Household supplies for natural disasters: factors of influence on the possession of supplies

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

Cvetković, V., Gačić, J., & Jakovljević, V. (2017). Household supplies for a natural disaster: factor of influence on the possession of supplies. The 8th International Scientific Conference, Security concepts and policies – new generation of risks and threats, at Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia 4 – 5 June 2017.

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Ph.D., vladimirkpa@gmail.com

Jasmina Gačić, Ph.D., jgacic@sezampro.rs

Vladimir Jakovljević, Ph.D., vjakov@fb.bg.ac.rs

University of Belgrade,

Faculty of Security Studies, Gospodara Vucica 50, 11040 Belgrade

 

Purpose – The paper presents the results of the quantitative research of the impact of certain factors on household possession of supplies necessary for the survival of the consequences of natural disasters.

Design/methodology/approach – Quantitative research was conducted by using a survey strategy in households with the use of a multi-stage random sample. The first step, which was related to the primary sampling units included selection of parts of the community for conducting research. The second step, which was related to research cores, included selection of streets or parts of streets at the level of primary sampling units and finally selection of households for surveying 2500 citizens in 19 local communities.

Findings – It was found that only 24.6% of respondents have supplies, while 61.5% have no supplies for surviving natural disasters. On the other hand, 37.2% of respondents possess supplies of food for 4 days, while only 12% have supplies of food for 1 day. It was found that 17.6% of the respondents have a transistor radio, 40% flashlight, 40.6% shovel, 25.8% hack, 33.6% hoe and spade, and 13.2% Fire extinguisher. The results of inferential statistical analyses show that there is a statistically significant influence of gender, education, marital status, parenthood, employment, income level, level of religiosity, completed military service on having supplies to survive the consequences of natural disasters. On the other hand, there was no influence of previous experiences on having supplies.

Originality/value – research results allow the design of strategies aimed at raising the level of preparedness of households with regard to their supplies to natural disasters.

Keywords – security, natural disasters, disaster supplies, factors of impact, Serbia.

INTRODUCTION

Mitigation of effects of natural disasters is possible only through improving the level of preparedness of communities and citizens (Cvetković, 2015, 2016c, 2016d; Cvetković & Andrejević, 2016; Cvetković, Dragićević, et al., 2015; Cvetković, Gaćić, & Petrović, 2015). Preparedness for disasters is generally defined by the American Red Cross in terms of five key steps that need to be taken at the individual level, the household level and the community level: development and testing plans for protection and rescue; ensuring supplies of food and water in households; training; volunteering and blood donation (Cross, 2006). Disaster preparedness experts broadly agree that citizen preparedness requires households to have an emergency plan, to stockpile supplies such as water and prescription medications, and to stay informed of community plans (Uscher-Pines et al., 2012). Starting from the consequences of natural disasters, is an essential precondition for the survival of people is to have a stock of food, water and other necessities. In the study of preparedness of citizens of the United States, 57% of the population own stocks in their home, 34% in cars and 45% in office at workplace (FEMA, 2009). When it comes to men, according to the results of existing research, they more often focus on supplies that are needed to survive natural disasters (Able & Nelson, 1990), including technical means of protection of household from upcoming natural disasters. Research in USA (FEMA, 2009: 8) show the supplies most frequently mentioned included a supply of packaged food (74%) and bottled water (71%), with many fewer individuals mentioning other essential supplies such as a flashlight (42%), first aid kit (39%) or portable radio (20%). Less than half of the respondents (44%) reported updating their supplies once a year, while 3 percent reported never updating their supplies. When asked directly, 71 percent of respondents reported having copies of important financial documents in a safe place, yet only 1 percent specifically mentioned the documents unaided as part of their household disaster supplies.

LITERARY REVIEW

Becker et. al. (2012) found that reason for undertaking sustained preparedness was that people desired to keep their supplies fresh and/or in working order in case they had to use them. They found that people wanted to ensure they had safe drinking water and food, and this desire for safety encouraged people to replenish these items as part of sustained preparedness. Light (2016) emphasize that lack of essential items such as food, water, and medication reduces the length of time that people could stay at home and increases the urgency with which government and other agencies would need to deliver supplies.  Page et al. (2008) found that 48% people had gathered 4 or more relevant supplies in case of emergency. They found that close to half (43.7%) of respondents did not possess a battery radio at either time point, while 32.2% did not have toiletries, sanitary supplies, and medications gathered at home. Kapucu (2008) found that 8 percent of all respondents have a disaster supplies kit that contains enough food, water, and medication for a family to shelter in place for three days. Beside that, he found that the most common emergency items in respondent households were smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher, while least common items were storm shutters, a fire sprinkler system, and a carbon monoxide detector. Eisenman et al. (2006) found that 28.0% of respondents  purchased or maintained additional emergency supplies of food, water, or clothing and and 35.0% responded “yes” to either developing an emergency plan or maintaining emergency supplies. Mori et al., (2007) highlighted the need for continued medication supplies for the chronically ill during and after a disaster. Bether et al., (2011) found that vulnerable populations were generally less likely to have household preparedness items but more likely to have medication supplies than their counterparts. Miceli et al., (2008) found that he behavior that is more likely to be adopted by respondents is ‘‘Keep a working flashlight and a battery operated radio in a convenient location’’ (77%).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Quantitative research was conducted by using a strategy of questioning in households with the use of a multi-stage random sample. The first step, which is related to the primary sampling units included selection of parts of the community for conducting research. This process was accompanied by the creation of a map and determination of the percentage share of each such segment in the total sample. The second step, which was related to research cores, included selection of certain streets or parts of streets at the level of primary sampling units. Each core of the research was determined as the path with the specified start and end points of movement. The next step included selection of households for conducting research. The number of households covered by the sample was determined in relation to their total number in the municipality. The final step was related to the procedure for the selection of respondents within the predefined household. The selection of respondents was conducted following the procedure of the next birthdays for adult members of the household. The process of interviewing in municipalities was performed three days during week (including weekends) at different times of the day. The study covered a total of 2,500 citizens (face to face – a personal interview) in the following local communities Obrenovac (178), Šabac (140), Kruševac (180), Kragujevac (191), Sremska Mitrovica (174), Priboj (122), Batočina (80), Svilajnac (115), Lapovo (39), Paraćin (147), Smederevska Palanka (205), Sečanj (97), Loznica (149), Bajina Bašta (50), Smederevo (145), Novi Sad (150), Kraljevo (141), Rekovac (50) and Užice (147).  Presented  methodological framework is a part of a wider study conducted on preparedness of citizens to respond to a natural disaster (Cvetković, 2016a, 2016b; Cvetković, 2015). Analysis of the sample structure shows that the sample includes more women (50.2%) than men (49.8%). Most people surveyed, 41.3%, have completed secondary school. There is the smallest number of people who have completed master 2.9% and doctoral studies 0.4%. In the sample, the married make 54.6%, widows/widowers 3%, singles 18.8% the engaged 2.7% and respondents in a relationship make 16.9%. Statistical analysis of collected data was performed in the statistical program for social sciences (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). To test the connection between subjective and objective knowledge and security culture of behavior regarding the epidemics, it was used h2 test for independent samples, and one-way analysis of variance.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The impossibility of leaving home, destroyed critical infrastructure, contaminated foods at supermarkets and pharmacies, gas stations with no usable fuel condition the preparation of supplies. When talking about supplies for natural disasters, we primarily refer to food, water, certain medications, fuel, etc. Based on the survey results, only 24.6% of respondents noted that they hold supplies for natural disasters caused by the flood. On the other hand, a large percentage of respondents does not hold supplies (61.9%) (Figure 1). The possession of supplies is an important indicator of the current preparedness of citizens to respond in such situations. In the survey of preparedness of citizens of the United States for natural disasters, 57% of citizens hold supplies in their homes, 34% in vehicles and 45% in the office at the workplace (FEMA, 2009).

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of the possession of supplies

Of the total of 1502 respondents who answered the question “What do you hold as food supplies”, 37.2% of them said they have supplies of food for four days, while only 12% of citizens have supplies of food for one day (Figure 2). The results of research conducted in the US show that 74% of respondents have food supplies, 71% water supplies, 42% flashlight, 20% radio-transistor, 2% cash, 1% copies of important documents (FEMA, 2009). Tomio et al (Tomio et al., 2014) in the research results indicate that 27% of respondents have supplies of food and water. Horney et al (Horney et al, 2008) suggest that 207 households (82%) out of 251 included in the study stated that they very responsibly take care of possession of supplies of food, water. However, only 109 households (44%) have supplies of food and water for three days.

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of the duration of supplies

The results indicate that 17.6% of the respondents have a transistor radio, 40% flashlight, 40.6% shovel, 25.8% hack, 33.6% hoe and spade and 13.2% fire extinguisher (Figure 1). The results of research in the United States in 2009 indicate that 42% of citizens have a flashlight, 20% transistor radio, 11% other medicaments, 2% cash, 1% financial documents. Baker (Baker, 2011) in the paper indicates that more than 80% of citizens of Florida have a flashlight, non-perishable food, and a transistor radio. In a study conducted in Italy, Miceli et al (Miceli et al., 2008) in the research results indicate that 77% of respondents hold a flashlight and a radio transistor in an easily accessible and open place, 59% have a list of phone numbers of the most important services, 28% keeps essential items in safe places against floods, 20% own supply of water and food.

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of the possession of specific supplies

Chi-square test results show that there is a statistically significant influence of gender (p = 0.002) on the possession of supplies for natural disasters (Table 1). a higher percentage of male respondents have supplies for natural disasters compared to women.

Besides gender it is also found a statistically significant influence of education (p = 0.005) on the possession of supplies for natural disasters. Results were as follows: 25.6% of respondents with primary education hold supplies, 21.3% of respondents with secondary three-year education, 26.1% of respondents with secondary four-year education, 20.3% of respondents with higher education, 24.7% of respondents with a university degree and 38.7% of respondents with post-graduate studies. Respondents with postgraduate studies have supplies for natural disasters in the highest percentage as opposed to respondents with higher education (Table 1).

Marital status is statistically significant associated (p = 0.000) with possession of supplies for natural disasters. Of the total number of respondents, supplies for natural disasters have 25.3% of respondents who are singles, 26.6% of respondents who are in a relationship, 34.3% of the engaged, 24.6% of married, 27.8% of divorced, and 24.3% of widows/widowers. Based on the results, respondents who are engaged have supplies in the highest percentage while widows/widowers have supplies in the lowest percentage (Table 1).

When it comes to parenthood (p = 0.000), it is found a statistically significant correlation with the possession of supplies for natural disasters. Of the total number of respondents 24.7% of parents hold supplies as opposed to 26.6% of those who are not parents. Hence, in a slightly higher percentage, respondents who are not parents have supplies for natural disasters compared to those who are parents (Table 1).

The possession of supplies for natural disasters is statistically significantly influenced by the status of employment of citizens (p = 0.015). Survey results show that employed citizens (25.7%) have supplies for natural disasters in a higher percentage compared to unemployed citizens (23.5%) (Table 1).

In addition to employment status, the possession of supplies for natural disasters is statistically significantly influenced by income level (p = 0.008). Respondents with income above RSD 76.000 have supplies for natural disasters in the highest percentage (36%), then up to 25.000 (27.2%), and 50.000 (23.1%) and finally, up to RSD 75.000 (22.9% ) (Table 1).

The level of religiosity also statistically significantly (p = 0.000) affects the possession of supplies for natural disasters. Believers in some sense in the highest percentage (35.3%) have supplies, followed by those who are believers in absolute sense (25.9%) and those who are neither believers nor unbelievers (23.8%), unbelievers in absolute sense (26.3%) and unbelievers in some sense (9.9%) (Table 1). On the other hand, previous experience does not statistically significantly affect the possession of supplies for natural disasters. However, the results of descriptive statistical analysis show that 22.5% of citizens who have previous experience and 25.6% of citizens who have no previous experience hold supplies for natural disasters (Table 1). Finally, it was found that completing military service is statistically significantly associated (p = 0.003) with the possession of supplies for natural disasters. Respondents who have completed their military service in a higher percentage (27.7%) have supplies compared to those who have not completed their military service (24.3%) (Table 1).

 

Table 1. The influence of independent variables on the possession of supplies for natural disasters

Holding supplies Not holding supplies Results of statistical analyses
Gender Male 27,4 72,6 X2 = 7,22

df – 2

Sig. – ,002*

V – 0,055

 

Female 23,5 76,5
Education Elementary 25,6 74,4 X2 =  – 28,18

df – 6

Sig. – ,005*

V – 0,355

 

Secondary (3 years) 21,3 78,7
Secondary (4 years 26,1 73,9
Higher 20,3 79,7
University 24,7 75,3
Postgraduate 38,7 61,3
Marital status Single 25,3 74,7 X2 =  – 48,82

df – 6

Sig. – ,000*

V – 0,355

 

In a relationship 26,6 73,4
Engaged 34,3 65,7
Married 24,6 75,4
Divorced 27,8 72,2
Widow/widower 24,3 75,7
Parenthood Parent 24,7 75,3 X2 =  – 19,43

df – 2

Sig. – ,000*

V – 0,09

 

Non-parent 26,6 73,4
Employment Employed 25,7 74,3 X2 =  – 8,37

df – 2

Sig. – ,015*

V – 0,060

 

Unemployed 23,5 76,5
Income level Up to 25.000 27,2 72,8 X2 =  – 17,51

df – 6

Sig. – ,008*

V – 0,08

 

 Up to 50.000 23,1 76,9
Up to 75.000 22,9 77,1
Above 76.000 36 64
Level of religiosity Unbeliever in absolute sense 26,3 73,7 X2 =  – 62,26

df – 8

Sig. – ,000*

V – 0,164

 

Unbeliever in some sense 9,9 90,1
Neither believer nor unbeliever 23,8 76,2
Believer in some sense 35,3 64,7
Believer in absolute sense 25,9 74,1
Previous experience Yes 22,5 77,5 X2 =  – 3,15

df – 2

Sig. – ,206

V – 0,037

 

No 25,6 74,4
Military service Completed 27,7 72,3 X2 =  – 11,96

df – 2

Sig. – ,003*

V – 0,075

 

Not completed 24,3 75,7

 

 

When it comes to the possession of specific supplies to survive the consequences of natural disasters there is no a statistically significant difference between men and women in regard to the possession of fire extinguishers (p = 0.648), and flashlight (p = 0.17). Of all respondents, 14.3% of men and 13.4% of women have fire extinguisher. 41% of men and 37.3% of women have flashlights. On the other hand, there is a statistically significant correlation between gender and the possession of a transistor radio (p = 0.03). Also, men in a higher percentage (19.5%) have a transistor radio than women (15%) (Table 2).

Education is statistically significantly associated to the possession of transistor radios (p = 0.001), flashlights (p = 0.004) and fire extinguisher (p = 0.000). in the highest percentage (34.1%) a transistor radio have people who have completed post graduate studies, then the citizens with three-year secondary education (22.3%), elementary education (21.9%), university degree (19%), higher education ( 15.6%) and four-year secondary education (12.8%). Also, in the highest percentage a flashlight have people who completed post graduate studies (60%), followed by a three-year secondary school (46.9%), university degree (37.2%), higher education (36.2%), four-year secondary school (35%) and elementary education (32.4%). Finally, fire extinguishers in the highest percentage (43.2%) have citizens who have completed post graduate studies, then citizens with university degrees (17.1%), three-year secondary education (16.8%), higher education (12.7 %), four-year secondary school (10.6%) and with elementary education (5.7%) (Table 1).

On the other hand, marital status is statistically significantly associated to the possession of transistor radios (p = 0.004), but not associated with holding a flashlight (p = 0.069) and fire extinguisher (p = 0.243). Transistor radio in the highest percentage (34.1%) have divorced people, then people who are single (20.2%), married (17.1%), in a relationship (15.6%), widows/widower (5.6%) and lastly engaged (5.4%). When it comes to possession of a flashlight the results of descriptive statistical analysis are as follows: single (40.2%), in a relationship (39.5%), engaged (37.2%), married (37, 1%), divorced (60.5%), widow/widower (48.7%). Distribution of possession of fire extinguisher according to marital status is as follows: single (13.7%), in a relationship (11.5%), engaged (21.6%), married (14%), divorced (24.2%), widow/widower (8.3%) (Table 2).

Status of parenthood is not statistically significantly associated to the possession of transistor radio (p = 0.909) flashlight (p = 0.308) and fire extinguisher (p = 0.243). Results of descriptive statistical analysis show that 17.2% of parents have transistor radio and 17.5% of citizens who are not parents. 39% of the citizens who are parents possess flashlight and 39.4% of citizens who are not parents. Finally, 14.8% of citizens who are parents have fire extinguisher and 12.7% of citizens who are not parents (Table 2).

Employment status is statistically significantly associated only to the possession of fire extinguisher (p = 0.000) while it is not associated to the possession of transistor radio (p = 0.141), and flashlight (p = 0.672). The results show that employed in higher percentage (16.9%) compared to unemployment (7.1%) have fire extinguisher. Distribution of possession of transistor radios is as follows: the employed (16%), the unemployed (19.3%). 13% of employed and 14% of unemployed respondents have flashlights (Table 1).

Income level is statistically significantly associated to the possession of transistor radio (p = 0.000), flashlight (p = 0.020) and fire extinguisher. In the highest percentage (33.3%) respondents with income level over RSD 76.000 have transistor radio, then respondents with incomes up to RSD 50.000 and up to RSD 25.000 (15.9%) and lastly up to RSD 75.000 (11.5%). In the highest percentage, respondents with incomes over RSD 76.000 (50.5%), have flashlight then up to RSD 75.000 (43.8%), up to RSD 50.000 (37.2%) and lastly with income up to RSD 25.000 (36,1%). In the highest percentage (27.3%) citizens with incomes over RSD 76.000 have fire extinguisher, then up to 75.000 (15.9%), up to RSD 50.000 (14.3%) and lastly up to RSD 25.000 (11, 3%) (Table 2).

Also, the level of religiosity is statistically significantly associated to the possession of transistor radio (p = 0.005), flashlight (p = 0.007) and fire extinguisher (p = 0.028). Citizens who characterize themselves as neither believers nor unbelievers in the highest percentage (19.7%) have a transistor radio in relation to citizens who are believers in absolute sense (2.3%). On the other hand, believers in some sense in the highest percentage (41.8%) have a flashlight in relation to citizens who are unbelievers in some sense (24.2%). And finally, it was found that citizens who are neither believers nor unbelievers in the highest percentage (15.9%) have fire extinguishers in relation to citizens who are not believers in absolute sense (2.6%) (Table 2).

Regulated military service is statistically significantly associated only to the possession of fire extinguishers (p = 0.000), whereas there is no such correlation with the possession of transistor radio (p = 0.386), and flashlight (p = 0.131). In the highest percentage (48.2%) citizens who completed their military service have fire extinguisher in relation to citizens who have not completed (32.4%). 18% of respondents who have completed their military service have transistor radio, and 16.1% who have not. On the other hand, 41% of respondents who completed military service have flashlight and 36.7% who have not completed (Table 2).

 

Table 2. The influence of independent variables on the possession of specific supplies for natural disaster

Radio-transistor Statistic Flashlight Statistic Fire fighting apparatus Statistic
Gender Male Yes – 19,5

No – 80,5

X2 = 4,35

df – 2

Sig. – ,037*

V – 0,05

 

Yes – 41

No – 49

X2 = 1,83

df – 1

Sig. – ,17

V – 0,05

 

Yes – 14,3

No – 85,7

X2 = 0,208

df – 1

Sig. – 0,648

 

Female Yes – 15

No – 85

Yes – 37,3

No – 62,7

Yes – 13,4

No – 86,6

Education Elementary Yes – 21,9

No – 78,1

X2 = 22,49

df – 4

Sig. – ,001*

V – 0,135

 

 

Yes – 32,4

No – 67,6

 

 

 

X2 = 18,96

df – 6

Sig. – ,004*

V – 0,122

 

Yes – 5,7

No – 94,3

 

 

 

X2 = 39,06

df – 6

Sig. – ,000*

V – 0,182

 

Secondary (3 year) Yes – 22,3

No –77,7

Yes – 46,9

No – 43,1

Yes – 16,8

No – 83,2

Secondary (4 year) Yes – 12,8

No – 77,2

Yes – 36,2

No – 43,8

Yes – 10,6

No – 89,4

Higher Yes – 15,6

No – 74,4

Yes – 36,2

No – 63,8

Yes – 12,7

No – 87,3

University Yes – 19

No – 81

Yes – 37,2

No – 62,8

Yes – 17,1

No – 82,9

Postgraduate Yes – 34,1

No – 65,9

Yes – 60

No – 40

Yes – 43,2

No – 46,8

Marital status Single Yes – 20,2

No – 79,8

X2 = 17,10

df – 5

Sig. – ,004*

V – 0,135

 

 

Yes – 40,2

No – 59,8

X2 = 10,22

df – 5

Sig. – ,069

 

Yes – 13,7

No – 66,3

X2 = 6,71

df – 5

Sig. – ,243

 

In a relationship Yes – 15,6

No – 74,4

Yes – 39,5

No – 60,5

Yes – 11,5

No – 88,5

Engaged Yes – 5,4

No – 94,6

Yes – 37,2

No – 62,8

Yes – 21,6

No – 88,4

Married Yes – 17,1

No – 72,9

Yes – 37,1

No – 62,9

Yes – 14

No – 86

Divorced Yes – 34,1

No – 65,9

Yes – 60,5

No – 39,5

Yes – 24,2

No – 75,8

Widow/widower Yes – 5,6

No – 94,4

Yes – 48,7

No – 51,3

Yes – 8,3

No – 91,7

Parenthood Parent Yes – 17,2

No – 82,8

 

X2 = 0,013

df – 1

Sig. – ,909

 

Yes – 39

No – 61

X2 = 1,03

df – 1

Sig. – ,308

 

Yes – 14,8

No – 85,2

X2 = 1,38

df – 1

Sig. – ,239

 

Non-parent Yes – 17,5

No – 82,5

Yes – 39,4

No – 60,6

Yes – 12,7

No – 87,3

Employment Employed Yes – 16

No – 84

X2 = 2,16

df – 1

Sig. – ,141

 

Yes – 13

No – 87

X2 = 0,18

df – 1

Sig. – ,672

Yes – 16,9

No – 73,1

X2 = 22,68

df – 1

Sig. – ,000

Unemployed Yes – 19,3

No – 80,7

Yes –  14

No – 86

Yes – 7,1

No – 92,9

Income level Up to 25.000 Yes – 15,9

No – 84,1

X2 = 24,06

df – 3

Sig. – ,000

V – 0,14

 

 

Yes – 36,1

No – 63,9

X2 = 9,84

df – 3

Sig. – ,020

V – 0,09

 

 

Yes – 11,3

No – 88,7

X2 = 14,82

df – 3

Sig. – ,002

V – 0,116

 

 

 Up to 50.000 Yes – 18,1

No – 81,9

Yes – 37,2

No – 62,8

Yes – 14,3

No – 85,7

Up to 75.000 Yes – 11,5

No – 88,5

Yes – 43,8

No – 56,2

Yes – 15,9

No – 84,1

Above 76.000 Yes – 33,3

No – 66,7

Yes – 50,5

No – 49,5

Yes – 27,3

No – 72,7

Level of religiosity Unbeliever in absolute sense Yes – 2,3

No – 97,7

X2 = 14,89

df – 4

Sig. – ,005

V – 0,111

 

 

Yes – 24,4

No – 75,6

X2 = 14,19

df – 4

Sig. – ,007

V – 0,107

 

 

Yes – 2,6

No – 97,4

 

 

 

 

X2 = 10,85

df – 4

Sig. – ,028*

V – 0,097

 

Unbeliever in some sense Yes – 11,2

No – 88,8

Yes – 24,2

No – 75,8

Yes – 5,9

No – 94,1

Neither believer nor unbeliever Yes – 19,7

No – 80,3

Yes – 40,6

No – 59,4

Yes – 15,9

No – 84,1

Believer in some sense Yes – 17,9

No – 82,1

Yes – 41,8

No – 58,2

Yes – 14,9

No – 85,1

Believer in absolute sense Yes – 10,8

No – 89,2

Yes – 39,4

No – 60,6

Yes – 12,4

No – 87,6

Previous experience Yes Yes – 22,6

No – 77,4

X2 = 6,50

df – 1

Sig. – ,011

V – 0,075

 

Yes – 47,3

No – 52,7

X2 = 10,91

df – 1

Sig. – ,001

V – 0,09

 

Yes – 18

No – 82

X2 = 5,52

df – 1

Sig. – ,019

V – 0,07

 

No Yes – 15,8

No – 84,2

Yes – 36,2

No – 63,8

Yes – 12,1

No – 87,9

 

Military service

Completed Yes – 18

No – 82

X2 = ,753

df – 1

Sig. – ,386

V – 0,026

 

Yes – 41

No – 59

X2 = 2,2

df – 1

Sig. – ,131

V – 0,04

 

Yes – 48,2

No – 51,8

X2 = 29,99

df – 1

Sig. – ,000

V – 0,000

 

Not completed Yes – 16,1

No – 83,9

Yes – 36,7

No – 63,3

Yes – 32,4

No –67,6

 

CONCLUSION

In quantitative research covering enough households for natural disasters, we have come to diverse conclusions. Of the total number of respondents, only 24.6% have supplies, which is a serious security problem. In addition, 17.6% of respondents have a transistor radio, 40% flashlight, 40.6% shovel, 25.8% hack, 33.6% hoe and spade and 13.2% fire extinguisher. In addition, 37.2% of respondents have food supplies for four days, while only 12% of citizens have food supplies for one day.

The possession of supplies to survive the consequences of natural disasters is significantly influenced by gender, education level, marital status, parental status, employment, income level and level of religiosity. There is no a statistically significant influence of previous experience on the possession of supplies. In higher percentage, supplies for natural disasters are owned by men, citizens who have completed post graduate studies, respondents who are engaged, respondents who are not parents, employees, respondents with income over RSD 76.000, believers in some sense. On the other hand, in smaller percentage, supplies for natural disasters are owned by female respondents, who are widows/widowers, parents, unemployed respondents, respondents with incomes up to RSD 75.000 and higher education, unbelievers in some sense.

The possession of transistor radio is statistically significantly influenced by gender, education level, marital status, parental status, income level and level of religiosity. On the other hand, employment has no influence. The possession of flashlight is statistically significantly influenced by level of education, parental status, income level and level of religiosity, while it is not influenced by gender, marital status and employment. On the other hand, the level of education, parental status, employment, income level and level of religiosity significantly affect the possession of fire extinguisher, while it is not affected by gender and marital status. Men in a higher percentage have a transistor radio compared to women. Divorced people in the highest percentage have a transistor radio, while the engaged have it in the lowest percentage. Respondents who completed post graduate studies in the highest percentage have a transistor radio, flashlight and fire extinguisher. In the highest percentage, citizens who have completed post graduate studies have fire extinguishers, while respondents with elementary school have these in the smallest percentage.

Recommendations for improvement of the possession of supplies:

Starting from the concluding remarks, it is necessary to conceive strategy, programs and campaigns aimed at improving citizens’ preparedness for natural disasters in the context of holding supplies necessary for the survival of the consequences. As part of those activities it is necessary to focus on the female population, citizens who are widows/widowers, parents, the unemployed, those with income up to RSD 75.000, with a degree in higher education and those citizens who unbelievers in some sense.

REFERENCES

  1. Able E, Nelson M (1990) Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women’s Lives, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  2. American Red Cross (2006). available at: www. Redcross.org (accessed February 16, 2006).
  3. 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), 107-137.
  4. Bethel, J. W., Foreman, A. N., & Burke, S. C. (2011). Disaster preparedness among medically vulnerable populations. American journal of preventive medicine, 40(2), 139-143.
  5. Baker, E. J. (2011). Household preparedness for the aftermath of hurricanes in Florida. Applied Geography, 31(1), 46-52.
  6. Cvetković, V. (2015). Faktori uticaja na znanje i percepciju učenika srednjih škola u Beogradu o prirodnim katastrofama izazvanim klizištima. Bezbednost, LVII(1/2015), 32-51.
  7. Cvetković, V. (2016a). Fear and floods in Serbia: Citizens preparedness for responding to natural disaster. Matica Srpska Journal of Social Sciences, 155(2), 303-324.
  8. Cvetković, V. (2016b). Influence of Income Level on Citizen Preparedness for Response to Natural Disasters. Vojno delo, 2016/4.
  9. Cvetković, V. (2016c). The relationship between educational level and citizen preparedness for responding to natural disasters. Journal of the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA, 66(2), 237-253.
  10. Cvetković, V. (2016d). Uticaj demografskih, socio-ekonomskih i psiholoških faktora na preduzimanje preventivnih mera. Kultura polisa, XIII(32), 393-404.
  11. Cvetković, V., & Andrejević, T. (2016). Qualitative research on the readiness of citizens to respond to natural disasters. Serbian Science Today, 1(3).
  12. 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), 1553-1561.
  13. Cvetković, V., Gaćić, J., & Petrović, D. (2015). Spremnost studenata Kriminalističko-policijske akademije za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu izazvanu poplavom u Republici Srbiji. Ecologica, 22(78), 302-308.
  14. Cvetković, V. (2015). Spremnost građana za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu izazvanu poplavom u Republici Srbiji. (Doktorska disertacija), Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet bezbednosti.
  15. 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), 1-6.
  16. FEMA (2009) Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the Citizen Corps National Survey.
  17. Kapucu, N. (2008). Culture of preparedness: household disaster preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 526-535.
  18. Light, P. (2006). The Katrina Effect on American Preparedness—A Report on the Lessons Americans Learned in Watching the Katrina Catastrophe Unfold. New York: Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response, New York University; November
  19. Miceli, R., Sotgiu, I., & Settanni, M. (2008). Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 164-173.
  20. Mori, K., Ugai, K., Nonami, Y., Kirimura, T., Kondo, C., Nakamura, T., & Kaji, H. (2007). Health needs of patients with chronic diseases who lived through the great Hanshin earthquake. Disaster Management & Response, 5(1), 8-13.
  21. Page, L., Rubin, J., Amlôt, R., Simpson, J., & Wessely, S. (2008). Are Londoners prepared for an emergency? A longitudinal study following the London bombings. Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense strategy, practice, and science, 6(4), 309-319.
  22. Uscher-Pines, L., Chandra, A., Acosta, J., & Kellermann, A. (2012). Citizen preparedness for disasters: Are current assumptions valid?. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 6(02), 170-173.

Leave a Reply

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