Cvetković, V. M., Ronan, K., Shaw, R., Filipović, M., Mano, R., Gačić, J., & Jakovljević, V. (2019). Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities. Acta Geographica, 59(2), 28–42.
DOI: https: /doi.org/10.3986/AGS.5445 UDC: 614.8:550.34(497.11)
COBISS: 1.01
Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities
ABSTRACT: This article presents the results of a qualitative study of household earthquake and community- level preparedness in Serbia and its relationship to various demographic factors. A series of 1,018 face-to-face interviews were conducted at the beginning of 2017 in eight Serbian municipalities. The results show that the population is generally unprepared, with low percentages of reported enhanced preparedness levels. In addition to presenting its findings, the study also considers future research directions, including using this study as a basis for more detailed research and to assist in facilitating community-led programs and strategies to increase earthquake safety.
KEY WORDS: geography, natural hazards, earthquake, preparedness, household, survey, Serbia
Pripravljenost gospodinjstev na potrese v Srbiji: Študija izbranih občin
IZVLEČEK: V članku so predstavljeni rezultati kvalitativne študije pripravljenosti na potres v gospodinjstvih in na občinski ravni v Srbiji in njeni povezanosti različnimi demografskimi dejavniki. Članek temelji na 1018 intervjujih, ki so bili izvedeni na začetku leta 2017 v osmih srbskih občinah. Rezultati kažejo, da je prebivalstvo na splošno nepripravljeno, z nizkim deležem izboljšane ravni pripravljenosti. Poleg lastnih ugotovitev študija obravnava tudi prihodnje smeri raziskovanja, vključno z uporabo te študije kot temelja za podrobnejše raziskave in za pomoč pri programih, ki jih vodijo skupnosti, ter strategij za povečanje potresne varnosti.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: geografija, naravne nesreče, potres, pripravljenost, gospodinjstvo, raziskovanje, Srbija
Vladimir M. Cvetković, Marina Filipović, Jasmina Gačić, Vladimir Jakovljević
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies
vmc@fb.bg.ac.rs, fmarina@fb.bg.ac.rs, jgacic@sezampro.rs, vjakov@fb.bg.ac.rs
Kevin Ronan
Central Queensland University, Clinical Psychology School of Human, Health and Social Sciences k.ronan@cqu.edu.au
Rajib Shaw
Keio University, Graduate School of Media and Governance shaw@sfc.keio.ac.jp
Rita Mano
University of Haifa, Department of Human Services ritamano@research.haifa.ac.il
The article was submitted for publication on October 10th, 2017. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 10. oktobra 2017.
-
Introduction
Disasters caused by earthquakes present various threats to human society and are generally seen as processes resulting from the interaction between natural and anthropogenic systems (Lukić et al. 2013). The preparedness of individuals, households, and communities is very important for improving community resilience in the face of any natural hazards, especially with regard to modern society’s great vulnerability to earthquakes (Komac et al. 2013). Disaster preparedness is defined as self-protective or precautionary behavior (Mishra and Suar 2012), but preparedness activities are usually not engaged in at the household level (e.g., Eisenman et al. 2006; Kapucu 2008; Bethel, Foreman, and Burke 2011; Marti et al. 2018). More recent studies have highlighted the factors associated with earthquake preparedness at the household and community levels (Murphy et al. 2009; FEMA 2009; Johnston, Becker and Paton 2012; Muttarak and Pothisiri 2013; Paton et al. 2015; Cvetković et al. 2015; Deyoung and Peters 2016; Johnson and Nakayachi 2017; Fox et al. 2017). First, demographic and socioeconomic variables are a central set of characteristics linked to preparedness. Older, female, and better-educated heads of households, as well as residence duration, tend to be associated with better household preparedness (Duval and Mulilis 1999; Shaw et al. 2004). On the other hand, better community preparedness has been associated with non-single status and farming occu- pations (Tomio et al. 2014; Ashida et al. 2017). Second, recent studies (Kirschenbaum 2006; Tomio et al. 2014) have found that the relationship between household and community preparedness is not comple- mentary, and, as a result, a large proportion of households are unprepared at both the community and household levels (Kirschenbaum, Rapaport and Canetti 2017). In practice, disaster management author- ities often do not implement any activities related to earthquake preparedness at local levels, and they focus more on reactive and top-down approaches (Ainuddin and Routray 2012).
This study gathered basic data necessary for understanding preparedness and for use in preparedness planning and programs. Proceeding from this basis, it examined preparedness perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors, including investigation of the role of demographic factors (sex, age, education level, marital status, and household income) influencing household earthquake preparedness in Serbia. Such variations reflect the extent to which factors can shape community-driven efforts and education, supporting efforts to prepare for and cope with an earthquake. Based on the findings, the article suggests some specific ini- tiatives that can be taken to improve preparedness in Serbia.
-
Study area
Serbia belongs to a region with moderate seismic activity in terms of the number and frequency of earth- quakes as well as their magnitude, and it is characterized by an irregular distribution of epicenters, which makes it difficult to distinguish seismically active faults (Marović et al. 2002; Abolmasov et al. 2011; Dragicević et al. 2011). Marović et al. (2002) found that, from 1900 to 1970, stronger-intensity earthquakes (determined as I = VIII–IX) were registered at the following locations: Rudnik (a mountain), Lazarevac (a municipality of the city of Belgrade), Juhor (a mountain), Krupanj (a town and municipality in the Mačva district of western Serbia), Jagodina (a city and the administrative center of the Pomoravlje dis- trict in central Serbia), Vranje (a city and the administrative center of the Pčinja district in southern Serbia), and Vitina (a town and municipality in eastern Kosovo), and, from 1970 onwards, only three moderate- intensity earthquakes have occurred: at Kopaonik (a mountain), Mionica (a town and municipality in the Kolubara district of western Serbia), and Trstenik (a town and municipality in the Rasina district of central Serbia).
The most seismically threatened is Lazarevac, where an extreme earthquake (M = 6.1) was recorded in 1922. Near the city of Kraljevo, Serbia, with a population of more than 100,000, an M = 5.4 earthquake occurred on November 3rd, 2010. Over the next six days, 258 earthquakes were registered, with magni- tudes ranging from 1.0 to 4.4. Despite the moderate magnitude of the incident, two people were killed, many others were injured, and the total damage to the city was assessed at more than €100 million (Panić et al. 2013). By the end of March 2011, the earthquake had been followed by a sequence of more than 650 aftershocks of a magnitude greater than 1.0 (Antonijević, Arroucanu and Vlahović 2013).
Serbian Municipalities
Study Areas Municipalities Mountain
Seismic Hazard
-
MCS
-
MCS
-
MCS
-
0 20 40 60 80 100 km
Figure 1: Earthquake intensity zones (hundred-year return period) in Serbia and the number of respondents in the municipalities studied.
-
Methods
Preparedness research investigates individuals’ perceived readiness before a disaster event and takes into account all mitigation actions and response behaviors in the aftermath of the emergency (Mulilis and Lippa 1990; Paton 2003). With regard to preparedness, the following dimensions were examined: perceived pre- paredness and household safety (Dooley et al. 1992; Levac, Toal-Sullivan and O’Sullivan 2012), storage of emergency food and supplies (Baker 2011), knowledge and availability of shelter (Kohn et al. 2012), and special support and assistance (Flynn et al. 1999). A series of 1,018 face-to-face interviews were conducted at the beginning of 2017 in eight of Serbia’s 150 municipalities. These communities were chosen with ref- erence to the national map of seismic regionalization of Serbia with a return period of one hundred years (Vukasinović 1987) and their various demographic and social characteristics. The participants in these municipalities were selected randomly, with the number of respondents proportional to their size (0.2–0.9%), thus providing a random selection and a representative sampling approach (Paul and Bhuiyan 2010). The communities where the interviews took place were Kraljevo (330), Lazarevac (190), Jagodina (150), Mionica (fifty), Vranje (eighty), Prijepolje (one hundred), Lapovo (sixty and Kopaonik (fifty-eight; Figure 1). Using a multistage random sample, in the first stage we singled out these communities, and then in the second stage we selected particular streets and parts of the streets. Finally, we selected various house- holds, where the survey was conducted. The respondents were determined based on a random selection procedure of adult household members, where an individual over eighteen was interviewed and present- ed with a structured questionnaire.
-
Survey instruments
A structured questionnaire was set up using a combination of qualitative (close-ended) multiple-choice questions and five-point Likert scales (Joshi et al. 2015). The first part of the questionnaire is related to the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the interviewees (e.g., sex, age, and level of edu- cation). Subsequent sections included questions relating to perceived preparedness and household safety (variables about household preparedness, community preparedness, geological layers under the house, earth- quake-proof houses, reinforced houses, furniture secured to walls, and well-reinforced houses), essential supplies (variables about a prepared emergency kit, examination of the contents of the emergency kit, easy access to the emergency kit, possession of a sufficient emergency stock, and community-stored emergency supplies), shelter (variables about designated shelter nearby, familiarization with the route to the shelter, obstacles on the route to the shelter, alerting neighbors before evacuation, the state of the shelter, and famil- iarization with the management of shelters), and special support and assistance (variables about special care in cases of disaster, knowledge about situations when the dead and injured are elderly, difficulties in evacuating family members, dealing with the elderly, handicapped, and infants, knowledge about guid- ing the hearing or visually impaired, and familiarization with kinds of support for the elderly). Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The items here were devel- oped after consulting several published survey approaches (Mulilis, Duval and Lippa 1990; Matsuda and Okada 2006; Spittal et al. 2006; Ardalan and Sohrabizadeh 2016). A pilot pre–test of the questionnaire was also conducted in Belgrade to check the comprehension and performance of the questionnaire.
-
Sample
The interviewees, 46.9% women and 50.1% men (97% fully completed the questionnaire), were representative of the sex stratification of Serbian population, with 51.3% women and 48.7% men. The average age of respon- dents was 36 (population average: 42.6), and the largest category was those under 36. The sample implies that the majority of respondents had a secondary education (population average: primary 20.76%, sec- ondary 48.93%, and associate’s degree 15.1%, according to Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia). In the household sample, married people accounted for 45% of the sample (population average: single 27.91%, married 55.12%, widowed 11.64%, and divorced 4.93%). The majority of respondents were unemployed (population average: employed 29.3%), and the monthly income at the family level was reported to be up
to €750 (population average: €480). The interviewees also had different homeownership statuses: family member (61.1%), owners (29.7%), and rented (8.8%; Table 1).
Table 1: Socioeconomic and demographic information of respondents (number of responders).
Variable and number of respondents
Category
n
%
Sex (1,016)
Male
476
46.9
Female
540
50.1
Age (1,018)
Young (18–38)
564
46.6
Middle-aged (39–60)
354
34.7
Elderly (over 60)
100
9.8
Education level (644)
Primary
12
1.2
Secondary
294
28.9
Associate’s degree
102
10.0
Bachelor’s degree
194
19.1
Graduate degree
42
4.1
Marital status (786)
Single
294
28.9
Married
458
45.0
Divorced
30
2.9
Widowed
4
0.4
Homeownership (1,014)
Personal
302
29.7
Family member
622
61.1
Rented
90
8.8
Employment status (1,014)
Employed
442
43.4
Unemployed
572
56.2
Monthly family income (€, 1018)
Up to 210
152
14.9
Up to 420
304
29.9
Up to 630
382
37.5
Up to 750
130
12.8
Over 751
50
4.9
-
-
Results
-
Perceived preparedness and household safety
In terms of preparedness levels, the mean estimate of households’ preparedness was 3.02 out of 5, and for the local community 2.76 out of 5. In categorical terms, these mean scores reflect approximately the mid- point on a five-point Likert scale, and in this case endorsement centered around 3, »neither prepared nor unprepared.« Thus, in terms of categorical placement, the highest percentage of respondents said that their household is neither prepared nor unprepared to respond (39.5%), 31.5% stated prepared, and 29.0% said they were unprepared to respond. Focusing on the perceptions of community preparedness and translat- ing the mean score of 3.02 in categorical terms, the largest percentage of respondents (44.0%) reported that the local community is unprepared for reaction, 33.2% stated neither prepared nor unprepared, and 22.8% said they were prepared to respond. The largest percentage of respondents (54.9%) reported hav- ing no knowledge of the geology under the house. In terms of buildings being reinforced, 40.0% reported that they do not know whether the buildings are reinforced against an earthquake (Figure 2).
Considering differences in gender roles and responsibilities, males were found to have higher percentages in the following categories: perception that their households were prepared, that the local community was
prepared, that they knew what kind of geological layers existed under the house, and that they were more likely to reinforce buildings. In contrast, women were found to have higher percentages in the following areas: they checked their houses for earthquake resilience, reinforced the house, and secured furniture (Table 2). In terms of age, the results show that, compared to the middle-aged and elderly, young people had high-
Percentage of respondents (%)
er percentages in the following categories: that the household and local community was prepared, that the house was checked for earthquake resilience, that they secured furniture, and that they reinforced build- ings. Compared to middle-aged and young people, elderly people reported higher percentages of awareness about what kind of geological layers were under the house (Table 2).
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
Likert scale
4
5
Household preparedness Community preparedness
Geological layers under the house Buildings reinforced well
Figure 2: Percentage of respondents and related Likert scale value for perceived preparedness and household safety.
Table 2: Cross-tabulation between sex, age, and perceived preparedness and household safety variables
Variables Descriptive Sex Age
M
SD
M %
F %
χ²
p
χ²
Y
MA
E
p
Household preparedness
3.02
1.16
32.8
30.0
10.1
.038*
164.4
45.1
19.0
16.0
.000**
Community preparedness
2.76
1.13
23.5
21.8
28.6
.000**
184.5
30.4
14.1
10.0
.000**
Geological layers under house
2.14
1.30
18.0
14.0
16.0
.003*
136.1
15.2
26.4
28.0
.000**
Earthquake-proof house
1.91
0.29
12.6
5.5
15.3
.000**
39.8
14.8
8.5
2.0
.000**
Reinforced house
1.29
0.45
64.1
76.7
20.4
.000**
56.5
75.4
64.2
44.0
.000**
Secured furniture to wall
1.94
0.36
22.3
8.0
41.7
.000**
16.5
18.1
17.0
2.0
.002*
Buildings reinforced well
3.17
1.16
36.7
24.6
15.9
.003*
159.5
32.3
45.0
30.0
.000**
Note: M= male, F = female, Y = young, MA = middle-aged, E = elderly.
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
-
Essential supplies
The results of the descriptive statistical analysis in this participant sample indicated that 67% of partici- pants reported preparing an emergency kit, 49% examining the contents of the emergency kit regularly, 62% having easy access to an emergency kit, 37% having emergency stocks, 34% having sufficient stocks, and 40% that their community stored emergency supplies (Figure 3).
Percentage of respondents (%)
Chi-square analyses indicated that higher percentages of men than women reported the following: hav- ing easier access to an emergency kit, having emergency stock, and that the community stored emergency supplies. In contrast, a higher percentage of women than men reported the following: preparing an emergency kit, exam- ining the contents of emergency kits, and ensuring stock sufficiency (Table 3). Women were again more active in carrying out preparedness, whereas men were more likely to have favorable perceptions of preparedness.
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Prepared an
emergency kit
Examine the
contens of emergency kit
Easily access Have emergency
of emergency kit stock
Sufficient Community store
of stock emergency supplies
Storage
Yes No
Figure 3: Descriptive statistical analysis regarding essential supplies.
Table 3: Cross-tabulation between sex, age, and essential supply variables
Variables Descriptive Sex Age
M
SD
M %
F %
χ²
p
χ²
Y
MA
E
p
Prepared an emergency kit
1.33
0.47
61.8
70.7
24.2
.000**
45.1
39.0
36.0
90.5
.000**
Contents of emergency kit
1.55
0.50
47.1
52.2
4.6
.096
57.0
54.0
36.0
27.9
.000**
Easily access of emergency kit
1.37
0.48
66.1
59.9
4.0
.050*
68.9
64.0
55.1
26.0
.000**
Have emergency stock
1.62
0.48
41.6
35.1
4.5
.033*
44.7
28.0
25.0
45.2
.000**
Sufficient stock
2.11
1.17
7.0
12.6
23.9
.000**
28.3
44.3
36.7
292.2
.000**
Communal emergency supplies
1.59
0.49
34.0
46.7
11.7
.001**
57.8
20.6
17.0
119.6
.000**
Note: M= male, F = female, Y = young, MA = middle-aged, E = elderly.
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
This study found that higher percentages of young people reported the following: preparing an emer- gency kit, having easy access to an emergency kit, having an emergency stock, and that their community stored emergency supplies. In contrast, a higher percentage of middle-aged people reported the follow- ing: examining the contents of emergency kits and ensuring stock sufficiency (Table 3).
-
Shelter following an earthquake
Percentage of respondents (%)
In terms of sex differences, a higher percentage of males than females reported the following: knowing the route to the shelter, being familiar with the obstacles on the route to the shelter, awareness of the con- ditions of a provided anticipated shelter, and being familiar with the shelter management. In contrast, and consistent with the pattern of findings thus far on behavior-related sex differences, a higher percentage
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Designated
shelter nearby
Knowing
route to shelter
Obstacle on the Call for your Condition of Knowing
route to neighbors provided shelter management the shelter before evacuate of shelters
Shelter
Yes No
Figure 4: Descriptive statistical analysis regarding shelters.
Table 4: Cross-tabulation between sex, age, and shelter variables
Variables Descriptive Sex Age
M
SD
M %
F %
χ²
p
χ²
Y
MA
E
p
Designated shelter nearby
1.77
0.41
24.0
21.0
1.91
.166
34.6
31.0
16.9
104.4
.000**
Route to shelter
1.76
0.42
24.8
21.2
13.5
.001**
35.9
30.0
14.0
126.3
.000**
Obstacles on route to shelter
2.61
0.59
6.4
5.2
48.6
.000**
8.4
1.0
4.1
135.2
.000**
Calling neighbors
1.29
1.45
88.0
94.0
31.5
.000**
86.9
97.0
100.0
101.5
.000**
Condition of shelter
1.85
0.98
19.3
18.1
16.6
.002*
28.3
22.2
12.7
0.3
.124
Management of shelters
2.34
2.94
13.0
7.8
51.3
.000**
19.4
1.0
2.5
84.9
.000**
Note: M= male, F = female, Y = young, MA = middle-aged, E = elderly.
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
of women than men reported that they would call their neighbors before evacuating. Regarding age effects, a higher percentage of young people reported knowing the route to the shelter, having a designated shel- ter nearby, being aware of obstacles on the route to an anticipated shelter, being aware of the conditions of an anticipated shelter, and being familiar with the shelter management. In contrast, a higher percent- age of older adults reported that they would call their neighbors before evacuating (Table 4; Figure 4).
-
Support and assistance
Percentage of respondents (%)
Research has found that just under half (44%) could name an individual that would require special care in the event of a disaster. This included 31% of the total sample that reported having knowledge of older adults, the disabled, or infants that might require support and assistance; 26% reported having knowledge
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Special kare
in case of disaster
Knowing–dead Difficulty
and injured
are elderly
in evacuation
in family
Elderly or Knowing guide Knowing of
handicapped hearin or kind support and infants live sight impaired the elderly
Special support and assistance
Yes No
Figure 5: Descriptive statistical analysis regarding special support and assistance.
Table 5: Cross-tabulation between sex, age, and special support and assistance variables
Variables Descriptive Sex Age
M
SD
M %
F %
χ²
p
χ²
Y
MA
E
p
Special care in a disaster
1.90
0.88
36.0
51.1
57.5
.000**
51.5
36.8
32.0
54.1
.000**
Dead and injured elderly
3.39
1.45
38.1
46.0
32.2
.000**
44.0
41.0
20.0
152.6
.000**
Difficulty in family evacuation
1.76
0.42
21.3
24.9
8.9
.030*
21.1
34.0
6.0
61.1
.000**
Elderly, handicapped, infants
2.75
1.50
34.0
32.0
6.6
.156
26.3
36.8
62.0
0.30
.152
Hearing or visually impaired
2.63
1.50
22.1
29.2
13.3
.010*
27.0
28.3
46.0
191.2
.000**
How to support the elderly
3.22
1.41
24.9
47.7
45.9
.000**
50.1
58.5
32.0
115.6
.000**
Note: M= male, F = female, Y = young, MA = middle-aged, E = elderly.
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
of individuals with hearing or visual impairments; and 23% were aware of difficulties related to family evac- uation. In terms of other findings here, 42% reported knowing what kind of support is needed by the elderly and 44% knowing that the elderly are more vulnerable to life-threatening injuries (Figure 5).
In terms of sex differences in relation to assistance and support factors, a higher percentage of women than men reported the following: knowing somebody that would need special care in the event of a dis- aster, anticipating difficulties in family evacuation, and knowing people with hearing or visual impairments that might require assistance. They also reported better knowledge of the kind of support required by the elderly, who are also more vulnerable (Table 5). A higher percentage of young people reported knowing somebody that would need special care in the event of a disaster and knowing that older adults are more vulnerable. A higher percentage of middle-aged people reported anticipating difficulties in family evac- uation and being aware of the kind of support older adults might require. Finally, a higher percentage of older adults reported knowing people with hearing or visual impairments that might require assistance (Table 5).
-
-
Discussion
Many countries have promoted the idea that households should prepare essential survival items, make a plan, improve survival skills, and facilitate people’s ability to cope with the consequences of an earthquake (Russell, Goltz and Bourque 1995; Spittal et al. 2008; Becker et al. 2012; Jamshidi et al. 2016). However, a number of national and international studies have shown that levels of earthquake preparedness are generally low (Russell, Goltz and Bourque 1995; Mileti and Darlington 1997; Ronan and Johnston 2005; Azim and Islam 2016). Motivating people to prepare can be a difficult task, and much research has identified specific demo- graphic, socioeconomic, and psychological factors that predict preparedness behaviors (Russell, Goltz and Bourque 1995; Rossi 1990; Paton et al. 2010; Solberg, Rossetto and Joffe 2010; Јоhnson and Nakayachi 2017; Cvetković, Gačić and Ristanović 2018). Lack of social responsibility (e.g., insufficient insurance policies) can also be a very important factor in the preparedness process (Zorn and Komac 2015).
The findings on the mean estimates of households’ preparedness (a somewhat low level) are consis- tent with some other studies (Russell, Goltz and Bourque 1995; Mileti and Darlington 1997; Spittal et al. 2008; Johnson and Nakayachi 2017). For example, a study about perceptions of earthquake preparedness of households in Saudi Arabia found that residents of Jeddah were mostly not prepared (Azim and Islam 2016). Similarly, this study showed that the highest percentage of respondents said their household is nei- ther prepared nor unprepared to respond. This could be linked to the fact that Serbia does not have education strategies, an awareness program, drills, or a campaign for earthquakes. Devi and Sharma (2015) found that less than half of adults had adequate practice in earthquake preparedness in Nepal. Becker et al. (2012) found that household earthquake preparedness still remains at modest levels despite the importance of preparing (e.g., Napier, Wanganui, & Timaru in New Zealand). Ronan and Johnston (2005) also found that overall levels of earthquake preparation are universally low, including in risk-prone areas (e.g., California, Turkey, and Japan).
Taken together, the results of descriptive analyses showed that the largest percentage of respondents reported that the local community is unprepared for reaction, lacking knowledge about the geological lay- ers under houses and not knowing whether the buildings are reinforced or whether they are earthquake-resistant. Given the overall low levels of preparedness, including relevant knowledge, this points to identification of the factors that can assist emergency management agencies and other disaster risk reduction and safe- ty organizations to tailor communication to enhance knowledge, motivation, and specific preparedness activities. In contrast, in lower seismicity contexts, perceptions are typically lower.
Regarding the effects of sex, the findings in our study are mixed, which is consistent with some pre- vious studies (e.g., Able and Nelson 1990). For example, a higher percentage of men felt that their households were prepared and, in contrast, a higher percentage of women checked their houses for earthquake resis- tance. The results can be related to certain studies that found that women are less likely to be prepared (Hackl, Halla and Pruckner 2007). Other research and reviews have supported the notion that in many households women often take more responsibility for household matters, including disaster preparedness (Ersing et al. 2015). In Serbia, men traditionally perform more physical labor, which may then have impli- cations for household and community preparedness (Pešić 2006). On the other hand, women are traditionally
seen as housekeepers and childminders. Such findings, of course, have implications for preparedness com- munication, including specific guidance coupled with the notion of both women and men working together in household and community terms and possible enhanced effects of balancing levels of preparedness with reality. In addition, this combination of findings has implications for both planning shelters and preparedness communication within the community (Woersching and Snyder 2003; Liu, Ruan and Shi 2011).
Compared to middle-aged and elderly people, young people perceived the preparedness and household safety in a different way. These results are consistent with a previous study by Sattler, Kaiser, and Hittner (2000), which found a positive relationship between older age and personal disaster preparedness. Research has also found that older adults are typically more emotionally resilient to the effects of natural disasters, com- pared to younger people (Heller et al. 2005). Compared to middle-aged and young people, a higher percentage of elderly people also reported awareness of what kind of geological layers lie under the house. Based on this, it can be assumed that older people mostly built their own houses and as a result are more familiar with the characteristics of the area or have a fear of earthquakes.
Reasons for this may be previous experience, both general life experience as well as having experienced and coped with previous hazard events (Norris et al. 2002). Given this range of findings, emergency com- munication and education that features a cooperative, participatory approach may then benefit from the relative strengths and tendencies seen within different age cohorts.
Generally, the reasons for engaging in initial and sustained preparedness include people reporting a desire to be prepared and, over time, to keep their supplies fresh and/or in working order in case they have to use them. Protection motivation theory (Maddux and Rogers 1983) and theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991, 2011) may be used as a framework for understanding various preparedness behaviors. People that do replenish their emergency supplies report wanting to ensure they have safe drinking water and food (Page et al. 2008; Kapucu 2008; Becker et al. 2012). There are groups within any community that may require additional support and assistance following an earthquake (Tanida 1996; Matsuda and Okada 2006; WHO 2008; Cvetković, Milašinović and Lazić 2018). Often, however, marginal groups are not considered in dis- aster planning (Heller et al. 2005; Zorn 2018). In an urban area, earthquakes have been found to cause especially heavy damage to the inner-city housing of low-income people and the elderly (Hirayama 2000). This idea is buttressed by our findings that just under half could name an individual that would require special care during a disaster.
-
Conclusion
Taken together, this study contributes new information that can be used to assist in local and national emer- gency management communication to improve household earthquake preparedness. The fact that a relatively low number of participants in this study reported perceptions, knowledge, or actual preparedness behav- iors suggests complacency in terms of earthquake prevention, mitigation, and preparedness in particular, and, in our opinion, low general readiness for a range of hazards. The importance of focusing on human risk perceptions, decision-making, and behavior processes in preparedness is a focal point of this study. Knowledge about the differences between social groups in terms of socioeconomic characteristics such as sex and age or health status is a precursor to tapping into the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral func- tioning of individuals in relation to prevention, mitigation, and preparedness for earthquakes and other hazards. Thus, these findings suggest demographic profiles in which some have relative strengths. A prominent exam- ple across the categories examined is that women reported more actual behavioral preparedness whereas men reported more perceptions and knowledge. Limitations of this study include the fact that the find- ings presented are mainly descriptive. Future research should evaluate not only individual factors, but also social and community factors. At the same time, the sample was reasonably large and as such it offered initial basic findings that can promote more detailed future investigations. Such future research should examine the factors that affect the preparedness for earthquakes and other events, and factors improving preparedness, including more psychological (e.g., self-efficacy and behavioral intentions) and social (e.g., collective helping) constructs. Such information might then be used as a starting point to design programs to improve household preparedness for earthquakes and other hazard events. A critical issue in emergency management education and communication is how to help a population, including those with increased vulnerability, and knowing how to respond during an earthquake to protect oneself and others. One inter-
national initiative, ShakeOut (Internet 1), could be used to help people not only learn more about pro- tecting themselves effectively during an earthquake, but also to facilitate more effective preparedness. This initiative was used to assist over fifty-five million people more effectively prepare for earthquakes in 2016. In addition, it can be used for more extensive disaster risk reduction and education in classrooms (e.g., Johnson et al. 2014) and community settings (e.g., a national effort carried out regularly in New Zealand; Internet 2).
-
References
Able, E., Nelson, M. 1990: Circles of care: Work and identity in women’s lives. Albany.
Abolmasov, B., Jovanovski, M., Ferić, P., Mihalić, M. 2011: Losses due to historical earthquakes in the Balkan region: Overview of publicly available data. Geofizika 28-1.
Ainuddin, S., Routray, J. K. 2012: Institutional framework, key stakeholders and community preparedness for earthquake induced disaster management in Balochistan. Disaster Prevention and Management 21-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1108/09653561211202683
Ajzen, I. 1991: The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50-2. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. 2011: Theory of planned behavior. Psychology and Health 26-9. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1080/ 08870446.2011.613995
Antonijević, S. K., Arroucau, P., Vlahović, G. 2013: Seismotectonic model of the Kraljevo 3 November 2010 Mw 5.4 earthquake sequence. Seismological Research Letters 84-4. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1785/0220120158 Ardalan, A., Sohrabizadeh, S. 2016: Assessing households preparedness for earthquakes: an exploratory study in the development of a valid and reliable Persian-version tool. PLoS Currents 25-8. DOI:
https: /doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.ccc8697279713e66887b928b839d0920
Ashida, S., Robinson, E. L., Gay, J., Slagel, L. E., Ramirez, M. R. 2017: Personal disaster and emergency support networks of older adults in a rural community: changes after participation in a preparedness program. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 11-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2016.197 Azim, M. T., Islam, M. M. 2016: Earthquake preparedness of households in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: a perceptual study. Environmental Hazards 15-3. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2016.1173006 Baker, E. J. 2011: Household preparedness for the aftermath of hurricanes in Florida. Applied Geography
31-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.05.002
Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R. 2012: A model of household preparedness for earthquakes: how individuals make meaning of earthquake information and how this influences preparedness. Natural Hazards 64-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0238-x
Bethel, J. W., Foreman, A. N., Burke, S. C. 2011: Disaster preparedness among medically vulnerable populations. American Journalof Preventive Medicine 40-2. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.020 Cvetković, V., Dragićević, S., Petrović, M., Mijaković, S., Jakovljević, V., Gačić, J. 2015: Knowledge and perception of secondary school students in Belgrade about earthquakes as natural disasters. Polish Journal
of Environmental Studies 24-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/39702
Cvetković, V., Ristanović, E., Gačić, J. 2018: Citizens attitudes about the emergency situations caused by epidemics in serbia. Iranian Journal of Public Health 47-8. DOI: https: /doi.org/pmid: 30186797 Cvetković, V., Milašinović, S., Lazić, Ž. 2018: Examination of citizens’ attitudes towards providign support
to vulnerable people and voluntereeing during disasters. Journal for Social Sciences TEME 42-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.22190/TEME1801035C
Devi, A. W., Sharma, D. 2015: Awareness on earthquake preparedness: A key to safe life. International Journal of Nursing Research and Practice 2-2.
DeYoung, S. E., Peters, M. 2016: My community, my preparedness: The role of sense of place, community, and confidence in government in disaster readiness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies Disasters 34-2.
Dooley, D., Catalano, R., Mishra, S., Serxner, S. 1992: Earthquake preparedness: Predictors in a community survey. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22-6. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00984.x Dragicević, S., Filipović, D., Kostadinov, S., Živkovic, N., Anđelković, G., Abolmasov, B. 2011: Natural hazard assessment for land–use planning in Serbia. International Journal of Environmental Research 5-1. DOI:
https: /doi.org/10.22059/IJER.2011.322
Duval, T. S., Mulilis, J. P. 1999: A person-relative-to-event (PrE) approach to negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: a field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29-3. DOI: https: /doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01398.x
Ersing, R. L., Alhassan, O., Ayivor, J. S., Caruson, K. 2015: Enhancing hazard resilience among impoverished urban communities in Ghana: the role of women as catalysts for improvement. Cities at Risk: Planning for and Recovering from Natural Disasters. New York.
Eisenman, D. P., Wold, C., Fielding, J., Long, A., Setodji, C., Hickey, S., Gelberg, L. 2006: Differences in individual-level terrorism preparedness in Los Angeles County. American journal of preventive medicine 30-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.001
FEMA, 2009: Personal preparedness in America: Findings from the Citizen Corps National Survey. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Carlisle, C. 1999: Public support for earthquake risk mitigation in Portland,
Oregon. Risk Analysis 19-2. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1023/A:1006969526398 Fox, M. H., White, G. W., Rooney, C., Rowland, J. L. 2007: Disaster preparedness and response for persons
with mobility impairments: results from the University of Kansas Nobody Left Behind study. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 17-4. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1177/10442073070170040201
Hackl, F., Halla, M., Pruckner, G. J. 2007: Volunteering and income–the fallacy of the good Samaritan?
Kyklos 60-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2007.00360.x
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. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02127.x Hirayama, Y. 2000: Collapse and reconstruction: Housing recovery policy in Kobe after the Hanshin Great
Earthquake. Housing Studies 15-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1080/02673030082504 Internet 1: https: /www.shakeout.org/ (02. 05. 2018).
Internet 2: https: /www.shakeout.govt.nz (02. 05. 2018).
Jamshidi, E., Majdzadeh, R., Namin, M. S., Ardalan, A., Majdzadeh, B., Seydali, E. 2016: Effectiveness of community participation in earthquake preparedness: a community-based participatory intervention study of Tehran. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 10-2. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1017/ dmp.2015.156
Johnson, B. B., Nakayachi, K. 2017: Examining associations between citizens’ beliefs and attitudes about uncertainty and their earthquake risk judgments, preparedness intentions, and mitigation policy support in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.019
Johnston, D., Becker, J., Paton, D. 2012: Multi-agency community engagement during disaster recovery: Lessons from two New Zealand earthquake events. Disaster Prevention and Management 21-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09653561211220034
Johnson, V. A., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R., Peace, R. 2014: Evaluating children’s learning of adaptive response capacities from ShakeOut, an earthquake and tsunami drill in two Washington State school districts. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 11-3. DOI: https: /doi.org/ 10.1515/jhsem-2014-0012
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., Pal, D. K. 2015: Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science and Technology 7-4. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
Kapucu, N. 2008: Culture of preparedness: household disaster preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management 17-4. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1108/09653560810901773
Kirschenbaum, A. 2006: Families and disaster behavior: a reassessment of family preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 24-1.
Kirschenbaum, A. A., Rapaport, C., Canetti, D. 2017: The impact of information sources on earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 21. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijdrr.2016.10.018
Kohn, S., Eaton, J. L., Feroz, S., Bainbridge, A. A., Hoolachan, J., Barnett, D. J. 2012: Personal disaster preparedness: an integrative review of the literature. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 6-3. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1001/dmp.2012.47
Komac, B., Zorn, M., Gavrilov, B., Marković, S. 2013: Natural hazards – some introductory thoughts. Acta geographica Slovenica 53-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.3986/AGS53300
Levac, J., Toal-Sullivan, D., O’Sullivan, T. L. 2012: Household emergency preparedness: a literature review. Journal of Community Health 37-3. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9488-x
Lindell, M. K., Perry, R. W. 2000: Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of research.
Environment and Behavior 32-4. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972621
Liu, Q., Ruan, X., Shi, P. 2011: Selection of emergency shelter sites for seismic disasters in mountainous regions: Lessons from the 2008 Wenchuan Ms 8.0 Earthquake, China. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 40-4. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.07.014
Lukić, T., Gavrilov, M. B., Marković, S. B., Zorn, M., Komac, B., Mladjan, D., Djordjević, J., Milanović, M., Vasiljević, D. A., Vujićič, M. D., Kuzmanović, B., Prentović, R. 2013: Classification of the natural disasters between the legislation and application: experience of the Republic of Serbia. Acta geographica Slovenica 53-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.3986/AGS53301
Maddux, J. E., Rogers, R. W. 1983: Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19-5. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1016/ 0022-1031(83)90023-9
Marović, M., Djoković, I., Pesić, L., Radovanović, S., Toljić, M., Gerzina, N. 2002: Neotectonics and seismicity of the southern margin of the Pannonian basin in Serbia. EGU Stephan Mueller Special Publication Series 3.
Marti, M., Stauffacher, M., Matthes, J., Wiemer, S. 2018: Communicating earthquake preparedness: the influence of induced mood, perceived risk, and gain or loss frames on homeowners’ attitudes toward general precautionary measures for earthquakes. Risk Analysis 38-4. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1111/risa.12875 Matsuda, Y., Okada, N. 2006: Community diagnosis for sustainable disaster preparedness. Journal of Natural
Disaster Science 28-1.
Mileti, D. S., Darlington, J. D. 1997: The role of searching in shaping reactions to earthquake risk information.
Social Problems 44-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.2307/3096875 Mishra, S., Suar, D. 2012: Effects of anxiety, disaster education, and resources on disaster preparedness behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42-5. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00853.x 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. DOI: https: /doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00124393
Mulilis, J. P., Lippa, R. 1990: Behavioral change in earthquake preparedness due to negative threat appeals: A test of protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 20-8. DOI: https: /doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00429.x
Murphy, S. T., Cody, M., Frank, L. B., Glik, D., Ang, A. 2009: Predictors of emergency preparedness and compliance. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 3-2. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1097/ dmp.0b013e3181a9c6c5
Muttarak, R., Pothisiri, W. 2013: The role of education on disaster preparedness: case study of 2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes on Thailand’s Andaman Coast. Ecology and Society 18-4. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.5751/es-06101-180451
Norris, F. H., Friedman, M. J., Watson, P. J., Byrne, C. M., Diaz, E., Kaniasty, K. 2002: 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981–2001. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and biological processes 65-3. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1521/psyc.65.3.207.20173
Page, L., Rubin, J., Amlôt, R., Simpson, J., Wessely, S. 2008: Are Londoners prepared for an emergency? A longitudinal study following the London bombings. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 6-4. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2008.0043
Panić, M., Kovačević-Majkić, J., Miljanović, D., Miletić, R. 2013: Importance of natural disaster education- case study of the earthquake near the city of Kraljevo: First results. Journal of the Geographical Institute
»Jovan Cvijic« SASA 63-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.2298/IJGI121121001P Paton, D. 2003: Disaster preparedness: a social-cognitive perspective. Disaster Prevention and Management
12-3. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1108/09653560310480686
Paton, D., Anderson, E., Becker, J., Petersen, J. 2015: Developing a comprehensive model of hazard preparedness: lessons from the Christchurch earthquake. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.11.011
Paton, D., Sagala, S., Okada, N., Jang, L. J., Bürgelt, P. T., Gregg, C. E. 2010: Making sense of natural hazard mitigation: Personal, social and cultural influences. Environmental Hazards 9-2. DOI: https: /doi.org/ 10.3763/ehaz.2010.0039
Paul, B. K., Bhuiyan, R. H. 2010: Urban earthquake hazard: Perceived seismic risk and preparedness in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Disasters 34-2. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01132.x
Pešić, J. 2006: Persistence of traditionalist value orientations in Serbia. Sociologija 48-4. Ronan, K., Johnston, D. 2005: Promoting Community Resilience in Disasters: The Role for Schools, Youth,
and Families. Boston.
Ronan, R., Johnston, M. 2005: Promoting community resilience in disasters. New York.
Rossi, P. P. H. 1990: Of human bonding: Parent-child relations across the life course. Hawthorne.
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. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276002 Rüstemli, A., Karanci, A. N. 1999: Correlates of earthquake cognitions and preparedness behavior in a victimized population. The Journal of Social Psychology 139-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598364 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. DOI: https: /doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02527.x
Shaw, R., Shiwaku, K., Kobayashi, H., Kobayashi, M. 2004: Linking experience, knowledge, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management 13-1. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1108/ 09653560410521689
Solberg, C., Rossetto, T., Joffe, H. 2010: The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment: re-evaluating the international literature. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 10-8. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.5194/ nhess-10-1663-2010
Spittal, J., McClure, J., Siegert, J., Walkey, H. 2008: Predictors of two types of earthquake preparation: survival activities and mitigation activities. Environment and Behavior 40-6. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1177/ 0013916507309864
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. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-2369-9
Tanida, N. 1996: What happened to elderly people in the great Hanshin earthquake. British Medical Journal 313-70. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7065.1133
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 4-2. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.4236/aa.2014.42010
Vukasinovic, M. 1987: Seizmološka mapa Srbije za povratni period od 100 godina. Belgrade. WHO, 2008. Manual for the Health Care of Children in Humanitarian Emergencies. World Heath Organization.
Geneva.
Woersching, J. C., Snyder, A. E. 2003: Earthquakes in El Salvador: a descriptive study of health concerns in a rural community and the clinical implications, part I. Disaster Management Response 1-4.
Zorn, M. 2018: Natural disasters and less developed countries. Nature, Tourism and Ethnicity as Drivers of (De)Marginalization. Perspectives on Geographical Marginality 3. Cham. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-59002-8_4
Zorn, M., Komac, B. 2015: Naravne nesreče in družbena neodgovornost. Geografski vestnik 87-2. DOI: https: /doi.org/10.3986/GV87205
