entities in designing preventive measures
Development of response services in disasters – police, firefighting and rescue units, civil protection, etc.
Developed leadership in the community
SOCIAL CAPITAL Level of mutual trust and support within the community
Existence and strength of social networks and connections
Participation in volunteer activities and community projects
Regular dialogue and collaboration between local communities and authorities
Involvement of different social groups in decision-making and planning during disasters
The existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness involving various socioeconomic groups
Existence and strength of economic cooperation between different socio-economic groups.
Level of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses
Strength of family ties and interactions within the community
SOCIAL MECHANISMS Education and training for emergencies
Understanding and respecting cultural diversity
Level of personal and collective responsibility towards community resilience and safety in disasters
Community preparedness for disasters
Household preparedness for disasters
Perception of disaster risks
Implementation of campaigns to enhance disaster preparedness
Application of special measures to protect critical infrastructure
Citizen awareness of disaster risks
Capability for rapid evacuation and the existence of shelters
The ability for prompt decision-making in relevant institutions without bureaucratic complications
Active community involvement in the implementation of protection and preparedness measures
Level of faith and optimism in the community’s ability to face disasters
Level of flexibility and adaptability in dealing with unforeseen situations.
Collective willingness to learn from previous disasters and improve future responses
Effectiveness of early warning and people’s notification systems
Development of disaster insurance
SOCIAL EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY Access to resources and services without discrimination
Measures to protect and promote the rights of minority groups
Community readiness to address social injustices
Level of availability and access to key resources (water, food, shelter)
Access to medical services and emergency interventions regardless of socioeconomic status
The extent of social aid and support available to different groups in the community during disasters
Presence and active participation of various social groups in planning and implementing measures
Existence of programs targeting the specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, etc.
Availability of personalized emergency plans for individuals with special needs.
Access to transportation and evacuation that suits different levels of mobility and needs.
Openness and adaptation of communication strategies for different linguistic and cultural communities
Involvement of various social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementation measures
Justice in access and participation in local disaster management bodies
SOCIAL BELIFIES Trust in the work of social institutions and services during disasters
Level of development of disaster resilience culture
Significance of cultural and religious values in the life of the community
Openness to dialogue and understanding between different cultural and religious groups
Participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity
Adherence to traditional social norms and values in the community
Level of individual involvement in local cultural activities and communal events
Respect for and preservation of local customs and traditions during and after disasters
Intensity and regularity of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals
Influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community
Intensity and regularity of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals
Activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness and emergencies
Local culture and tradition shape the interpretation of disasters

 

 

 

8. REFERENCES

Able, E., & Nelson, M. (1990). Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women’s Lives, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Adeagbo, A., Daramola, A., Carim-Sanni, A., Akujobi, C., & Ukpong, C. (2016). Effects of natural disasters on social and economic well-being: A study in Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 17, 1-12.

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in human geography, 24(3), 347-364.

Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global environmental change, 16(3), 268-281.

Akter, R., Roy, T., & Aktar, R. (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.

Albanese, J., Birnbaum, M., Cannon, C., Cappiello, J., Chapman, E., Paturas, J., & Smith, S. (2008). Fostering disaster-resilient communities across the globe through the incorporation of safe and resilient hospitals for community-integrated disaster responses. Prehospital and disaster medicine, 23(5), 385-390.

Aleghfeli, Y. K., & Hunt, L. (2022). Education of unaccompanied refugee minors in high-income countries: Risk and resilience factors. Educational Research Review, 35, 100433.

Almazan, J. U., Albougami, A. S., Alamri, M. S., Colet, P. C., Adolfo, C. S., Allen, K., Boyle, C. (2019). Disaster-related resiliency theory among older adults who survived Typhoon Haiyan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 35, 101070.

Al-ramlawi, A., El-Mougher, M., & Al-Agha, M. (2020). The Role of Al-Shifa Medical Complex Administration in Evacuation & Sheltering Planning. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2).

Al-Rousan, T. M., Rubenstein, L. M., & Wallace, R. B. (2014). Preparedness for natural disasters among older US adults: a nationwide survey. American journal of public health, 104(3), 506-511.

Alshehri, S. A., Rezgui, Y., & Li, H. (2015). Disaster community resilience assessment method: a consensus-based Delphi and AHP approach. Natural Hazards, 78, 395-416.

Appleby-Arnold, S., Brockdorff, N., Jakovljev, I., & Zdravković, S. (2018). Applying cultural values to encourage disaster preparedness: Lessons from a low-hazard country. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31, 37-44.

Asadzadeh, A., Pakkhoo, S., Saeidabad, M. M., Khezri, H., & Ferdousi, R. (2020). Information technology in emergency management of COVID-19 outbreak. Informatics in medicine unlocked, 21, 100475.

Assarkhaniki, Z., Rajabifard, A., & Sabri, S. (2020). The conceptualisation of resilience dimensions and comprehensive quantification of the associated indicators: A systematic approach. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 51,

Baker, M. D., Baker, L. R., & Flagg, L. A. (2012). Preparing families of children with special health care needs for disasters: an education intervention. Social work in health care, 51(5), 417-429.

Baruh, S., Dey, C., & Dutta, N. P. M. K. (2023). Dima Hasao, Assam (India) landslides’ 2022: A lesson learnt. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 5(1), 1-13.

Beatley, T. (1998). The vision of sustainable communities. Cooperating with nature: Confronting natural hazards with land-use planning for sustainable communities, 233-262.

Béné, C., Al-Hassan, R. M., Amarasinghe, O., Fong, P., Ocran, J., Onumah, E., . . . Mills, D. J. (2016). Is resilience socially constructed? Empirical evidence from Fiji, Ghana, Sri Lanka, and vietnam. Global Environmental Change, 38, 153-170.

Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International journal of production research, 49(18), 5375-5393.

Birkmann, J., & Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: towards disaster resilient societies.

Bollettino, V., Alcayna-Stevens, T., Sharma, M., Dy, P., Pham, P., & Vinck, P. (2020). Public perception of climate change and disaster preparedness: Evidence from the Philippines. Climate Risk Management, 30, 100250.

Botzen, W. J. W., Deschenes, O., & Sanders, M. (2019). The economic impacts of natural disasters: A review of models and empirical studies. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.

Bronfman, N. C., Castañeda, J. V., Guerrero, N. F., Cisternas, P., Repetto, P. B., Martínez, C., & Chamorro, A. (2023). A Community Disaster Resilience Index for Chile. Sustainability, 15(8), 6891.

Bronfman, N. C., Castañeda, J. V., Guerrero, N. F., Cisternas, P., Repetto, P. B., Martínez, C., & Chamorro, A. (2023). A Community Disaster Resilience Index for Chile. Sustainability, 15(8), 6891.

Buckle, P. (2006). Assessing social resilience. Disaster resilience: An integrated approach, 88, 104.

Burman, B., & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: an interactional perspective. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 39.

Burton, I., Huq, S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, O., & Schipper, E. L. (2002). From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate policy, 2(2-3), 145-159.

Cannoodt, L., Mock, C., & Bucagu, M. (2012). Identifying barriers to emergency care services. The International journal of health planning and management, 27(2), e104-e120.

Cannoodt, L., Mock, C., & Bucagu, M. (2012). Identifying barriers to emergency care services. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 27(2), e104-e120.

Carla S., R. (2019). School-community collaboration: disaster preparedness towards building resilient communities. 1(2), 45-59.

Chakma, U. K., Hossain, A., Islam, K., & Hasnat, G. T. (2020). Water crisis and adaptation strategies by tribal community: A case study in Baghaichari Upazila of Rangamati District in Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2).

Chevalier, A., Harmon, C., O’Sullivan, V., & Walker, I. (2013). The impact of parental income and education on the schooling of their children. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 2(1), 1-22.

Chevalier, A., Harmon, C., O’Sullivan, V., & Walker, I. (2013). The impact of parental income and education on the schooling of their children. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 2(1), 1-22.

Cohen, O., Geva, D., Lahad, M., Bolotin, A., Leykin, D., Goldberg, A., & Aharonson-Daniel, L. (2016). Community resilience throughout the lifespan–the potential contribution of healthy elders. PLoS one, 11(2), e0148125.

Combs, J. P., Slate, J. R., Moore, G. W., Bustamante, R. M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Edmonson, S. L. (2010). Gender differences in college preparedness: A statewide study. The Urban Review, 42(5), 441-457.

Combs, J. P., Slate, J. R., Moore, G. W., Bustamante, R. M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Edmonson, S. L. (2010). Gender differences in college preparedness: A statewide study. The Urban Review, 42(5), 441-457.

Comerio, M. C. (2014). Disaster recovery and community renewal: Housing approaches. Cityscape, 16(2), 51-68.

Contoyannis, P., Jones, A. M., & Rice, N. (2004). Simulation-based inference in dynamic panel probit models: an application to health. Empirical Economics, 29, 49-77.

Cotten, S. R. (1999). Marital status and mental health revisited: Examining the importance of risk factors and resources. Family Relations, 225-233.

Council, N. R. (2012). Disaster resilience: A national imperative. In: Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Cui, K., Han, Z., & Wang, D. (2018). Resilience of an earthquake-stricken rural community in southwest China: Correlation with disaster risk reduction efforts. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(3), 407.

Cui, K., Han, Z., & Wang, D. (2018). Resilience of an earthquake-stricken rural community in southwest China: Correlation with disaster risk reduction efforts. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(3), 407.

Cutter, S. L., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2014). The geographies of community disaster resilience. Global environmental change, 29, 65-77.

Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global environmental change, 18(4), 598-606.

Öcal, A., Cvetković, V. M., Baytiyeh, H., Tedim, F. M. S., & 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.

Cvetković, V., Martinović, J. (2021). Upravlјanje u nuklearnim katastrofama. Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravlјanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.

Cvetković, V., Bošković, D., Janković, B., & Andrić, S. (2019). Percepcija rizika od vanrednih situacija. Kriminalističko-policijska akademija, Beograd.

Cvetković, V. (2017). Metodologija naučnog istraživanja katastrofa – teorije, koncepti i metode. Zadužbina Andrejević, Beograd.

Miladinović, S., Cvetković, V., & Milašinović, S. (2017). Upravlјanje u kriznim situacijama izazvanim klizištima. Kriminalističko-policijska akademija, Beograd.

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., 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., Roder, G., Öcal, A., Tarolli, P., & Dragićević, S. (2018). The Role of Gender in Preparedness and Response Behaviors towards Flood Risk in Serbia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2761.

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

Cvetkovic, V. M. ., Nikolic, A., & Ivanov, A. (2023). The role of social media in teh process of informing the public about disaster risks. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, 9(2), 104-119. https://doi.org/10.47305/JLIA2392121c. In SCOPUS – Q3 – Political science and International Relations.

Cvetković, V. (2014). Zaštita kritične infrastrukture od posledica prirodnih katastrofa. Paper presented at the Sedma međunarodna znastveno-stručna konferencija ,,Dani kriznog upravljanja”, Hrvatska.

Cvetković, V. (2014b). The impacts of climate changes on the risk of natural disasters. Skopje: International yearbook of the Faculty of security, 51-60.

Cvetković, V. (2015). Spremnost građana za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu izazvanu poplavom u Republici Srbiji. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu-Fakultet bezbednosti.

Cvetković, V. (2015a). Citizens preparedness for responding to natural disaster caused by flood in Serbia – Spremnost građana za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu izazvanu poplavom u Republici Srbiji.

Cvetković, V. (2016). Influence of employment status on citizen preparedness for response to natural disasasters. NBP – Journal of criminalistics and law, 21(2), 46-95.

Cvetković, V. (2016). Influence of employment status on citizen preparedness for response to natural disasters. NBP – Journal of criminalistics and law, 21(2), 46-95.

Cvetković, V. (2016a). Influence of employment status on citizen preparedness for response to natural disasters. NBP – Journal of Criminalistics and Law, 20(2), 49-94.

Cvetković, V. (2016b). Influence of Income Level on Citizen Preparedness for Response to Natural Disasters. Vojno delo, 66(4), 100-127.

Cvetković, V. (2016c). The relationship between educational level and citizen preparedness for responding to natural disasters. Journal of the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA, 66(2), 237-253.

Cvetković, V. (2016c). Uticaj demografskih, socio-ekonomskih i psiholoških faktora na preduzimanje preventivnih mera. Kultura Polisa, 13(32), 393-404.

Cvetković, V. (2017). Krizne situacije–pripremljenost države, lokalne zajednice i građana. Vojno delo, 69(7), 122-136

Cvetković, V. (2017). Metodologija istraživanja katastrofa i rizika: teorije, koncepti i metode. Beograd: Zadužbina Andrejević.

Cvetković, V. (2017). Research Methodology of Disasters and Risks: Theories, Concepts, and Methods ( Metodologija istraživanja katastrofa i rizika: teorije, koncepti i metode). Beograd: Zadužbina Andrejević.

Cvetković, V. (2017a). Metodologija istraživanja katastrofa i rizika: teorije, koncepti i metode. In: Beograd: Zadužbina Andrejević, Instant system.

Cvetković, V. (2020). Upravlјanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama. Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravlјanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama (700 str);

Cvetković, V. (2021). Bezbednosni rizici i katastrofe. Naučno-stručno društvo za upravlјanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, Beograd (praktikum);

Cvetković, V. (2022). Taktika zaštite i spasavanja u katastrofama. Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.

Cvetković, V. (2023). A Predictive Model of Community Disaster Resilience based on Social Identity Influences (MODERSI). International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 5(2), 57-80.

Cvetković, V. (2023). Otpornost na katastrofe – Vodič za prevenciju, reagovanje i oporavak. Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravlјanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.

Cvetković, V. (2023a). Otpornost na katastrofe – Vodič za prevenciju, reagovanje i oporavak. In: Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.

Cvetković, V. (2023b). A Predictive Model of Community Disaster Resilience based on Social Identity Influences. Preprint.

Cvetković, V. (2023d). A Predictive Model of Community Disaster Resilience based on Social Identity Influences. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 5(2), 57-80.

Cvetković, V. M., & Bošković, N. (2021). Konceptualne osnove i dimenzije otpornosti na katastrofe: 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 (Collection of Papers, Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management and International Institute for Disaster Research, 175-191.

Cvetković, V. M., & Stanišić, J. (2015). Relationship between demographic and environmental factors and knowledge of secondary school students on natural disasters. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic Sasa65(3), 323-340.

Cvetković, V. M., & Šišović, V. (2023). Capacity Building in Serbia for Disaster and Climate Risk Education. Available at SSRN 4575350.

Cvetković, V. M., & Šišović, V. (2024). Understanding the Sustainable Development of Community (Social) Disaster Resilience in Serbia: Demographic and Socio-Economic Impacts. Sustainability, 16(7), 2620. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2620.

Cvetković, V. M., Dragašević, A., Protić, D., Janković, B., Nikolić, N., & Milošević, P. (2022a). Fire safety behavior model for residential buildings: Implications for disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 102981.

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., & Andrejević, T. (2016). Qualitative research on the readiness of citizens to respond to natural disasters – Kvalitativno istraživanje pripremljenosti građana za reagovanje na prirodne katastrofe. Serbian Science Today, 1(3).

Cvetković, V., & Andrić, K. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Disaster Risk Management Systems in Germany, USA, Russia and China. Preprints, 2023020267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202302.0267.v1).

Cvetković, V., & Čaušić, L. (2022). Zbirka propisa iz oblasti vanrednih situacija. Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.

Cvetković, V., & Filipović, M. (2017b). Ispitivanje znanja učenika o pravilnom načinu postupanja za vreme prirodnih katastrofa- Research into students knowledge of the proper way of acting during natural disasters. Bezbjednost, policija i gradjani, 13(2), 105-120.

Cvetković, V., & Filipović, M. (2018). Koncept otpornosti na katastrofe – Theory of disaster resilience. Ecologica, 25(89), 202-207.

Cvetković, V., & Nikolić, M. (2021). Uloga društvenih mreža u smanjenju rizika od katastrofa: studija slučaja Beograd. Bezbednost, 63 (1), 25-42.

Cvetković, V., & Todorović, S. (2021). Comparative analysis of disaster risk management policies in the region of south-east Europe – Komparativna analiza politike upravljanja rizicima od katastrofe u regionu jugoistočne Evrope.

Cvetković, V., Andrić, K., Ivanov, A. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Disaster Risk Management Systems in Germany, USA, Russia And China. Macedonia. International academic conference, Temporary security ripples or new world arcitecture of security, Dojran, N. Macedonia, September 4-7 2023.

Cvetković, V., Bošković, D., Janković, B., & Andrić, S. (2019). Percepcija rizika od vanrednih situacija – Disaster risk perception. In: Kriminalističko-policijski univerzitet u Beogradu.

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., Bošković, N., & Ocal, A. (2021). Individual citizens’ resilience to disasters caused by floods: a case study of Belgrade. Academic Perspective Procedia, 4(2), 9-20.

Cvetković, V., Čvorović, M., & Beriša, H. (2023a). The Gender Dimension of Vulnerability in Disaster Caused by the Corona Virus (Covid-19). NBP, 28(2), 32-54.

Cvetković, V., Ivković, T. (2022). Social Resilience to Flood Disasters: Demographic, Socio-economic and Psychological Factors of Impact”. 12th International Conference of the International Society for the Integrated Disaster Risk Management, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 21-23 September 2022. Hosted by Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca (Romania), Research Institute for Sustainability and Disaster Management based on High Performance Computing and Faculty of Environmental Science and Engineering.

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

Cvetković, V., Marković, K. (2021). Examining the impact of demographic and socio-economic factors on the level of employee preparedness for a disaster caused by fires: A case study of Electrical power distribution in Serbia.  International Scientific Conference 30 Years of Independent Macedonian State 13-15 September 2021, Ohrid

Cvetković, V., Milojković, B., & Stojković, D. (2014). Analiza geoprostorne i vremenske distribucije zemljotresa kao prirodnih katastrofa – Analysis of geospatial and temporal distribution of earthquakes as a natural disaster. Vojno delo, 2(2014), 166-185.

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., 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., 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, 101095.

Cvetković, V., Radonjić, S. (2022). Ugrožavanje bezbednosti lokalnih zajednica u vanrednim situacijama izazvanim poplavama. Politika nacionalne sigurnosti, 13 (22), 81-105.

Cvetković, V., Rikanović, S., Knežević, S. (2022). Resilience of society in disasters caused by nuclear accidents. IAI Academic Conference Proceedings, Budapest Conference, 5 May 2022.

Cvetković, V., Romanić, S., & Beriša, H. (2023). Religion Influence on Disaster Risk Reduction: A Case Study of Serbia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 2023, 5 (1), 67–81.

Cvetković, V., 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., Vujanović, S., Ivanov, A. (2023). Reducing the Risk of Disasters Caused by Epidemics. International Academic Institute,  academic conference, Syracuse University, Florence, Italy, 20. june 2023.

Cvetković, V.M., Tanasić, J.; Ocal, A., Živković-Šulović, M., Ćurić, N., Milojević, S., Knežević, S. (2023). The Assessment of Public Health Capacities at Local Self-Governments in Serbia. Lex localis – Journal of Local Self Government, 21(4), 1201-1234.

Davidson, D. J., & Freidenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 28, 302-339.

Davidson, D. J., & Freidenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 28, 302-339.

Davis, J. L., Love, T. P., & Fares, P. (2019). Collective social identity: Synthesizing identity theory and social identity theory using digital data. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(3), 254-273.

Deria, A., Ghannad, P., & Lee, Y.-C. (2020). Evaluating implications of flood vulnerability factors with respect to income levels for building long-term disaster resilience of low-income communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 48, 101608.

Deria, A., Ghannad, P., & Lee, Y.-C. (2020). Evaluating implications of flood vulnerability factors with respect to income levels for building long-term disaster resilience of low-income communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 48, 101608.

Dooley, D., Catalano, R., Mishra, S., & Serxner, S. (1992). Earthquake preparedness: Predictors in a community survey. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(6), 451-470.

Dovers, S. R., & Handmer, J. W. (1992). Uncertainty, sustainability and change. Global environmental change, 2(4), 262-276.

Dovers, S. R., & Handmer, J. W. (1992). Uncertainty, sustainability and change. Global environmental change, 2(4), 262-276.

Drabek, T. E. (1969). Social processes in disaster: family evacuation. Social Problems, 16, 336-349.

Drabek, T. E. (1969). Social processes in disaster: Family evacuation. Social problems, 16(3), 336-349.

Drabek, T. E. (1969). Social processes in disaster: Family evacuation. Social problems, 16(3), 336-349.

Drzewiecki, D. M., Wavering, H. M., Milbrath, G. R., Freeman, V. L., & Lin, J. Y. (2020). The association between educational attainment and resilience to natural hazard-induced disasters in the West Indies: St. Kitts & Nevis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 47, 101637.

Durkin, M., Aroni, S., & Coulson, A. (1983). Injuries in the Coalinga earthquake. The Coalinga earthquake of May 2.

Durkin, M., Aroni, S., & Coulson, A. (1983). Injuries in the Coalinga earthquake. The Coalinga earthquake of May 2.

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.

Feng, S., Hossain, L., & Paton, D. (2018). Harnessing informal education for community resilience. Disaster Prevention and Management, 27(1), 43-59.

Filipović, B., & Cvetković, V. (2020). Istraživanje stavova građana o pripremljenosti za katastrofe izazvane šumskim požarima: studija slučaja Prijepolje – Research on citizens attitudes about preparedness for disasters caused by forest fires: a case study of Prijepolje.

Fiorucci, P., Pernice, U., Cvetković, M.V., Rajkovchevki, R. (2022). Harmonizing wildfires risk assessment in Western Balkans through the IPAFF project. ICFBR2022, International Conference on Fire Behaviour and Risk, Italy.

Foster, C. E., Horwitz, A., Thomas, A., Opperman, K., Gipson, P., Burnside, A., King, C. A. (2017). Connectedness to family, school, peers, and community in socially vulnerable adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 321-331.

Foster, K. A. (2007). A case study approach to understanding regional resilience. UC Berkeley, IURD Working Paper Series.

Foster, K. A. (2007). A case study approachto understanding regional resilience.

Fuchs, S., & Thaler, T. (2018). Vulnerability and resilience to natural hazards: Cambridge University Press.

Fuchs, S., & Thaler, T. (2018). Vulnerability and resilience to natural hazards: Cambridge University Press.

Gallopín, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global environmental change, 16(3), 293-303.

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.

Grozdanić, G., Cvetković, V. M., Lukić, T., & Ivanov, A. (2024). Sustainable Earthquake Preparedness: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Analysis in Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Sustainability, 16(8), 3138. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/8/3138

Guha-Sapir, D., Hargitt, D., & Hoyois, P. (2004). Thirty years of natural disasters 1974-2003: The numbers: Presses univ. de Louvain.

Hallegatte, S., Vogt-Schilb, A., Rozenberg, J., Bangalore, M., & Beaudet, C. (2020). From poverty to disaster and back: A review of the literature. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 4, 223-247.

Hamiel, D., Wolmer, L., Spirman, S., & Laor, N. (2013). Comprehensive child-oriented preventive resilience program in Israel based on lessons learned from communities exposed to war, terrorism and disaster. In Child & Youth Care Forum (Vol. 42, pp. 261-274). Springer US.

Heller, K., Alexander, D. B., Gatz, M., Knight, B. G., & Rose, T. (2005). Social and personal factors as predictors of earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect, age, and education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 399-422.

Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Velev, S., Laurien, F., Campbell, K., Czajkowski, J., Keating, A., & Mechler, R. (2021). Differences in the dynamics of community disaster resilience across the globe. Scientific reports, 11(1), 17625.

Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Velev, S., Laurien, F., Campbell, K., Czajkowski, J., Keating, A., & Mechler, R. (2021). Differences in the dynamics of community disaster resilience across the globe. Scientific reports, 11(1), 17625.

Hoffmann, R., & Muttarak, R. (2017). Learn from the past, prepare for the future: Impacts of education and experience on disaster preparedness in the Philippines and Thailand. World Development, 96, 32-51.

Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social identity theory. In Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory (pp. 3-17): Springer.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4(1), 1-23.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4(1), 1-23.

Huerta, F., & Horton, R. (1978). Coping behavior of elderly flood victims. The Gerontologist, 18(6), 541-546.

Huerta, F., & Horton, R. (1978). Coping behavior of elderly flood victims. The Gerontologist, 18(6), 541-546.

Hung, L.-S. (2017). Married couples’ decision-making about household natural hazard preparedness: a case study of hurricane hazards in Sarasota County, Florida. Natural Hazards, 87, 1057-1081.

Hung, L.-S. (2017). Married couples’ decision-making about household natural hazard preparedness: a case study of hurricane hazards in Sarasota County, Florida. Natural Hazards, 87, 1057-1081.

Hussaini, A. (2020). Environmental Planning for Disaster Risk Reduction at Kaduna International Airport, Kaduna Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(1).

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.

Ikeda, K. (1995). Gender differences in human loss and vulnerability in natural disasters: a case study from Bangladesh. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 2(2), 171-193.

Ikeda, K. (1995). Gender differences in human loss and vulnerability in natural disasters: a case study from Bangladesh. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 2(2), 171-193.

Inal, E., Altıntaş, K. H., & Doğan, N. (2019). General disaster preparedness beliefs and related sociodemographic characteristics: The example of Yalova University, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Public Health, 17(1), 1-15.

Inal, E., Altıntaş, K. H., & Doğan, N. (2019). General disaster preparedness beliefs and related sociodemographic characteristics: The example of Yalova University, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Public Health, 17(1), 1-15.

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., & Cvetković, V. (2022). Stavovi pripadnika privatnog obezbeđenja o policiji: studija slučaja Beograd. Bezbednost, 64 (2), 5-21.

Johnson, R., Johnston, M., & Peters, E. (1989). At a competitive disadvantage? The fate of the elderly in collective flight. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North Central Sociological Association, Akron, OH.

Johnson, R., Johnston, M., & Peters, E. (1989). At a competitive disadvantage? The fate of the elderly in collective flight. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North Central Sociological Association, Akron, OH.

Jones, L., & Samman, E. (2016). Measuring subjective household resilience: insights from Tanzania. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). London: UK.

Jones, L., & Samman, E. (2016). Measuring subjective household resilience: insights from Tanzania. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). London: UK.

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.

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

Kapucu, N. (2008). Culture of preparedness: household disaster preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management, 17(4), 526-535. doi:10.1108/09653560810901773

Keck, M., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2013). What is social resilience? Lessons learned and ways forward. Erdkunde, 5-19.

Kennedy, S., & Linnenluecke, M. K. (2022). Circular economy and resilience: A research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(6), 2754-2765.

Kennedy, S., & Linnenluecke, M. K. (2022). Circular economy and resilience: A research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(6), 2754-2765.

Khan, M. T. I., Anwar, S., Sarkodie, S. A., Yaseen, M. R., Nadeem, A. M., & Ali, Q. (2022). Comprehensive disaster resilience index: Pathway towards risk-informed sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 366, 132937.

Kim, Y., & Kim, M. Y. (2022). Factors affecting household disaster preparedness in South Korea. PLoS one, 17(10), e0275540.

Kim, Y., & Lee, E. (2021). Factors influencing preparedness for bioterrorism among Koreans. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(10), 5401.

Klein, R. J., Nicholls, R. J., & Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 5(1), 35-45.

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

Krnjić, I., & Cvetković, V. (2022). Uloga mutlimedijalnih sadržaja u edukaciji mladih o katastrofama. Pravni i bezbednosni aspekti upravljanja rizicima od prirodnih i antropogenih katastrofa, 206-227. Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, Beograd, Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu i Međunarodni institut za istraživanje katastrofa.

Kroll, L. E., & Lampert, T. (2011). Unemployment, social support and health problems: results of the GEDA study in Germany, 2009. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 108(4), 47.

Kumar, J., & Kumar, V. (2020). Drivers of brand community engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 101949.

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.

Kusumastuti, R. D., Arviansyah, A., Nurmala, N., & Wibowo, S. S. (2021). Knowledge management and natural disaster preparedness: A systematic literature review and a case study of East Lombok, Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 58, 102223.

Leik R. K., Leik S. A., Ekker K., & Gifford G.A. (1982). Under the Threat of Mount St. Helens, A Study of Chronic Family Stress. Minneapolis: Family Study Center. University of Minnesota.

Leykin, D., Lahad, M., Cohen, O., Goldberg, A., & Aharonson-Daniel, L. (2013). Conjoint community resiliency assessment measure-28/10 items (CCRAM28 and CCRAM10): A self-report tool for assessing community resilience. American journal of community psychology, 52, 313-323.

Li, W. (2007). Family background, financial constraints and higher education attendance in China. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 724-734.

Liddell, J., & Ferreira, R. J. (2019). Predictors of individual resilience characteristics among individuals ages 65 and older in post-disaster settings. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 13(2), 256-264.

Lim, C., & Sander, T. (2013). Does misery love company? Civic engagement in economic hard times. Social Science Research, 42(1), 14-30.

Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2000). Household adjustment to earthquake hazard a review of research. Environment and behavior, 32(4), 461-501.

Logan, J. R. (2006). The impact of Katrina: Race and class in storm-damaged neighborhoods.

Logan, J. R. (2006). The impact of Katrina: Race and class in storm-damaged neighbourhoods. New York public library system.

Ma, Z., Zhou, W., Deng, X., & Xu, D. (2023). Community disaster resilience and risk perception in earthquake-stricken areas of China. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 17, e74.

Ma, Z., Zhou, W., Deng, X., & Xu, D. (2023). Community disaster resilience and risk perception in earthquake-stricken areas of China. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 17, e74.

Maguire, B., & Hagan, P. (2007). Disasters and communities: Understanding social resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, 22(2), 16-20.

Maguire, B., & Hagan, P. (2007). Disasters and communities: Understanding social resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 22(2), 16-20.

Mano-Negrin, R., & Sheaffer, Z. (2004). Are women “cooler” than men during crises? Exploring gender differences in perceiving organisational crisis preparedness proneness. Women in Management Review, 19(2), 109-122.

Mano-Negrin, R., & Sheaffer, Z. (2004). Are women “cooler” than men during crises? Exploring gender differences in perceiving organisational crisis preparedness proneness. Women in Management Review, 19(2), 109-122.

Marovic, M., Djokovic, I., Pesic, L., Radovanovic, S., Toljic, M., & Gerzina, N. (2002). Neotectonics and seismicity of the southern margin of the Pannonian basin in Serbia. EGU Stephan Mueller Special Publication Series, 3, 1-19.

Matsuda, Y., & Okada, N. (2006). Community diagnosis for sustainable disaster preparedness. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 28(1), 25-33.

Mayunga, J. S. (2007). Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: a capital-based approach. Summer academy for social vulnerability and resilience building, 1(1), 1-16.

Mayunga, J. S. (2007). Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: a capital-based approach. Summer academy for social vulnerability and resilience building, 1(1), 1-16.

McCubbin, L. (2001). Challenges to the Definition of Resilience.

McCubbin, L. (2001). Challenges to the Definition of Resilience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (109th, San Francisco, CA, August 24-28, 2001).

Mehta, M. (2007). Gender matters: Lessons for disaster risk reduction in South Asia.

Mehta, M. (2007). Gender matters: Lessons for disaster risk reduction in South Asia. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).

Melick, M. E., & Logue, J. N. (1985). The effect of disaster on the health and well-being of older women. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21(1), 27-38.

Melick, M. E., & Logue, J. N. (1985). The effect of disaster on the health and well-being of older women. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21(1), 27-38.

Miceli, R., Sotgiu, I., & Settanni, M. (2008). Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 164-173.

Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States: Joseph Henry Press.

Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design:: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States: Joseph Henry Press.

Miller, K. E., & Rasmussen, A. (2010). War exposure, daily stressors, and mental health in conflict and post-conflict settings: Bridging the divide between trauma-focused and psychosocial frameworks. Social science & medicine, 70(1), 7-16.

Mulilis, J.-P. (1999). Gender and Earthquake Preparedness: A Research Study of Gender Issues in Disaster Management: Differences in Earthquake Preparedness Due to Traditional Stereotyping or Cognitive Appraisal of Threat?

Mulilis, J.P. (1999). Gender and Earthquake Preparedness: A Research Study of Gender Issues in Disaster Management: Differences in Earthquake Preparedness Due to Traditional Stereotyping or Cognitive Appraisal of Threat? Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 14(1).

Mulilis, J.-P., Duval, T. S., & Lippa, R. (1990). The effects of a large destructive local earthquake on earthquake preparedness as assessed by an earthquake preparedness scale. Natural Hazards, 3(4), 357-371.

Murphy, R. (1994). Rationality and Nature: A Sociological Inquiry into a Changing Relationship. New York: Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Murphy, R. (1994). Rationality and Nature: A Sociological Inquiry into a Changing Relationship. New York: Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Murrell, S. A., & Norris, F. H. (1984). Resources, life events, and changes in positive affect and depression in older adults. American journal of community psychology, 12(4), 445-464.

Murrell, S. A., & Norris, F. H. (1984). Resources, life events, and changes in positive affect and depression in older adults. American journal of community psychology, 12(4), 445-464.

Myers, M. (1994). ‘Women and children first’ Introducing a gender strategy into disaster preparedness. Gender & Development, 2(1), 14-16.

Myers, M. (1994). ‘Women and children first’ Introducing a gender strategy into disaster preparedness. Gender & Development, 2(1), 14-16.

Najafi, M., Ardalan, A., Akbarisari, A., Noorbala, A. A., & Jabbari, H. (2015). Demographic determinants of disaster preparedness behaviors amongst Tehran inhabitants, Iran. PLoS currents, 7.

Najafi, M., Ardalan, A., Akbarisari, A., Noorbala, A. A., & Jabbari, H. (2015). Demographic determinants of disaster preparedness behaviours amongst Tehran inhabitants, Iran. PLoS Currents, 7.

Nifa, F. A. A., Abbas, S. R., Lin, C. K., & Othman, S. N. (2017). Developing a disaster education program for community safety and resilience: The preliminary phase.

Norris, F. H. (1992). Epidemiology of trauma: frequency and impact of different potentially traumatic events on different demographic groups. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 60(3), 409.

Norris, F. H. (1992). Epidemiology of trauma: frequency and impact of different potentially traumatic events on different demographic groups. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 60(3), 409.

Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American journal of community psychology, 41, 127-150.

Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American journal of community psychology, 41, 127-150.

o’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H., . . . Nygaard, L. (2004). Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global environmental change, 14(4), 303-313.

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

Ocal, A., Cvetković, V. M., 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. doi:10.1080/19475705.2020.1811405

Ostadtaghizadeh, A., Ardalan, A., Paton, D., Jabbari, H., & Khankeh, H. R. (2015). Community disaster resilience: A systematic review on assessment models and tools. PLoS currents, 7.

Ostadtaghizadeh, A., Ardalan, A., Paton, D., Jabbari, H., & Khankeh, H. R. (2015). Community disaster resilience: A systematic review on assessment models and tools. PLoS Currents, 7.

Palm, R. (1995). Communicating to a diverse population. Paper presented at the National Science and Technology Conference on Risk Assessment and Decision Making for Natural Hazards, Wash .C.

Palm, R. (1995). Communicating to a diverse population. Paper presented at the National Science and Technology Conference on Risk Assessment and Decision Making for Natural Hazards, Wash . C.

Parker, D. J. (2020). Disaster resilience–a challenged science. In (Vol. 19, pp. 1-9): Taylor & Francis.

Parker, D. J. (2020). Disaster resilience–a challenged science. In (Vol. 19, pp. 1-9): Taylor & Francis.

Paton, D. (2003). Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive perspective. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 210-216.

Pelling, M., Özerdem, A., & Barakat, S. (2002). The macro-economic impact of disasters. Progress in Development Studies, 2(4), 283-305.

Pereira, M., & Oliveira, A. M. (2020). Poverty and food insecurity may increase as the threat of COVID-19 spreads. Public Health Nutrition, 23(17), 3236-3240.

Perić, J., & Vladimir, C. M. J. I. J. o. D. R. M. (2019). Demographic, socio-economic and phycological perspective of risk perception from disasters caused by floods: case study Belgrade. 1(2), 31-43.

Perrings, C. (1998). Resilience in the dynamics of economy-environment systems. Environmental and Resource Economics, 11, 503-520.

Perrings, C. (1998). Resilience in the dynamics of economy-environment systems. Environmental and Resource Economics, 11, 503-520.

Pfefferbaum, R. L., Pfefferbaum, B., Zhao, Y. D., Van Horn, R. L., McCarter, G. S. M., & Leonard, M. B. (2016). Assessing community resilience: A CART survey application in an impoverished urban community. Disaster health, 3(2), 45-56.

Planić, J., Cvetković, V. (2022). Fenomenološke i etiološke dimenzije katastrofa izazvanih zemljotresom. Pravni i bezbednosni aspekti upravljanja rizicima od prirodnih i antropogenih katastrofa, 269-321. Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, Beograd, Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu i Međunarodni institut za istraživanje katastrofa.

Qasim, S., Qasim, M., Shrestha, R. P., Khan, A. N., Tun, K., & Ashraf, M. (2016). Community resilience to flood hazards in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 18, 100-106.

Radovanović, M., & Cvetković, V. (2022). Komunikacija o rizicima od katastrofa: Disaster risk communication. Pravni i bezbednosni aspekti upravljanja rizicima od prirodnih i antropogenih katastrofa, 269-321. Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, Beograd, Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu i Međunarodni institut za istraživanje katastrofa.

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.

Reid, M. (2013). Disasters and social inequalities. Sociology Compass, 7(11), 984-997.

Renschler, C. S., Frazier, A. E., Arendt, L. A., Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., & Bruneau, M. (2010). Developing the ‘PEOPLES’resilience framework for defining and measuring disaster resilience at the community scale.

Renschler, C. S., Frazier, A. E., Arendt, L. A., Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., & Bruneau, M. (2010). A framework for defining and measuring resilience at the community scale: The PEOPLES resilience framework: MCEER Buffalo.

Riad, J. K., Norris, F. H., & Ruback, R. B. (1999). Predicting evacuation in two major disasters: Risk perception, social influence, and access to resources. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 918-934.

Rodríguez, H., Kennedy, P., Quarantelli, E. L., Ressler, E., & Dynes, R. (2009). Handbook of disaster research: Springer Science & Business Media.

Rodríguez, H., Kennedy, P., Quarantelli, E. L., Ressler, E., & Dynes, R. (2009). Handbook of disaster research: Springer Science & Business Media.

Ross, C. E. (1995). Reconceptualizing marital status as a continuum of social attachment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 129-140.

Russell, L. A., Goltz, J. D., & Bourque, L. B. (1995). Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and after two earthquakes. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 744-770.

Rüstemli, A., & Karanci, A. N. (1999). Correlates of earthquake cognitions and preparedness behavior in a victimized population. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(1), 91-101.

Rüstemli, A., & Karanci, A. N. (1999). Correlates of earthquake cognitions and preparedness behaviour in a victimized population. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(1), 91-101.

Saja, A. M. A., Teo, M., Goonetilleke, A., & Ziyath, A. M. (2018). An inclusive and adaptive framework for measuring social resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 28, 862-873.

Saja, A. M. A., Teo, M., Goonetilleke, A., & Ziyath, A. M. (2018). An inclusive and adaptive framework for measuring social resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 28, 862-873.

Sakurai, A., & Sato, T. (2016). Promoting education for disaster resilience and the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. Journal of Disaster Research, 11(3), 402-412.

Sattler, D. N., Kaiser, C. F., & Hittner, J. B. (2000). Disaster preparedness: Relationships among prior experience, personal characteristics, and distress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(7), 1396-1420.

Scheid, T. L. (1993). An investigation of work and unemployment among psychiatric clients. International Journal of Health Services, 23(4), 763-782.

Sheikhi, R. A., Seyedin, H., Qanizadeh, G., & Jahangiri, K. (2021). Role of religious institutions in disaster risk management: A systematic review. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 15(2), 239-254.

Solomon, S. D., Bravo, M., Rubio‐Stipec, M., & Canino, G. (1993). Effect of family role on response to disaster. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6(2), 255-269.

Solomon, S. D., Bravo, M., Rubio‐Stipec, M., & Canino, G. (1993). Effect of family role on response to disaster. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6(2), 255-269.

Spiegel, A., & Satterthwaite, D. (2013). The R4 Rural Resilience Initiative—protecting livelihoods in a changing climate. The Geneva Reports, 65.

Spittal, M. J., McClure, J., Siegert, R. J., & Walkey, F. H. (2008a). Predictors of two types of earthquake preparation: survival activities and mitigation activities. Environment and Behavior, 40(6), 798-817.

Spittal, M. J., McClure, J., Siegert, R. J., & Walkey, F. H. (2008b). Predictors of two types of earthquake preparation: survival activities and mitigation activities. Environment and Behavior.

Spittal, M. J., Walkey, F. H., McClure, J., Siegert, R. J., & Ballantyne, K. E. (2006). The Earthquake Readiness Scale: The development of a valid and reliable unifactorial measure. Natural Hazards, 39(1), 15-29.

Szalay, L. B., Inn, A., Vilov, S. K., & Strohl, J. B. (1996). Regional and Demographic Variations in Public Perceptions Related to Emergency Preparedness. . Bethesda. Md.: Institute for Comparative Social and Cultural Studies Inc.

Szalay, L. B., Inn, A., Vilov, S. K., & Strohl, J. B. (1996). Regional and Demographic Variations in Public Perceptions Related to Emergency Preparedness. Bethesda. Md.: Institute for Comparative Social and Cultural Studies Inc.

Tanaka, K. (2005). The impact of disaster education on public preparation and mitigation for earthquakes: a cross-country comparison between Fukui, Japan and the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA. Applied Geography, 25(3), 201-225.

Tang, J., & Heinimann, H. R. (2018). A resilience-oriented approach for quantitatively assessing recurrent spatial-temporal congestion on urban roads. PloS one, 13(1), e0190616.

Tariq, H., Pathirage, C., & Fernando, T. (2021). Measuring community disaster resilience at local levels: An adaptable resilience framework. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 62, 102358.

Tariq, H., Pathirage, C., & Fernando, T. (2021). Measuring community disaster resilience at local levels: An adaptable resilience framework. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 62, 102358.

Timalsina, R., & Songwathana, P. (2020). Factors enhancing resilience among older adults experiencing disaster: A systematic review. Australasian Emergency Care, 23(1), 11-22.

Tobin, G. A. (1999). Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazards planning? Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 1(1), 13-25.

Tobin, G. A. (1999). Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazard planning? Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 1(1), 13-25.

Tohan, M. M., Kabir, A., Hoque, M. Z., & Roy, T. (2023). Demographic predictors of disaster preparedness behaviour: Sylhet and Sunamganj, Bangladesh. Environmental Hazards, 1-19.

Tohan, M. M., Kabir, A., Hoque, M. Z., & Roy, T. (2023). Demographic predictors of disaster preparedness behaviour: Sylhet and Sunamganj, Bangladesh. Environmental Hazards, 1-19.

Tomio, J., Sato, H., Matsuda, Y., Koga, T., & Mizumura, H. (2014). Household and Community Disaster Preparedness in Japanese Provincial City: A Population-Based Household Survey. Advances in Anthropology, 2014.

Tomio, J., Sato, H., Matsuda, Y., Koga, T., & Mizumura, H. (2014). Household and Community Disaster Preparedness in Japanese Provincial City: A Population-Based Household Survey. Advances in Anthropology, 2014.

Turner, R. H., Nigg, J. M., & Young, B. S. (1981). Community response to earthquake threat in southern California. . Los Angeles: Institute for Social Science Research. University of California.

Turner, R. H., Nigg, J. M., & Young, B. S. (1981). Community response to earthquake threat in southern California. Los Angeles: Institute for Social Science Research. University of California.

Ur Rahman, I., Jian, D., Junrong, L., & Shafi, M. (2021). Socio-economic status, resilience, and vulnerability of households under COVID-19: Case of village-level data in Sichuan province. PloS one, 16(4), e0249270.

Ur Rahman, I., Jian, D., Junrong, L., & Shafi, M. (2021). Socio-economic status, resilience, and vulnerability of households under COVID-19: Case of village-level data in Sichuan province. PloS one, 16(4), e0249270.

Van Breda, A. D. (2001). Resilience theory: A literature review. Pretoria, South Africa: South African Military Health Service.

Van Breda, A. D. (2001). Resilience theory: A literature review. Pretoria, South Africa: South African Military Health Service.

Van Rijsbergen, N., Jaworska, K., Rousselet, G. A., & Schyns, P. G. (2014). With age comes representational wisdom in social signals. Current Biology, 24(23), 2792-2796.

Vibhas, S., Adu, G. B., Ruiyi, Z., Anwaar, M. A., & Rajib, S. J. I. J. o. D. R. M. (2019). Understanding the barriers restraining effective operation of flood early warning systems. 1(2), 1-17.

Wagnild, G. (2003). Resilience and successful ageing: Comparison among low and high income older adults. In (Vol. 29, pp. 42-49): SLACK Incorporated Thorofare, NJ.

Wagnild, G. (2003). Resilience and successful aging: Comparison among low and high income older adults. In (Vol. 29, pp. 42-49): SLACK Incorporated Thorofare, NJ.

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and society, 9(2).

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and society, 9(2).

Wanberg, C. R. (2012). The individual experience of unemployment. Annual review of psychology, 63, 369-396.

Wildavsky, A. B. (1988). Searching for safety (Vol. 10): Transaction publishers.

Wirtz, P. W., & Rohrbeck, C. A. (2018). The dynamic role of perceived threat and self-efficacy in motivating terrorism preparedness behaviours. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 366-372.

Zhang, N., & Huang, H. (2018). Resilience analysis of countries under disasters based on multisource data. Risk analysis, 38(1), 31-42.

Leave a Reply

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