Vladimir M. Cvetković1
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies
Scientific-professional society for risk management in emergency situations Belgrade (Serbia)
Marko P. Radovanović2
Ministry of Interior of The Republic of Serbia Belgrade (Serbia)
Srđan M. Milašinović3
University of Criminal Investigation and Police Studies Belgrade (Serbia)
DISASTER RISK COMMUNICATION: ATTITUDES OF SERBIAN CITIZENS
Abstract: The objective of this research was to examine the citizens‘ attitudes to various factors influencing the implementation of effective disaster risk communication in the Republic of Serbia. In addition, the research aims to scientifically describe the predictors of successful disaster risk communication. Using an online survey questionnaire, based on the snowball principle, 243 respondents were surveyed during July 2021. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis used to assess the explanatory power of six selected variables (gender, age, education, marital status, employment, and income level) on the perception of disaster risk communication show that the most important predictors of risk awareness are income level and gender. The obtained results have multiple scientific and practical importance for the improvement of integrated disaster risk communication through the process of improved understanding of the demographic and socio-economic perspective of communication.
Keywords: disasters, risks, communication, factors, innovation, research
1 vmc@fb.bg.ac.rs
2 marko6r@yahoo.com
3 srdjan.milasinovic@kpu.edu.rs
4 Funding: The research leading to this publication has received funding from the European Union‘s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Grant Agreement 740750 – DAREnet”.
Introduction
Insufficiency of the very risk assessment of different disasters for the development of a coherent risk management policy has put forward the current nature of the question of risk communication in disaster studies (Bradley et al., 2014; Chakma et al., 2020; Hussaini, 2020; Mano & Rapaport, 2019; Vibhas et al., 2019). Risk communication is a process of transmitting the results of different stages of risk analysis and risk management to stakeholders (Rowan, 1991). Apart from making citizens aware of risks of the occurrence of natural and technical-technological disasters, risk communication is also aimed at including stakeholdersers in the process of identifying possible solutions (Field, Barros, Stocker, & Dahe, 2012; Janković, 2021; Jha, 2020; Olawuni, Olowoporoku, & Daramola, 2020; Xuesong & Kapucu, 2019). Therefore, disaster risk communication is an act of transmitting information between stakeholders about the level of a potential risk, importance and potential consequences of such risk, as well as decisions and actions to be taken in order to control it (Hendtlass, 2008). It is a permanent process of creating and exchanging information between groups, institutions and individuals for the purpose of preparing, risk reduction, responding to dangers and threats (Sellnow & Seeger, 2021). Starting from different definitions of disaster risk communication, we can emphasize that it implies an integrated and multidimensional process of gathering, analyzing and transferring information about various aspects (prepar- edness, alleviation, response and recovery) of risks of natural and anthropogenic disasters; it also includes clearly determined senders (relevant authorities, subjects and institutions in charge of disaster risk reduction), messages (clear, short, unambiguous, scientifically founded and verifiable) and recipients (citizens).
The function of disaster risk communication refers to raising awareness, educating the population, encouraging people to act, reaching agreements, maintaining trust in com- municators (Bier, 2001), distributing information during a disaster, as well as providing assistance in the subsequent recovery and learning from a situation (Bradley et al., 2014; Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2017). The key elements of the process of disaster risk com- munication are senders, i.e. the source (e.g. risk managers who send warnings), messages (e.g. the warning content. information in the form of a text, speech, sound, image etc.), channels (television, telephone, warning siren), recipients and effects, i.e. changes in the recipients‘ behaviour as a consequence of the communication process (Altheide, 1995; Couldry & Hepp, 2018; Hansson et al., 2020). However, even the most advanced early warning systems and prediction models will fail if information is not communicated in a timely manner, clearly and so as to enable the end user to consider options and adequate action (Fakhruddin, Clark, Robinson, & Hieber-Girardet, 2020). In the event of the absence of vital information and/or existence of partial, unforeseen or incomplete information, such as “black swans”, the difficulties in communicating risk events are particularly pronounced (Wardman & Mythen, 2016).
In the past, risk communication was a one-way transmission of information from authorities to the public and did not constitute an interactive information flow (Glik, 2007). Nevertheless, the two-way approach (that also includes traditional perspectives of “experts” and “laymen”) is more suitable because it involves experts who work with the public throughout the process of risk communication (Morgan, Fischhoff, Bostrom, &
Atman, 2002). In that manner risk communication began a new stage that dedicates great attention to the social context in which it occurs and the response of the public to disaster risk information. In line with that, a large number of recent studies (Lachlan, Spence, Lin, Najarian, & Del Greco, 2016; McIntyre, Lachlan, & Spence, 2012; Nelson, Spence, & Lachlan, 2009; Spence et al., 2005) have documented the inclusion of people in various forms of communication during all stages of disasters and risk events for the purpose of learning from them, reducing insecurity and gaining the sense of personal control over the situation. The necessity of risk communication is reflected in the saving of lives, search and rescue operations and efforts directed at disaster risk reduction (Mileti, Fitzpatrick, & Farhar, 1992). The literature emphasizes the priorities of risk communication (Persensky et al., 2004): provision of information, familiarization with the stakeholders‘ concerns, building of trust and credibility etc.
Literature overview
Taking into account that the acceptance of risk information at the local level is crucial for successful risk management, the prerequisite for effective risk communication is good understanding of the factors affecting people‘s perception about information and their deci- sion about adopting decision-makers‘ recommendations (Cvetković et al., 2021; Cvetković, Roder, Tarolli, & Dragićević, 2018; Cvetković, Tanasić, Ocal, Nikolić, & Dragašević, 2021; Ocal et al., 2020). In a broader sense, there are four dominant interlinked variables that affect people‘s response to risk communication: environmental signs, social context, warn- ing components (source, channel and message) and recipients‘ characteristics (Perry & Lindell, 2006), i.e. complex interaction between the above-listed components (Breakwell, 2000). Among different demographic (Savage, 1993), socio-economic (Perić & Cvetković, 2019), cultural (Gierlach, Belsher, & Beutler, 2010) and psychological factors affecting the risk perception (Alcántara-Ayala & Moreno, 2016), certain papers (Visschers et al., 2012) emphasize the role of the affect and, accordingly, indicate the importance of research into the manner in which risk communication can cause an affect or more specific emotions.
In the process of searching for information from traditional and social media, it has been established that information inundation and the humour shown discourage the use of both media, while credibility encourages the use of traditional media (Austin, Fisher Liu, & Jin, 2012). Moreover, the above-mentioned authors have established that information about the gravity of disasters and efficiency of intervention-rescue services (police, fire-fighter/ rescue units, civil protection etc.) increases the frequency of message transmission to oth- ers (Austin, Fisher Liu, & Jin, 2012; cf. Vos et al., 2018). Some of the vital components of the of risk communication process are trust and credibility (Peters et al., 1997). The gov- ernment and industry often lack the public trust, while other sources, such as consumer organizations, media, doctors and friends, are largely trusted (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996; Cvetković, 2021; Cvetković, Adem, & Aleksandar, 2019; Cvetković & Grbić, 2021; Cvetković & Jovanović, 2020; Cvetković, Nikolić, Nenadić, Ocal, & Zečević, 2020). The greatest preparedness of individuals to follow recommended measures has been observed in the event when such information is received from their own social sphere (social media and direct contact with friends and the family) (Sansom et al., 2021).
The efficiency of the message about risks depends on the people‘s trust in commu- nication sources, but on the other hand, their trust is affected by the perception of knowl- edge, professionalism and credibility, capacity for providing adequate help, responsibility, honesty, care, as well as the perception of the corruption level within the authorities (Eiser, Donovan, & Sparks, 2015; Harvey & Twyman, 2007; Kääriäinen, 2007; McLean & Ewart, 2015). In that context, two key components of trust stand out: trust in motives and trust in competence (Twyman, Harvey, & Harries, 2008). These two components together determine the level of cooperation between the recipient and the source of information (Harvey & Twyman, 2007), which subsequently forms their motivation for action (National Research, 1989). Furthermore, the citizens‘ trust is also affected by the perception of discrimination against minority groups and greater trust in local than government sources during disas- ters (Appleby-Arnold et al., 2019; Van Craen & Skogan, 2015; Wray & Jupka, 2004; Wray, Rivers, Jupka, & Clements, 2006).
The outstanding relevant characteristics of recipients regarding the perception of risks and response are previous experience, personal and demographic characteristics, existing beliefs (Brynielsson et al., 2018), i.e. cognitive partiality, such as unrealistic opti- mism, and ideological orientation (Breakwell, 2000). Apart from observing a higher risk, there is also an evident tendency of individuals towards optimistic prejudice or illusions about invulnerability, or the belief that disasters are more likely to happen to someone else than to them (Gurmankin, Baron, & Armstrong, 2004; McComas, 2006; Salmon, Park, & Wrigley, 2003). Starting from the importance of personal experience with disasters for preparedness behaviours, Siegrist and associates (Siegrist & Gutscher, 2008) used the face- to-face interview to compare people who have experienced floods with those without such experience, despite living in the flood-threatened regions. On that occasion they noticed an important factor of underestimating the negative effect related to disasters among the respondents with no experience of floods, which further points to negative aspects of risk communication regarding the risk focused exclusively on technical aspects.
It should be kept in mind that, when wanting information about risk, the public pre- fers a clear message about risks and related uncertainties, including the nature and scope of disagreements between different experts (Frewer, 2004; Cvetković et al., 2019; Mitrović, 2019; Otašević et al., 2014; Magdalenić, 2010). Moreover, the result of honesty about uncer- tainties is most commonly the creation of trust (Svendsen, Yamaguchi, Tsuda, Guimaraes, & Tondel, 2016). As for communicating risks marked by scientific uncertainty, two exper- imental studies (Rabinovich & Morton, 2012) have found important interaction between the beliefs about science and communicated uncertainty regarding the preparedness for acting in line with the message. Frequent exposure to disasters when it comes to migrants, ethnic minorities and people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities is often related to various cultural barriers and limited knowledge of the prevalent language, which reduces their possibilities of interpreting and responding to warnings, particularly having in mind the inundation of risk communication with the conflicting jargon and the presence of panic, which further compound the implementation of effective communication (Johansson, 2017; Ogie, Rho, Clarke, & Moore; Shepherd & van Vuuren, 2014). That is why on the occasion of collecting information about risk minorities will most commonly rely on their relatives and social media (Morrow, 1999).
In line with the current nature of scientific research into disaster risk communi- cation, the subject of the research is examining the citizens‘ attitudes to various factors (demographic and socio-economic) affecting the implementation of effective disaster risk communication in the Republic of Serbia.
Research methodology
The aim of the scientific research is the scientific explanation of predictors (gender, age, education, marital status, employment, income) of effective disaster risk communica- tion in the process of decision-making and communication (Chart 1). This paper starts from the general hypothesis that there are effects of different demographic and socio-economic factors on the communication process about natural and anthropogenic disaster risks.
Sample and method of data collection
Non-random sampling by the snowball principle and on the basis of other conveni- ences in order to avoid contact with people due to the epidemiological situation caused by COVID-19, an online questionnaire was created and posted on all relevant social media and websites. Out of 410 citizens who agreed to participate, 350 downloaded the survey questionnaire, while 60 of the refused (the total rate of answers was 85.36%). Out of the total number of the respondents who downloaded the survey questionnaire, 243 of them answered all the questions in the questionnaire, while 107 respondents did not give their answers (the completion rate of the survey questionnaire was 69.42%). Table 1 shows so- cio-economic characteristics of the respondents included in the sample. Out of the total number of the respondents, women (53.09%) were slightly less present in comparison to men (46.91%). Speaking of the respondents‘ age, most of them were younger (45.27%) up to the age of 30, while the smallest number was of the older population representatives over the age of 61 (14.40%). The respondents with the completed secondary school (45.27%) were most present in the sample, while the smallest number was of the respondents with the completed postgraduate studies (13.58%). According to the marital status, there was the largest number of the respondents who were married (38.7%), while there was the smallest number of the respondents who were divorced (1.6%). In addition, the sample included the largest number of the respondents who were employed (83.5%), as well as those with the income level lower than RSD 30,000 (58.44%), having in mind the average national and monthly net earnings and the minimum wage (http://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/ G2018/PdfE/G20181260.pdf).
Research instrument
After the systematic analysis of a larger number of scientific papers dealing with the problem of disaster risk communication (Bouckenooghe, Devos, & Van den Broeck, 2009; Whitmarsh, 2009a, 2009b; Williams et al., 2006), instruments were identified that served for conceiving the survey questions. The survey questionnaire contains two sets of questions (see the appendix – survey questionnaire): a) questions about the respondents‘ demographic and
socio-economic profile; b) direct and indirect questions about disaster risk communication. Before the beginning of this research, a pilot study was conducted with the sample of 42 respondents by the snowball principle. Taking into account the established deficiencies of the survey questionnaire, these results were not considered in the production of the final statistical analyses. Such preliminary study ensured the improvement of the design, the quality of questions, and the accuracy of the scales in the survey questionnaire itself.
Data processing
In the Statistical Product and Service Solutions programme (SPSS), all data obtained by survey examination were organized and classified. Thanks to the descriptive statistical analyses, the distributions of the answers to the posed questions were determined. For ex- amining the effect of the selected variables on the attitudes to disaster risk communication, the multiple linear regression analysis was used for assessing the explanatory power of five selected variables on the perception of the effect of disaster risk communication. For the purpose of this analysis, the initial values of each of the selected independent variables were allotted new codes, or numerical codes: men, younger people, with a secondary school degree, married, employed, with lower income (those with less than RSD 30,000 are coded as 1; all others are coded as 0. For the purpose of detailed analyses, T-test and Pearson‘s correlation were used. The assumptions on which the analyses are based, the assumption of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homogeneity of variance were not disturbed (Tabachnick, Fidell, & Ullman, 2007). Cronbach‘s alpha coefficient was 0.79 and it can be said that the internal consistency of Likert scale was satisfactory.
Research results
Predictors of disaster risk communication
The results of the multiple linear regression analysis used to assess the explanatory power of six selected variables (gender, age, education, marital status, employment and in- come level) on the perception of disaster risk communication show that the most important risk awareness predictor is income level (β = 0.181), explained by 3.02% variance, followed by gender (β = 0.139, 1.93%). Other variables had no statistically significant contribution to the model. This model (R2 = 0.080, Adj. R2 = 0.057, F = 3.43, t = 15.92, p = 0.000) that includes all the observed independent variables explains only 5.7% of the risk awareness of disaster risks. Further analyses show that the most important predictor of the quality of risk communication is the employment status (β = 0.222) that accounts for 2.04% variance, followed by income level (β = 0.213, 4.16%) and age (β = 0.150, 1.82%). The above-men- tioned model (R2 = 0.106, Adj. R2 = 0.084, F = 4.67, t = 13.05, p = 0.000) that includes all observed independent variables accounts for 8.4% variance of the quality of disaster risk communication (Table 2 and Chart 2).
In comparison to trust in the senders of disaster risk information, the results show that the most important predictor of such trust is the employment status (β = 0.416) that accounts for 17.13% variance, followed by gender (β = ‒0.315, 9.24%) and age (β = ‒0.169,
2.31%). This model (R2 = 0.284, Adj. R2 = 0.265, F = 15.27, t = 17.02, p = 0.000) that in-
cludes all the observed independent variables accounts for 26.5% of the variance of trust in information senders. Moreover, it has been established that the most important predictor of the way of responding to disaster risk information is the employment status (β = 0.416) that accounts for 7.18 variance, followed by age (β =0.321, 6.35%) and, finally, the marital status (β = ‒0.185). This model (R2 = 0.177, Adj. R2 = 0.157, F = 8.48, t = 12.70, p = 0.000)
that includes all the observed independent variables accounts for 17.7% of the variance of the manner of response to disaster risk information (Table 5 and Chart 1).
Results of the descriptive statistical analyses and the relation between the selected variables and disaster risk communication
The research results show that the level of citizens‘ awareness of disaster risks is at a lower level (–х = 3.09, sd = 1.01) and only 25.8% respondents point out that they are ade-
quately aware of disaster risks. When asked “How would you like to be informed during
disasters?”, the answer was given by more than 98% respondents and on that occasion it was established that the largest number of the respondents would like to be informed by:
1) the Internet (–х = 4.00, sd = 1.12); 2) announcements by public authorities (–х = 3.81,
sd = 1.23); 3) television (–х = 3.56, sd = 1.31); 4) social media (–х = 3.53, sd = 1.32); 4) warn- ing sirens for alerting citizens (–х = 3.49, sd = 1.21); 5) radio (–х = 3.21, sd = 1.36); 6) mobile telephone (–х = 2.74, sd = 1.39); 7) personally (door-to-door) (–х = 2.53, sd = 1.38); 8) sta- tionary telephone (–х = 1.67, sd = 1.09) (Chart 3). Therefore, citizens would mostly want to
be informed by the Internet, and least by the stationary telephone. In addition, the research
results show that 65.4% respondents exchange information about disaster risks with their acquaintances and that 23.5% of them think that the useful information is about what they need to do in order to protect themselves, while 7.4% of them point out that it is necessary to provide information about the cause and manner of occurrence of the disaster they are threatened by. When asked “What are the purposes of your use of social media during and after a disaster??”, more than half of the respondents (53.9%) answered that they did it for educational purposes about disaster causes and consequences; 23.9% respondents pointed out that they used social media for the purposes of discussing the current situation; 1.6% respondents stressed that they did not use social media during and after disasters, while other respondents did not answer this question. Speaking of the assessment of the quality of the issued warnings to citizens in the previous disasters, the following has been established:
a) timeliness of issued warnings (–х = 3.20, sd = 1.30); b) clarity of communicated messages
(–х = 3.27, sd = 1.29); c) familiarity with action procedures after receiving messages (–х = 3.15, sd = 1.34); d) trust in forwarded messages (–х = 2.85, sd = 1.25); e) manner of issuing warn- ings (–х = 2.99, sd = 1.29); f) possibility of receiving warnings (–х = 3.19, sd = 1.32) (Chart
4). Judging by the obtained results, the respondents mostly emphasize timeliness of issued
warnings, while, on the other hand, they point to lower trust in forwarded messages, which may pose a serious problem in the disaster management process.
As for the assessment of the respondents‘ abilities for timely and adequate response after the issued warning, it has been established that the highest values refer to the sense of
personal control over the situation (–х = 3.10, sd = 1.15); the by the ability for self-protection
(–х = 2.88, sd = 1.19); the ability for evacuation (–х = 2.90, sd = 1.23); and possession of necessary resources (–х = 2.49, sd = 1.06) (Chart 5).
In the paper we further examined the level of citizens‘ trust in different subjects that informed them about certain aspects of disaster risks in the past. On this occasion, we estab- lished that the greatest level of trust was in information forwarded by relevant professional services and organizations (73.7%), then by public authorities (3.7%), politicians (2.1%) and, in the end, by the president (1.7%) and the government (1.5%) (Chart 6). It is certainly important to emphasize that 13.6% citizens do not trust either of the listed subjects, which might cause serious problems in the process of accepting and acting in line with specific instructions of relevant authorities.
When asked to grade on Likert scale from 1 (absolutely low) to 5 (absolute high) their trust in relevant authorities regarding measures and activities undertaken to protect the population from natural and anthropogenic disasters”, most respondents (35.8%) pointed out that they had no trust to a certain extent, while 30.5% of them pointed out that they had absolutely no trust. Therefore, about 66.3% respondents have no trust in relevant authori- ties undertaking adequate measures and activities in order to protect them from disasters. It is important to emphasize that only 4.9% respondents said that they had absolute trust in relevant authorities. As for the restricted receipt of relevant information about disaster
risks, it has been established that the highest values were recorded regarding the following attitudes: I am exposed to false or contradictory information (–х = 1.70, sd = 1.26); I have no access to the channel through which information is distributed (–х = 1.81, sd = 1.20); I have no radio or Internet access (–х = 1.65, sd = 1.08); I have no resources for buying adequate devices (–х = 1.77, sd = 1.14); I have no skills or habits for such use (–х = 1.78, sd = 1.23).
When it comes to understanding forwarded information about disaster risks, the highest
values were recorded regarding the reason of the lack of knowledge about the meaning of the warning signals (–х = 2.23, sd = 1.15); moreover, information is too complex (–х = 2.04, sd = 1.10); limited mental capacity (–х = 1.85, sd = 1.19); and, in the end, limited language skills (–х = 1.83, sd = 1.15) (Chart 7).
The results of Pearson‘s correlation show that there is a statistically significant relation
between age and the quality of disaster risk communication (r = ‒0.219, pp ≤ 0.001 – small correlation) and the manner of response after receiving information (r = ‒0.208, pp ≤ 0.001 – small correlation). The results show that age accounts for 4.78% of the variance of the quality of disaster risk communication and 4.32% of the manner of response after receiving risk information. The negative relation shows that the older a person is, the lower grades he/she will give to the quality of communication and the manner of response.
Further analyses determined the existence of a statistically significant correlation (r = ‒0.139, pp ≤ 0.05 – small correlation) between the respondents‘ education and the de- gree of expressed trust in senders of disaster risk information. The respondents‘ education accounts for 1.93% variance of trust in senders. On the other hand, a statistically significant correlation has been established between the employment status and the assessment of the manner of response after the provision of disaster risk information (r = 0.160, pp ≤ 0.05 – small correlation). About 2.56% of the variance of the manner of response could be explained by the employment status. In addition, a statistically significant correlation was established between the income level and the following variables: risk awareness (r = 0.207,
p ≤ 0.01 – small correlation), the quality of communication (r = 0.248, pp ≤ 0.00 – small correlation), trust in senders (r = 0.395, pp ≤ 0.00 – small correlation), and the manner of response (r = 0.161, pp ≤ 0.05 – small correlation). Further analyses show that income accounts for 4.28% of risk awareness variance, followed by 6.15% of the variance of the communication quality assessment, 15.6% of the variance of trust in senders, and 2.59% of the variance of the manner of response (Table 5).
T-test results show that there is a statistically significant difference between men and women regarding the following variables: risk awareness (p = 0.02); trust in senders (p = 0.00); manner of response (p = 0.07); television (p = 0.0); radio (p = 0.02); official announcements of public authorities (p = 0.00); mobile telephones (p = 0.03); (p = 0.02); familiarity with action procedures (p = 0.02); trust in forwarded messages (p = 0.00). Further
analyses show that women have more trust than men in senders of disaster risk information (–х = 3.00/2.35); women would like to get informed through television (–х = 4.13/3.35), radio (–х = 3.48/3.03), official announcements of public authorities (–х = 3.20/2.90) and mobile telephones (–х = 2.99/2.58). On the other hand, men are more aware of risks in comparison to women: they are aware of risks (–х = 3.20/2.90); they point out that they know how to respond (–х = 2.85/2.63); they are familiar with response procedures (–х = 3.29/2.91); they have trust in trust forwarded messages (–х = 3.05/2.52) (Table 6).
Discussion
The paper examines the citizens‘ attitudes to various factors (psychological, sociolog- ical, and political) affecting the implementation of effective disaster risk communication in the Republic of Serbia. In the wealth of data, it has been established that there is a lower level of citizens‘ disaster risk awareness; the level of trust is the highest regarding the in- formation communicated by relevant professional services; citizens would like most to be informed through the Internet, and the least by stationary telephone; they have less trust in communicated messages and as the most serious deficiency they point out the lack of knowledge about the meaning of warning signals etc.
The respondents‘ positive perception has been identified concerning the use of tele- vision, radio and official announcements of public authorities during disasters. The results of the study conducted by Austin and associates (Austin et al., 2012) indicate that the participants primarily searched for information about why and how the disaster occurred; the about responsibility, while the information about the steps of the response to be taken was searched only when the participants were highly involved in the event. In contrast, the respondents in this study searched for and found useful all relevant information about disasters, such as the cause and manner of their occurrence, responsibility for events and response steps to be taken.
Speaking of the attitude towards the use of mobile applications for disaster risk com- munication, which are present all over the world and whose efficiency has proved to be good in practice, the respondents had, in most cases, an exceptionally positive attitude, i.e. they absolutely supported the use of mobile applications for disaster risk communication. Considering the same matter, Chan and associates (Chan, Huang, Mark, & Guo, 2017) established that age and education level were vital socio-demographic variables related to
the current use and future preferences of Smartphone technology. Among those who did not use mobile applications for risk communication, 61.3% were thinking of transferring to a Smartphone application. Accordingly, a conclusion can be drawn about the important role of these applications, but also about the importance of information being adjusted to socio-demographic characteristics of its users.
The research results show that men evaluate the level of their risk awareness of natural and anthropogenic disasters to a greater extent than women. Gender differences in the above-mentioned context were identified in other studies as well. For example, Wester- Herber and associates (Wester-Herber & Warg, 2002) pointed to regional differences that might have an important effect on efforts in disaster risk communication. In line with the results of this study, men report a higher degree of knowledge and information about the activities that contain risks of technological disasters (Wester-Herber & Warg, 2002). However, Bord and associates (Bord & O‘Connor, 1997) found that women showed a substantially higher level of concern over different environmental risks, while Brink and associates (Brink & Wamsler, 2019) presented conclusions about women‘s greater readiness and motivation to be included ion adaptations and/or answers to different messages of natural disaster risks.
The obtained results indicate that there is no positive correlation between age and the assessment of the respondents‘ awareness. These results are contrary to the results of other empirical studies in which age is identified as an important predictor of the observed knowledge and the level of risk awareness of disaster risks (Zhou, Li, & Zhao, 2003). As for age, Feldman and associates (Feldman et al., 2016) establish that age is the most important predictor in the manner of informing about disaster risks. Namely, their analysis identifies age as the key characteristic in understanding the former need and the future desired use of the information about disaster risks.
The limitations of the conducted research are reflected in the follows: 1) insufficient presence of extremely young and old citizens in the sample; 2) no conducted qualitative research of risk communication with chosen experts and specially selected subjects; 3) impossibility of conducting field research (face-to-face).
Conclusion
Traditional sources of information through radio, television and print, have been long used for the purpose of warning the public about the pending dangers and proposing protection measures in order to reduce consequences to the minimum possible degree. However, these sources of information had a number of deficiencies: inability of direct transmission of information from the affected regions, interruption of communication between individuals and relevant services due to physical damage of the necessary critical infrastructure, inconsistency in reporting, sensationalization of stories by the media etc. The use of new technologies in reporting and warning has become of crucial importance in the field of disaster risk management.
In order to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the communication process, it is necessary to establish a service (unit) that would be in charge of monitoring the entire communication process (receipt, analysis, sending), from the first announcements to the
end of the disaster. This unit and/or service would serve the aim of providing timely, true and objective information about events, as well as coordinating the communication among the members of the affected community and relevant services. This unit would be responsible for early warning, alerting and informing, for issuing evacuation orders and proposing protection measures via means of information, while during disasters it would receive direct information from the scene and manage protection and rescue units for the purpose of faster and more efficient response. Moreover, the role of this service would also be to stop the distribution of false information and undermining of the authorities.
The conducted research opens new research questions within which it is necessary to examine and study in detail various factors affecting the process of disaster risk communi- cation and the implementation of different strategies and innovative solutions in this field. Having in mind increasing requests for dedicating attention to the social context and/or perception, attitudes and beliefs of the population that affect their interpretation, receipt and response to warning messages, the implications of this research are of extremely great importance for decision-makers in the Republic of Serbia.
REFERENCES / ЛИТЕРАТУРА:
Alcántara-Ayala, I., & Moreno, A. R. (2016). Landslide risk perception and communication for disaster risk management in mountain areas of developing countries: a Mexican foretaste. Journal of Mountain Science, 13(12), 2079–2093.
Altheide, D. L. (1995). An ecology of communication: Cultural formats of control: Transaction Publishers.
Appleby-Arnold, S., Brockdorff, N., Fallou, L., & Bossu, R. (2019). Truth, trust, and civic duty: Cultural factors in citizens‘ perceptions of mobile phone apps and social media in disasters. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 27(4), 293–305.
Austin, L., Fisher Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2012). How audiences seek out crisis information: Exploring the social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal of applied com- munication research, 40(2), 188–207.
Bier, V. M. (2001). On the state of the art: risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 71(2), 139–150.
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change ques- tionnaire–climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instru- ment. The Journal of Psychology, 143(6), 559–599.
Bradley, D. T., McFarland, M., & Clarke, M. (2014). The effectiveness of disaster risk com- munication: a systematic review of intervention studies. PLoS currents, 6.
Breakwell, G. M. (2000). Risk communication: factors affecting impact. British medical bulletin, 56(1), 110–120.
Breakwell, G. M. (2000). Risk communication: factors affecting impact. British medical bulletin, 56(1), 110–120.
Brynielsson, J., Granåsen, M., Lindquist, S., Narganes Quijano, M., Nilsson, S., & Trnka, J. (2018). Informing crisis alerts using social media: Best practices and proof of concept. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 26(1), 28–40.
Chakma, U. K., Hossain, A., Islam, K., Hasnat, G. T., & Kabir. (2020). Water crisis and adapta- tion strategies by tribal community: A case study in Baghaichari Upazila of Rangamati District in Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 37–46. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2018). The mediated construction of reality: John Wiley & Sons. Cvetković, V. (2021). Innovative solutions for disaster early warning and alert systems: a literary review. Paper presented at the XI International scientific conference Archibald
Reiss days, November 9–10, 2021.Belgrade: University of Criminal Investigation and Police Studies.
Cvetković, V. M., Tomašević, K. S., & Milašinović, S. (2019). Security risks of climate change: case study of Belgrade. Sociološki pregled, 53(2), 596–626. DOI: 10.5937/ socpreg53-22371
Cvetković, V., & Grbić, L. (2021). Public perception of climate change and its impact on natural disasters. Časopis Geografskog instituta “Jovan Cvijić”, 71(1), 43–58.
Cvetković, V., & Jovanović, M. (2020). Examination of the factors that influence public perception of mythically-based human behaviour in disaster conditions. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog društva, 100(2), 161–179.
Cvetković, V., Nikolić, N., Nenadić, R. U., Ocal, A., & Zečević, M. (2020). Preparedness and Preventive Behaviours for a Pandemic Disaster Caused by COVID-19 in Serbia. Int. J. Environ. Res. 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., Öcal, A., Lyamzina, Y., Noji, E., Nikolić, N., & Milošević, G. (2021). Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits. Energies, 14, 2464.
Cvetković, V., Roder, G., Ocal, Adem, Tarolli, P., & Dragićević, S. (2018). The Role of Gender in Preparedness and Response Behaviours towards Flood Risk in Serbia. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 15(12), 2761.
Cvetković, V., Tanasić, J., Ocal, A., Nikolić, N., & Dragašević, A. (2021). Capacity Development of Local Self-Governments for Disaster Risk Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18.
Eiser, J. R., Donovan, A., & Sparks, R. S. J. (2015). Risk perceptions and trust following the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic volcanic ash crises. Risk analysis, 35(2), 332–343.
Fakhruddin, B., Clark, H., Robinson, L., & Hieber-Girardet, L. (2020). Should I stay or should I go now? Why risk communication is the critical component in disaster risk reduction. Progress in Disaster Science, 8, 100139.
Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., & Dahe, Q. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovern- mental panel on climate change: Cambridge University Press.
Frewer, L. (2004). The public and effective risk communication. Toxicology letters, 149(1–3), 391-397.
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk analysis, 16(4), 473–486.
Gierlach, E., Belsher, B. E., & Beutler, L. E. (2010). Cross‐cultural differences in risk per- ceptions of disasters. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(10), 1539–1549.
Glik, D. C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 28, 33–54.
Gurmankin, A. D., Baron, J., & Armstrong, K. (2004). Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: exploring the gap. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 24(5), 1337–1347.
Hansson, S., Orru, K., Siibak, A., Bäck, A., Krüger, M., Gabel, F., & Morsut, C. (2020). Communication-related vulnerability to disasters: A heuristic framework. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 51, 101931.
Harvey, N., & Twyman, M. (2007). Two-route models of trust in sources of risk communica- tion. London: University College London.
Hendtlass, C. (2008). Risk Communication Workshop Handbook. New Zealand Centre for Advanced Engineering
Hussaini, A. (2020). Environmental Planning for Disaster Risk Reduction at Kaduna International Airport, Kaduna Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(1).
Janković, B. (2021). The role of the police in disasters caused by pandemic infectious dis- eases. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 3(1), 41–50.
Jha, D. (2020). Indicator based assessment of integrated flood vulnerability index for Brunei Darussalam. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 47–70.
Johansson, M. (2017). Experience of data collection in support of the assessment of global progress in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030–A Swedish pilot study. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 24, 144–150.
Kääriäinen, J. T. (2007). Trust in the police in 16 European countries: A multilevel analysis.
European journal of criminology, 4(4), 409–435.
Lachlan, K. A., Spence, P. R., Lin, X., Najarian, K., & Del Greco, M. (2016). Social media and crisis management: CERC, search strategies, and Twitter content. Computers in Human Behaviour, 54, 647–652.
Magdalenić, Z. (2010). Toward a sociological understanding of the sustainable development.
Sociološki pregled, 44(2), 309–324. DOI: 10.5937/socpreg1002309M
Mano, R., A, K., & Rapaport, C. (2019). Earthquake preparedness: A Social Media Fit perspective to accessing and disseminating earthquake information. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 19–31.
McComas, K. A. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996–2005.
Journal of health communication, 11(1), 75–91.
McIntyre, J. J., Lachlan, K., & Spence, P. R. (2012). Attending to the future: The role of learning in emergency response. Journal of Emergency Management, 10(1), 41.
Mileti, D. S., Fitzpatrick, C., & Farhar, B. C. (1992). Fostering public preparations for natural hazards: Lessons from the Parkfield earthquake prediction. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 34(3), 16–39.
Mitrović, V. L. (2020). Double Effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic. Sociološki pregled, 54(3), 609–626.
Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge University Press
National Research, C. (1989). Improving risk communication.
Nelson, L. D., Spence, P. R., & Lachlan, K. (2009). Learning from the media in the after- math of a crisis: Findings from the Minneapolis Bridge collapse. Electronic News 3(4), 176–192.
Ocal, A., Cvetković, V., Baytiyeh, H., Tedim, F., & Zečević, M. (2020). Public reactions to the disaster COVID-19: A comparative study in Italy, Lebanon, Portugal, and Serbia. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 11(1), 1864–1885.
Ogie, R., Rho, J. C., Clarke, R. J., & Moore, A. (2018). Disaster Risk Communication in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities: The Role of Technology. Proceedings (2), 1256. DOI:10.3390/proceedings2191256
Olawuni, P., Olowoporoku, O., & Daramola, O. (2020). Determinants of Residents‘ Participation in Disaster Risk Management in Lagos Metropolis Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 1–18.
Otašević, B., Trbojević, J., & Mitrović, D. (2014). Motivation for helping behaviour after the floods in 2014: The role of personality and national identity. Sociološki pregled, 48(4), 485–505. DOI: 10.5937/socpreg1404485O
Perić, J., & Cvetković, V. M. (2019). Demographic, socio-economic and psychological perspective of risk perception from disasters caused by floods: case study Belgrade. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 31–45.
Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. (1989). Communicating threat information for volcano haz- ards. Bad Tidings Communications and Catastrophe Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 62.
Persensky, J., Browde, S., Szabo, A., Peterson, L., Specht, E., & Wight, E. (2004). Effective risk communication: the nuclear regulatory commission‘s guidelines for external risk communication. Washington, DC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. A. (2012). Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk commu- nication. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(6), 992–1002.
Rowan, K. E. (1991). Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem‐ solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of applied com- munication research, 19(4), 300–329.
Salmon, C. T., Park, H. S., & Wrigley, B. J. (2003). Optimistic bias and perceptions of bioterrorism in Michigan corporate spokespersons. Fall 2001. Journal of health com- munication, 8(S1), 130-143.
Sansom, G. T., Aarvig, K., Sansom, L., Thompson, C., Fawkes, L., & Katare, A. (2021). Understanding risk communication and willingness to follow emergency recom- mendations following anthropogenic disasters. Environmental Justice, 14(2), 159–167. Savage, I. (1993). Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk analysis, 13(4), 413–420. Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2021). Theorizing crisis communication: John Wiley & Sons. Shepherd, J., & van Vuuren, K. (2014). The Brisbane flood: CALD gatekeepers‘ risk com-
munication role. Disaster Prevention and Management 23 (4).
Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2008). Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation be- haviour: People cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(3), 771–778.
Spence, P. R., Lachlan, K. A., & Griffin, D. R. (2007). Crisis communication, race, and natural disasters. Journal of Black Studies, 37(4), 539–554.
Svendsen, E. R., Yamaguchi, I., Tsuda, T., Guimaraes, J. R. D., & Tondel, M. (2016). Risk communication strategies: lessons learned from previous disasters with a focus on the Fukushima radiation accident. Current environmental health reports, 3(4), 348–359. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol.
5): Pearson Boston, MA.
Twyman, M., Harvey, N., & Harries, C. (2008). Trust in motives, trust in competence: Separate factors determining the effectiveness of risk communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 111.
Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2017). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity: Sage Publications.
Van Craen, M., & Skogan, W. G. (2015). Differences and similarities in the explanation of ethnic minority groups‘ trust in the police. European journal of criminology, 12(3), 300–323.
Vibhas, S., Bismark, A. G., Ruiyi, Z., Anwaar, M. A., & Rajib, S. (2019). Understanding the barriers restraining effective operation of flood early warning systems. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 1–19.
Visschers, V. H. M., Wiedemann, P. M., Gutscher, H., Kurzenhäuser, S., Seidl, R., Jardine,
C. G., & Timmermans, D. R. M. (2012). Affect-inducing risk communication: current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3), 257–271.
Vos, S. C., Sutton, J., Yu, Y., Renshaw, S. L., Olson, M. K., Gibson, C. B., & Butts, C. T. (2018). Retweeting risk communication: the role of threat and efficacy. Risk analysis, 38(12), 2580–2598.
Wardman, J. K., & Mythen, G. (2016). Risk communication: against the Gods or against all odds? Problems and prospects of accounting for Black Swans. Journal of Risk Research, 19(10), 1220–1230.
Whitmarsh, L. (2009a). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of environmental psychology, 29(1), 13–23.
Whitmarsh, L. (2009b). What‘s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public under- standing of “climate change” and “global warming”. Public understanding of science, 18(4), 401–420.
Williams, G. C., Lynch, M. F., McGregor, H. A., Ryan, R. M., Sharp, D., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Validation of the” Important Other” Climate Questionnaire: Assessing Autonomy Support for Health-Related Change. Families, Systems, & Health, 24(2), 179.
Wray, R., & Jupka, K. (2004). What does the public want to know in the event of a terrorist attack using plague? Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense strategy, practice, and science, 2(3), 208–215.
Wray, R., Rivers, J., Jupka, K., & Clements, B. (2006). Public perceptions about trust in emergency risk communication: qualitative research findings. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 24(1), 45.
Xuesong, G., & Kapucu, N. (2019). Examining Stakeholder Participation in Social Stability Risk Assessment for Mega Projects using Network Analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), 1–31.
APPENDIX / ПРИЛОГ: