Cvetković, MV, Ivanov, A., & Milojković, B. (2016). Influence of parenthood on citizen preparedness for response to natural disaster caused by floods. VI International scientific conference “Archibald Reiss days” Thematic conference proceedings of international significance, Belgrade, The Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies. Editor-in-Chief Dragana Kolarić, ISBN 978-86-7020-357-0, ISBN 978-86-7020-190-3 444-453.
Vladimir M. Cvetković
The Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, Belgrade,
vladimirkpa@gmail.com
Aleksandar Ivanov
Faculty of Security, Skopje, Idrizovo,”1” Kolonija, 2A, akademec@gmail.com
Boban Milojković
The Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, Belgrade, boban.milojkovic@kpa.edu.rs
Abstract: In this paper that presents the quantitative study, authors examined the influence of parenthood on the citizen preparedness to respond to natural disasters caused by floods in the Republic of Serbia. Taking into account all municipalities in Serbia in which there is a risk of flooding, 19 of these were randomly selected. In selected municipalities the research was undertaken in those areas and households that have been or are potentially the most vulnerable in relation to the level of high water with the use of a multi-stage random sample. In the research it was applied test method based on the technique of interviewing. The research results indicate that heavy rains encourage parents in higher percents to think about preparedness for responding in relation to citizens who are not parents. Parents to a greater extent as the reasons for not taking preventive measures point out that their assistance in this matter would not mean much, that they expected that in actions of protection and rescue primarily would be engaged citizens from flood-affected areas, then they know the safety procedures for response and they would be to a greater extent evacuated in friends’ places, etc. In domestic theory on disasters, there has been an insufficient number of experimental researches, while at the same there are no papers on the relationship between parenting and the preparedness of citizens to respond. Thus, the practical aim of the research was to contribute to the improvement of citizens’ preparedness to respond to natural disasters caused by floods. Namely, the research indicates the way how should influence on parents in order to raise preparedness for response to a higher level.
Key words: safety, natural disasters, floods, citizens, parenthood, preparedness for response, Serbia.
INTRODUCTION
Many physical aspects of natural disasters are out of control of people and severely threaten them. This does not mean that people behave passively in facing them, but design and implement measures to mitigate effects of natural disasters.[1] Attention of social sciences directed to disasters is relative novelty. Drabek suggests that research of disasters is located at a strategic crossroads between legal, economic, political and environmental dimensions,[2] as well as technical and technological, safety, managerial and geo-informational dimensions.[3] Community members can respond to disasters in different ways. They simply can absorb impacts of disaster with little or no pre-designed action and rely on improvisation to meet the immediate and long term needs. However, as awareness of potential natural disasters within a given social unit grows, the ability of planned and formally directed “adjustments” (i.e. efforts to distribute risk, modify effects, or prevent the occurrence of natural disasters) also increases.
Research conducted over the past thirty years have been greatly highlighted and explained the demographic, socio-economic, psychological and other factors that affect the preparedness of citizens to respond to natural disasters.[4] Preparedness as a concept in the theory of disasters includes activities undertaken before natural disasters in order to improve the response and recovery from resulting consequences.[5] Thereby, preparedness for defense against floods involves knowledge and skills related to response (knowledge of local flood risks, warning systems and ways of reacting), and possession of supplies of material and technical resources and plans for emergency response (hereinafter referred to as supplies).
Bearing in mind the frequency and consequences of the catastrophic floods in the last ten years in the national geographic space, as well as the possibility of their re-emergence, there is among other things, a need for constant research of factors that influence the level of preparedness of citizens from vulnerable and potentially vulnerable municipalities (hereinafter: local communities) for response in such situations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore parenthood as one of the factors influencing the level of preparedness of citizens to respond to natural disasters caused by flooding.
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK IN RESEARCH
The sample
For research purposes, by statistical method and empirical generalization were stratified communities in the Republic of Serbia with high and low risk of flooding. In this way it was obtained stratum, or population consisted of all adult residents of local communities in which it occurred or there is a risk of flood occurrence. From this stratum, it was randomly selected 19 from a total of 154 where is indicated threat or potential threat of flooding.[6] The research included the following communities: Obrenovac, Šabac, Kruševac, Kragujevac, Sremska Mitrovica, Priboj, Batočina, Svilajnac, Lapovo, Paraćin, Smederevska Palanka, Jaša Tomić, Loznica, Bajina Bašta, Smederevo, Novi Sad, Kraljevo, Užice and Rekovac (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Map of geospatial distribution of respondents by local communities in the Republic of Serbia
Further sampling procedure used multistage random sampling. The first stage determined parts in administrative headquarters of local communities that were threatened by flood waves or potential risk of high water. The second stage determined streets or parts of streets, and the third stage defined as households in which the survey would be conducted. The number of households is harmonized with the population of the community. The fourth stage of sampling referred to the selection procedure of respondents within predefined household. The selection of respondents was conducted randomly selecting adult household members who were present at the time of the survey. The study surveyed a total of 2,500 persons (Table 2).
Table 2. Characteristics of local communities where citizen survey was conducted
Local community | Total square area | localities | Population | Number of households | Number of respondents | Percentages (%) |
Obrenovac | 410 | 29 | 72682 | 7752 | 178 | 7.71 |
Šabac | 797 | 52 | 114548 | 19585 | 140 | 6.06 |
Kruševac | 854 | 101 | 131368 | 19342 | 90 | 3.90 |
Kregujevac | 835 | 5 | 179417 | 49969 | 91 | 3.94 |
Sremska Mitrovica | 762 | 26 | 78776 | 14213 | 174 | 7.53 |
Priboj | 553 | 33 | 26386 | 6199 | 122 | 5.28 |
Batočina | 136 | 11 | 11525 | 1678 | 80 | 3.46 |
Svilajnac | 336 | 22 | 22940 | 3141 | 115 | 4.98 |
Lapovo | 55 | 2 | 7650 | 2300 | 39 | 1.69 |
Paraćin | 542 | 35 | 53327 | 8565 | 147 | 6.36 |
Smederevska Palanka | 421 | 18 | 49185 | 8700 | 205 | 8.87 |
Sečanj – Jaša Tomić | 82 | 1 | 2373 | 1111 | 97 | 4.20 |
Loznica | 612 | 54 | 78136 | 6666 | 149 | 6.45 |
Bajina Bašta | 673 | 36 | 7432 | 3014 | 50 | 2.16 |
Smederevo | 484 | 28 | 107048 | 20948 | 145 | 6.28 |
Novi Sad | 699 | 16 | 346163 | 72513 | 150 | 6.49 |
Kraljevo | 1530 | 92 | 123724 | 19360 | 141 | 6.10 |
Rekovac | 336 | 32 | 10525 | 710 | 50 | 2.16 |
Užice | 667 | 41 | 76886 | 17836 | 147 | 6.36 |
Total – 19 | 10784 | 634 | 1500091 | 283602 | 2500 | 100 |
Table 3 gives a detailed overview of the structure of the sample of surveyed citizens.
Table 3. Structure of the sample of surveyed citizens
Variables | Categories | Frequency | Percentages (%) |
Gender | Male | 1244 | 49.8 |
Female | 1256 | 50.2 | |
Age | 18-28 | 711 | 28.4 |
28-38 | 554 | 22.2 | |
38-48 | 521 | 20.8 | |
48-58 | 492 | 19.7 | |
58-68 | 169 | 6.8 | |
Over 68 | 53 | 2.2 | |
Education | Primary | 180 | 7.2 |
Secondary/3 years | 520 | 20.8 | |
Secondary/4 years | 1032 | 41.3 | |
Higher | 245 | 9.8 | |
High | 439 | 17.6 | |
Master | 73 | 2.9 | |
Doctorate | 11 | 0.4 | |
Marital status | Single | 470 | 18.8 |
In relationship | 423 | 16.9 | |
Engaged | 67 | 2.7 | |
Married | 1366 | 54.6 | |
Divorced | 99 | 4.0 | |
Widow / widower | 75 | 3.0 | |
Distance between household and river (km) | Up to 2 km | 1479 | 59.2 |
From 2 to 5 | 744 | 29.8 | |
From 5 to 10 | 231 | 9.2 | |
Over 10 | 46 | 1.8 | |
Number of household members | Up to 2 | 63 | 2.5 |
From 2 to 4 | 1223 | 48.9 | |
From 4 to 6 | 639 | 25.6 | |
Over 6 | 575 | 23.0 | |
Employment status | Yes | 1519 | 60.8 |
No | 883 | 35.3 | |
Size of apartment / house (m2) | Up to 35 | 128 | 3.9 |
35-60 | 237 | 7.2 | |
60-80 | 279 | 8.5 | |
80-100 | 126 | 3.9 | |
Over 100 | 45 | 1.4 | |
Income level – montly | Up to 25.000 RSD | 727 | 29.1 |
Up to 50.000 RSD | 935 | 37.4 | |
U to 75.000 RSD | 475 | 19.0 | |
Over 90.0000 RSD | 191 | 7.6 |
The implementation of the sampling techniques provided a solid representation of the sample, while sample size gave reliability of reasoning on basic set – population.
Sample of variables
Operationalization of theoretical concept of preparedness to respond identified three dimensions of impact on predictor variable that were studied in such a way that for each variable is determined a number of criterion variables (Figure 1). Sample of criterion variables consisted of three groups: first, dimension related to the perception of preparedness for response and includes variables on preparedness at different levels, barriers to raise level of preparedness, variables on expectation of help from various categories of people and organizations and evaluation of effectiveness of response of first respondents; second group of dimensions relating to knowledge, was studied through the variables related to the level of knowledge, flood risk mapping; knowledge of where are shelters and technical means for protection and rescue and methods of handling, desire for training, desire for modes of education and knowledge of how to access to information on floods; third group of dimensions refers to supplies, i.e. to variables such as holding of oral/written response plans, keeping supplies of food and water, radio-transistors, flashlights, hack, shovel, hoe, spade, first-aid kit and insurance policies of persons and property.
Figure 1. Design of research variables
Instrument
Design of valid and reliable instrument included three steps. The first step identified relevant research which used scales for measuring preparedness of citizens to respond to disasters. The second step took, adapted or specially designed a question in questionnaire for each variable (perception of preparedness to respond – 46 variables; knowledge – 50 and supplies – 18). In the third step it was carried out preliminary (pilot) study in Batočina on a sample of 50 respondents with the aim of checking metric characteristics of constructed instrument.
Data analysis
Statistical analysis of collected date was done in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chi-square test of independence (χ2) was used for testing correlation of gender and categorical variables on perception, knowledge and possession of supplies and plans for a natural disaster caused by flood. On this occasion additional assumptions were filled which related to minimal expected frequency in all cells, which amounted to five or more. In assessment of size of the impact ratio was used phi coefficient that represents the correlation coefficient ranging from 0 to 1, where a higher number indicates a stronger relationship between the two variables. Cohen’s criteria were used: 0.10 for small, 0.30 for medium and 0.50 for a large impact (Cohen, 1988). For tables larger than 2 x 2, to assess the size of the impact it was used Cramer’s V indicator which takes into account the number of degrees of freedom. Accordingly, it is for the R-1 or K-1 equals to 1, the following criteria of impact size were used: small = 0.01, medium = 0.30 and large = 0.50 (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2004). To test the statistical significance of differences between mean values of continuous variables on the perception, knowledge and possession of supplies and plans of the citizens who are parents and those who are not, it was elect independent samples t-test.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Chi-square test of independence (χ2) examined the correlation between parenthood and categorical variables on the perception of preparedness to respond to a natural disaster caused by flood (hereinafter – natural disasters). The results of Chi-square test of independence (χ2) (with continuity correction by Yeats, referring to tables 2 x 2) have shown that there is a statistically significant relationship between parenthood and the following variables (Table 4): the engaged in field work (p = 0.000 <0,05, phi = – 0.091 – small impact); the engaged in shelters (p = 0.000 < 0.05, phi = – 0.106 – small impact); heavy rains (p = 0.001 < 0.05, phi = 0.070 – small impact). On the other hand, there was no statistically significant relationship with the following variables: preventive measures (p = 0.10 > 0.05); financial resources (p = 0.80 > 0.05); visiting flood-hit areas (p = 0.10 > 0.05); river level rise (p = 0.47 > 0.05); media reports (p = 0.54 > 0.05); level of preparedness (p = 0.18 > 0.05) (Table 1).
Based on results, parents compared to those who are not:
– A higher percentage of them think on preparedness to respond encourage due to heavy rains (parents – 42.4%, non-parents – 35.5%);
– A lower percentage of them would engage in field work to help victims (parents – 14.4%, non-parents – 21.4%); would engage in one of shelters for flood victims (parents – 3.0%, non-parents – 7.7%).
Table 4. Chi-square test of independence (χ2) of parenthood and variables on the perception of preparedness to respond
value | df | Asymp. Sig. (2 – sided) | Phi coefficient | |
Preventive measures | 4,508 | 2 | ,105 | ,045** |
Funds | ,064 | 1 | ,800 | ,006 |
The engaged in field work | 19,050 | 1 | ,000* | – ,091 |
The engaged in shelters | 25,574 | 1 | ,000* | – ,106 |
Visiting flood-hit areas | 2,669 | 1 | ,102 | – ,035 |
Heavy rains | 11,154 | 1 | ,001* | ,070 |
River level rise | ,511 | 1 | ,475 | ,016 |
Media reports | ,361 | 1 | ,548 | ,013 |
Level of preparedness | 7,511 | 5 | ,185 | ,057** |
* statistically significant correlation – p ≤ 0.05
** Cramer’s V coefficient for tables larger than 2 x 2
Independent samples T – test examined statistically significant difference between the mean values of continuous variables on the perception in citizens who are parents and those who did not. Statistically significant differences of results in citizens who are and are not parents were in the following continuous variables: individual preparedness (parents: M = 2.93, SD = 1.07; non-parents: M = 3.05, SD = 1.01; t (2469) = – 2.805, p = 0.005, eta squared = 0.0031 – small influence); household preparedness (parents: M = 2.98, SD = 0.991; non-parents: M = 3.10, SD = 0.964; t (2185.9) = – 2.95, p = .003, eta squared = 0,0039 – small influence); I am not threatened (parents: M = 2.85, SD = 1.44; non-parents: M = 3.04, SD = 1.44; t (2445) = – 3.18, p = 0.001, eta squared = 0, 0041 – small influence); I have no support (parents: M = 2.69, SD = 1.28; non-parents: M = 2.84, SD = 1.34; t (2423) = – 2.63, p = .008, eta squared = 0, 0028 – small influence); NHO (parents: M = 2.41, SD = 1.19; non-parents: M = 2.59, SD = 1.14; t (2420) = – 3.89, p = .000, eta squared = 0.0062 – small influence); help would not mean much (parents: M = 2.67, SD = 1.29; non-parents: M = 2.53, SD = 1.17; t (2321) = 2.606, p = 0.009, eta squared = 0.0029 – small influence); citizens from flooded areas (parents: M = 2.85, SD = 1.23; non-parents: M = 2.70, SD = 1.21; t (2297) = 2.97, p = 0.003, eta squared = 0.0038 – small influence) (Table 5).
Table 5. T – test of comparison of mean values of variables on the perception of preparedness in relation to parenthood
Levene’s test for equality of variances | t – test for Equality of Means | ||||||||
Dependent variables | F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2 – tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error
Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |
Lower | Upper | ||||||||
Individual preparedness | ,670 | ,413 | – 2,805 | 2469 | ,005* | – ,121 | ,043 | – ,205 | – ,036 |
Household preparedness | 6,352 | ,012 | – 2,959 | 2185,962 | ,003* | – ,118 | ,040 | – ,196 | – ,040 |
Preparednes of loc. comunity | ,537 | ,464 | ,579 | 2467 | ,562 | ,028 | ,047 | – ,066 | ,121 |
National preparedness | 3,019 | ,082 | – ,088 | 2098,760 | ,930 | – ,004 | ,046 | – ,094 | ,086 |
Sop. sposobnosti | ,438 | ,508 | – 1,279 | 2454 | ,201 | – ,055 | ,043 | – ,138 | ,029 |
Importance of prev.measures | 1,274 | ,259 | – ,638 | 2463 | ,524 | – ,030 | ,047 | – ,121 | ,062 |
Firs responders | ,996 | ,318 | – ,440 | 2430 | ,660 | – ,024 | ,055 | – ,132 | ,084 |
I am not threatened | ,140 | ,708 | – 3,187 | 2445 | ,001* | – ,190 | ,060 | – ,307 | – ,073 |
I do not have time for that | 4,443 | ,035 | – ,414 | 2422 | ,679 | – ,023 | ,056 | – ,132 | ,086 |
It is very expensive | ,080 | ,777 | – 1,588 | 2412 | ,112 | – ,087 | ,055 | – ,194 | ,020 |
I will not influence on safety | 1,060 | ,303 | ,511 | 2417 | ,610 | ,028 | ,054 | – ,079 | ,134 |
I am not capable | 11,924 | ,001 | – ,952 | 1998,440 | ,341 | – ,053 | ,056 | – ,162 | ,056 |
I have no support | 1,038 | ,308 | – 2,634 | 2423 | ,008* | – ,143 | ,054 | – ,249 | – ,036 |
I can not prevent | ,116 | ,733 | 1,177 | 2408 | ,239 | ,066 | ,056 | – ,044 | ,177 |
Household members | ,008 | ,927 | – ,734 | 2435 | ,463 | – ,037 | ,051 | – ,137 | ,063 |
Neighbours | ,001 | ,978 | – ,559 | 2436 | ,576 | – ,029 | ,052 | – ,130 | ,073 |
National hum. organisation | 7,182 | ,007 | – 3,890 | 2420 | ,000* | – ,189 | ,048 | – ,284 | – ,093 |
International hum. organisation | 9,154 | ,003 | – ,628 | 2419 | ,530 | – ,030 | ,048 | – ,123 | ,063 |
Religious community | 9,594 | ,002 | – ,464 | 2187,536 | ,643 | – ,023 | ,050 | – ,122 | ,075 |
Police | ,072 | ,789 | – 1,557 | 2433 | ,120 | – ,085 | ,054 | – ,191 | ,022 |
First responders | 6,421 | ,011 | – ,815 | 2152,615 | ,415 | – ,041 | ,051 | – ,140 | ,058 |
Emergency service | ,925 | ,336 | ,485 | 2435 | ,628 | ,025 | ,051 | – ,076 | ,125 |
Army | 2,828 | ,093 | – 1,537 | 2437 | ,125 | – ,085 | ,055 | – ,193 | ,023 |
Self-organized individuals | 4,972 | ,026 | – 1,646 | 2100,962 | ,100 | – ,091 | ,055 | – ,200 | ,017 |
Awareness | 4,115 | ,043 | – 1,693 | 2195,454 | ,091 | – ,086 | ,051 | – ,186 | ,014 |
Help would not mean much | 3,122 | ,077 | 2,606 | 2321 | ,009* | ,138 | ,053 | ,034 | ,241 |
Others helped | 1,245 | ,265 | – ,185 | 2320 | ,854 | – ,010 | ,052 | – ,111 | ,092 |
Duty of state authorities | 1,716 | ,190 | ,800 | 2315 | ,424 | ,042 | ,053 | – ,061 | ,146 |
Citizens from flooded areas | 2,396 | ,122 | 2,976 | 2297 | ,003* | ,155 | ,052 | ,053 | ,257 |
Lack of time | 3,003 | ,083 | 1,573 | 2307 | ,116 | ,086 | ,055 | – ,021 | ,194 |
It is too expensive | ,177 | ,674 | – ,202 | 2305 | ,840 | – ,010 | ,051 | – ,110 | ,089 |
Police efficiency | 2,396 | ,122 | ,100 | 2412 | ,920 | ,005 | ,053 | – ,099 | ,109 |
Efficiency of first responders | ,423 | ,516 | ,853 | 2413 | ,394 | ,046 | ,053 | – ,059 | ,151 |
Efficiency of emergency service | ,423 | ,515 | 1,462 | 2412 | ,144 | ,074 | ,051 | – ,025 | ,174 |
Efficiency of army | 2,121 | ,145 | ,173 | 2399 | ,862 | ,010 | ,055 | – ,099 | ,118 |
Efficiency of staff for emergencies | 4,140 | ,042 | – 1,752 | 2168,455 | ,080 | – ,098 | ,056 | – ,208 | ,012 |
* Statistically significant difference of test results – p ≤ 0.05
In parents, there is a higher level of specifying the following reasons for not taking measures of preparedness to respond: my help would not mean much and I expected citizens from flood-affected areas primarily would be engaged. On the other hand, there was a lower level of assessment of individual preparedness and preparedness of households to respond to natural disasters caused by flood; specifying the following reasons for not taking preventive measures at the personal level that would help in the event of flooding: I do not consider myself or my household at risk of flooding and have no support from the local community; expecting help from non-governmental humanitarian organizations in the first 72 hours after occurrence of floods.
The results of Chi-square test of independence (χ2) showed a statistically significant correlation between parenthood and the following variables on knowledge of natural disasters caused by floods (Table 6): familiarity with safety procedures (p = 0.00 < 0.05, v = 0.093 – small influence); evacuation (p = 0.001 < 0.05, v = 0.089 – small influence); training at work (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0.153 – small influence); elders, disabled (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0.086 – small influence); help – elders, disabled (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0.162 – small influence); neighbors – individually (p = 0.008 < 0.05, v = 0.064 – small influence); official warning (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0.144 – small impact); potential infections (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0,173 – small impact); water valve (p = 0.000 <0.05, v = 0,237 – small influence); gas valve (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0,169 – small influence); electricity switch (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0.182 – small influence); handling water valve (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0.227 – small influence); handling gas valve (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0,176 – small influence); handling electricity switch (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0.159 – mall influence); information from household members (p = 0.001 < 0.05, phi = – 0.068 – small influence); information from a friend (p = 0.000 < 0.05, phi = – 0.098 – small influence); information at school (p = 0.000 < 0.05, phi = – 0.080 – small influence); information in collage (p = 0.004 < 0.05, phi = – 0.062 – small influence); information through an informal system (p = 0.011 < 0.05, phi = – 0.055 – small influence); information at work (p = 0.000 < 0.05, phi = 0.086 – small influence); information on the radio (p = 0.024 < 0.05, phi = 0.048 – small influence); information via the Internet (p = 0.000 < 0.05, phi = – 0.087 – small influence); education through television (p = 0.000 <0.05, phi = 0.076 – small influence); education. via video – games (p = 0.000 < 0.05, phi = – 0.085 – small influence); education via the Internet (p = 0.000 < 0.05, phi = – 0.122 – small influence). On the other hand, there was no statistically significant relationship with variables: education at school (p = 0.12 > 0.05); education within family (p = 0.79 > 0.05); apparatus for firefighting (p = 0.71 > 0.05), restocking (p = 0.60 > 0.05); first aid kit in the home (p = 0.16 > 0.05), and discussions and plan (p = 0.16 > 0.05) (Table 3).
Based on results, it is noticed that the parents compared to non-parents:
– in a higher percentage: know the safety procedures for floods (parents – 26.9%, non-parents – 19.7%); would evacuate to a friend’s place (parents – 37.9%, non-parents – 33.3%); say that someone at work talked them about the floods (parents – 38.4%, non-parents – 23.8%); know where in the community live elders, handicapped and infants (parents – 26.9%, non-parents – 19.7%); know what assistance is needed by elders, disabled and infants during floods (parents – 59.9%, non-parents – 43.5%); know what should do after official warnings about approach of flood wave (parents – 33.9%, non-parents – 21.1%); aware of viruses and infections that accompany period after the floods (parents – 52.5%, non-parents – 35.5%); they know where is water valve (parents – 87% non-parents – 67.6%), gas valve (parents – 61% non-parents – 44.3%), electricity switch (parents – 84.5 %, non-parents – 70.7%); know how to handle the water valve (parents – 82.5%, non-parents – 62.4%), gas valve (parents – 58.7%, non-parents – 41%), electricity switch (parents – 77, 9% non-parents – 63.7%); say they got information about floods at work (parents – 16.8%, non-parents – 10.6%), the radio (parents – 17.2%, non-parents – 13.6%); would like to be educated about the floods on television (parents – 65.4%, non-parents – 57.9%);
– in a lower percentage: would evacuate to shelters during floods (parents – 2.3%, non-parents – 15.4%) and rented apartments (parents – 26.9%, non-parents – 4.8%); say they think that their neighbors can independently save themselves in case of flooding (parents – 38.2%, non-parents – 38.7%); point out they got information about floods from household members (parents – 16.9%, non-parents – 14.7%), from friends (parents – 8.4%, non-parents – 14.6%) at school (parents – 11.8%, non-parents – 17.5%), in college (parents – 4.5%, non-parents – 7.4%), through informal system of education (parents – 7.2%, non-parents – 10 3%) over the Internet (parents – 25.4%, non-parents – 33.4%); would like to be educated through the video – games (parents – 0.9%, non-parents – 3.2%).
Table 6. Chi-square test of independence (χ2) of parenthood and knowledge
value | df | Asymp. Sig. (2 – sided) | Cramers v | |
Knowledge on floods | 5,522 | 2 | ,063 | ,048 |
Familiarity with safety procedures | 19,785 | 2 | ,000* | ,093 |
Evacuation | 17,761 | 4 | ,001* | ,089 |
Aducation at school | 4,239 | 2 | ,120 | ,042 |
Education within family | ,449 | 2 | ,799 | ,014 |
Education at work | 54,026 | 2 | ,000* | ,153 |
Elders, disabled | 17,412 | 2 | ,000* | ,086 |
Consent to evacuate | 1,989 | 1 | ,158 | ,030 |
Help – elders, disabled | 63,842 | 2 | ,000* | ,162 |
Neighbors – individually | 9,689 | 2 | ,008* | ,064 |
Flood risk map | 3,157 | 2 | ,206 | ,036 |
Official warning | 47,972 | 2 | ,000* | ,144 |
Potential infections | 70,263 | 2 | ,000* | ,173 |
Water valve | 134,937 | 2 | ,000* | ,237 |
Gas valve | 54,541 | 2 | ,000* | ,169 |
Electricity switch | 76,327 | 2 | ,000* | ,182 |
Handling water valve | 124,109 | 2 | ,000* | ,227 |
Handling gas valve | 60,449 | 2 | ,000* | ,176 |
Handling electricity switch | 58,625 | 2 | ,000* | ,159 |
Information from family members | 10,635 | 1 | ,001* | – ,068** |
Information from neighbors | 1,857 | 1 | ,173 | ,029** |
Information from friend | 21,926 | 1 | ,000* | – ,098** |
Informacije od relatives | ,930 | 1 | ,335 | – ,021** |
Information at school | 14,568 | 1 | ,000* | – ,080** |
Information in college | 8,391 | 1 | ,004* | – ,062** |
Information through an informal system | 6,509 | 1 | ,011* | – ,055** |
Information at work | 16,934 | 1 | ,000* | ,086** |
Information in religious community | ,000 | 1 | 1,000 | – ,002** |
Information on television | ,446 | 1 | ,504 | ,015** |
Information on the radio | 5,059 | 1 | ,024* | ,048** |
Information from the press | 2,528 | 1 | ,112 | ,034** |
Information via the Internet | 17,564 | 1 | ,000* | – ,087** |
Trained | 1,773 | 1 | ,183 | ,029 |
Desire for training | 5,742 | 2 | ,057 | ,050 |
Education via television | 13,205 | 1 | ,000* | ,076** |
Education on the radio | 1,857 | 1 | ,173 | – ,030** |
Education through video – game | 15,239 | 1 | ,000* | – ,085** |
Education via the Internet | 34,173 | 1 | ,000* | – ,122** |
Education through lectures | ,032 | 1 | ,859 | ,005** |
Informal system | ,349 | 1 | ,554 | ,013 |
* Statistically significant correlation – p ≤ 0.05
** Phi coefficient for tables bigger than 2 x 2
For examination of relationship between parenthood and continuous dependent variables on knowledge, it was elected independent samples t – test. Statistically significant differences of results in citizens who have and those who do not have children existed in the following continuous variables on knowledge: risk of flooding. – 1 year. (parents: M = 2.65, SD = 1.42; unemployed: M = 2.42, SD = 1.23; t (2322.6) = 4.29, p = .000, eta squared = 0.0078 – small influence); risk of flooding. – 5 years. (parents: M = 2.90, SD = 1.42; unemployed: M = 2.76, SD = 1.31 t (2216) = 2.55, p = .011, eta squared = 0.0029 – small influence); first responders (parents: M = 2.82, SD = 1.35; unemployed: M = 2.72, SD = 1.18; t (2279) = 2.03, p = 0.042, eta squared = 0.0018 – small influence); nearby shelters (parents: M = 2.24, SD = 1.27; unemployed: M = 2.35, SD = 1.16; t (2221) = – 2.35, p = 0.018, eta squared = 0.0024 – small influence) (Table 7). For parents, there was a higher level of assessment of risk of flooding local community in the next one and five years and better familiarity with responsibilities of first responders in natural disasters caused by flooding. On the other hand, it was found a lower level of familiarity with nearby shelters.
Table 7. T – test of comparison of the mean values of variables on knowledge in relation to parenthood
Levene’s test for equality of variances | t – test for Equality of Means | ||||||||
Dependent variables | F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2 – tailed) | Mean Difference | Std. Error
Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | |
Lower | Upper | ||||||||
Level of knowledge | ,547 | ,460 | 1,020 | 2370 | ,308 | ,044 | ,043 | – ,040 | ,128 |
Risk of flooding – 1 year | 36,647 | ,000 | 4,292 | 2322,609 | ,000* | ,231 | ,054 | ,126 | ,337 |
Risk of flooding – 5 years | 4,343 | ,037 | 2,553 | 2216,956 | ,011* | ,144 | ,056 | ,033 | ,255 |
Warning systems | 3,372 | ,066 | 1,543 | 2416 | ,123 | ,076 | ,049 | – ,021 | ,173 |
Polica | 10,343 | ,001 | ,798 | 2217,146 | ,425 | ,041 | ,051 | – ,060 | ,141 |
First responders | 31,250 | ,000 | 2,038 | 2279,225 | ,042* | ,106 | ,052 | ,004 | ,208 |
Stuff for Emergency Situations | 14,476 | ,000 | 1,368 | 2225,515 | ,172 | ,071 | ,052 | – ,031 | ,173 |
Fire routes | 10,072 | ,002 | ,156 | 2187,742 | ,876 | ,008 | ,052 | – ,095 | ,111 |
Nearby shelters | 7,762 | ,005 | – 2,359 | 2221,093 | ,018* | – ,118 | ,050 | – ,217 | – ,020 |
Vulnerability assessment and plans | 4,706 | ,030 | – 1,448 | 2179,079 | ,148 | – ,072 | ,049 | – ,169 | ,025 |
* Statistically significant difference of test results – p ≤ 0.05
Chi-square test of independence (χ2) examined relationship between parenthood status and categorical variables on supplies and plans for response to a natural disaster caused by flood. The results of Chi-square test of independence (χ2) (with continuity correction by Yeats, referring to tables 2 x 2) have shown that there is a statistically significant relationship between parenthood and the following variables: supplies at home (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0.090 – small influence); food supply (p = 0.004 < 0.05, v = 0,120 – small influence); water supply (p = 0.002 < 0.05, v = 0,135 – small influence); restocking (p = 0.000 <0.05, phi = 0.116 – small influence); copies of documents (p = 0.000 < 0.05, v = 0.131 – small influence); Insurance (p = 0.000 <0.05, v = 0,191 – small influence) (Table 8).
Based on results, it is noticed that parents compared to non-parents:
– in a higher percentage have: food supplies for four days (parents – 66.2%, non-parents – 56.9%); water supplies for four days (parents – 51.8%, non-parents – 38.9%); never replenish supplies (parents – 49.5%, non-parents – 38.1%); copies of important financial, personal and other documents (parents – 28.4%, non-parents – 26.9%); home insurance in case of flood (parents – 9.3%, non-parents – 7.1%);
– in a lower percentage have: supplies at home in case of a natural disaster caused by flood (parents – 24.7%, non-parents – 26.6%); food supplies for two days (parents – 13.8%, non-parents – 22.8%); water supply for one day (parents – 22%, non-parents – 24.6%), for two days (parents – 26.2%, non-parents – 36.4%); replenish supplies once a month (parents – 32% non-parents – 37%), once a year (parents – 18.5%, non-parents – 24.9%).
Table 8. Chi-square test of independence (χ2) between parenthood, having supplies and response plans
value | df | Asymp. Sig. (2 – sided) | Crames, v | |
Supplies at home | 19,435 | 2 | ,000* | ,090 |
Food supplies | 10,843 | 2 | ,004* | ,120 |
Water supplies | 12,834 | 2 | ,002* | ,135 |
Radio – transistor | ,002 | 1 | ,969 | – ,003** |
Flashlight | ,010 | 1 | ,921 | – ,004** |
Shovel | 3,595 | 1 | ,058 | ,055** |
Hack | 3,313 | 1 | ,069 | ,053** |
Hoe and spade | 1,248 | 1 | ,264 | ,033** |
Apparatus for firefighting | ,872 | 1 | ,350 | ,030** |
Restocking | 17,416 | 2 | ,000* | ,116** |
Supplies in the car | 5,564 | 3 | ,135 | ,050 |
First aid kit in the home | 34,111 | 2 | ,000* | ,123 |
First aid kit in the vehicle | 7,931 | 2 | ,019 | ,065 |
First aid kit – easily accessible | 14,843 | 2 | ,001* | ,086 |
Response plan | 22,220 | 3 | ,000* | ,097 |
Discussion of the plan | 17,599 | 2 | ,000* | ,088 |
Copies of documents | 37,592 | 2 | ,000* | ,131 |
Insurance | 86,223 | 2 | ,000* | ,191 |
* Statistically significant correlation – p ≤ 0.05
** Phi coefficient, table 2 x 2
The results obtained in similar surveys do not differ significantly. For example, research results of preparedness of citizens to respond to natural disasters conducted in the United States, indicate that 30% of respondents are familiar with the warning systems and informing on natural disasters, 31% know the way how can get important information during natural disasters, 47 % know how to evacuate themselves, 48% are familiar with local risks from natural disasters, 54% of respondents know where are the nearest shelters, and 58% are familiar with evacuation routes.[7]
Then, results of research conducted in Scotland showed that 38.1% of respondents are informed through neighbors and friends, 28.6% over the radio, 27.2% in the press, 28.5% over the national television, 36.7% over the relevant state authorities and 12.8% in other ways.[8]
CONCLUSION
Parents, in higher percentage/greater extent in relation to non-parents show they think about preparedness to respond due to heavy rains. They point out the following reasons for not taking action of preparedness: “My help would not mean much” and “I expected the citizens from flood-affected areas would be engaged primarily”. Then, they are familiar with safety procedures, they would evacuated themselves to a friend’s place, they point out that someone at work talked about the floods, they know where in the community live elders, disabled and infants, they know what help is needed by elders, disabled and infants, they know what should do after official warnings about the approach of the flood, they are familiar with viruses and infections that accompany period after the flood, they know where is water valve, gas valve, electricity switch, know how to handle water valve and gas valve, electricity switch, they say that the information about the floods they got at work, on the radio; they would like to be educated about the floods on television, they scored a level of assessment of risk from flooding local community in the next year and five years and higher familiarity with the responsibilities of first responders in natural disasters caused by flooding, have food and water supplies for four days, they never replenish supplies they have, they have copies of important financial, personal and other documents and they have home insurance in case of flood.
On the other hand, respondents who are not parents in higher percentage/greater extent: would engage in assisting the victims in the field and in shelters, scored a rating level of individual preparedness and preparedness of households to respond, they point out the following reasons for not taking preventive measures on personal plan: “I do not consider myself or my household at risk of flooding” and “I have no support from the local community”, they expect help from non-governmental humanitarian organizations in the first 72 hours after the occurrence of flood, they would evacuated to shelters during the floods and rented apartments, they believe their neighbors can rescue themselves in the event of floods, they say the information on floods they got from family members, friends, within the school, in college, through informal education system, through the Internet, they would like to be educated through video – games, scored a level of familiarity with the nearby shelters, they possess: supplies in the home, food supplies for two days, water supply for one day and two days, they replenish supplies once a month and once a year.
Recommendation
Based on results, it should influence the parents to get involved in providing assistance in shelters; to evacuate themselves to shelters; educate them on television. On the other hand, it should influence the citizens who are not parents to learn about safety procedures for viruses and infections that accompany a period after the flood; to be informed about the positions of the water valve, gas valve and electricity switch. They should be educated about how to handle the water valve, gas valve and electricity switch. They should be directed to possess supplies in the home, food supplies for two days, water supplies for one day, to replenish supplies once a month and once a year.
REFERENCES
- Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- 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.
- Cvetković, V. (2015). Faktori uticaja na znanje i percepciju učenika srednjih škola u Beogradu o prirodnim katastrofama izazvanim klizištima (Factors of influence to the knowledge and perception of secondary school students in Belgrade about natural disasters caused by landslides). Bezbednost, LVII(1), 32-51.
- Cvetković, V. (2015). Spremnost građana za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu izazvanu poplavom u Republici Srbiji (The preparedness of citizens to respond to natural disaster caused by floods in Serbia). (Doktorska disertacija – Doctoral thesis), Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet bezbednosti.
- Cvetković, V. (2015). Spremnost za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu – pregled literature (Preparedness for natural disaster – review of the literature). Bezbjednost, policija i građani, XI (1-2), 165-183;
- Cvetković, V., & Stanišić, J. (2015). Relationship between demographic and environmental factors with knowledge of secondary school students on natural disasters. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, 65(3).
- Cvetković, V., Gačić, J., & Jakovljević, V. (2015). Uticaj statusa regulisane vojne obaveze na spremnost građana za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu izazvanu poplavom u Republici Srbiji (Impact of the status of military obligations on preparedness for flood disaster in serbia). Ecologica, 22(80), 584-590.
- Drabek, T. E. (1986). Human system responses to disaster: An inventory of sociological findings. New York, Springer, 1986.
- Gillespie, D. F., & Streeter, C. L. (1987). Conceptualizating and measuring disaster preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 5(2), 155-176,
- Gravetter, F.J. & Wallnau, L.B. (2004). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (6th edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Jakovljević, V., Cvetković, V., & Gačić, J. (2015). Prirodne katastrofe i obrazovanje (Natural disaster and education). Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet bezbednosti,
- Milojković, B. (2014). Geotopografsko obezbeđenje upotrebe jedinica policije u akcijama zaštite i spasavanja od poplava u maju 2014. godine. Bezbednost, 56(3), 6-31.
- Werritty, A., Houston, D., Ball, T., Tavendale, A., & Black, A. (2007). Exploring the social impacts of flood risk and flooding in Scotland: Scottish Executive,
[1] Jakovljević et. al. (2015). Prirodne katastrofe i obrazovanje (Natural disaster and education). Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet bezbednosti, 2015., str. 19.
[2] Drabek, T. E.: Human system responses to disaster: An inventory of sociological findings. New York, Springer, 1986. p. 14.
[3] Milojković, B. (2014). Geotopografsko obezbeđenje upotrebe jedinica policije u akcijama zaštite i spasavanja od poplava u maju 2014. godine (Geotopographic security use police units in the actions of protection and rescue from floods in may 2014). Bezbednost, 56(3), p. 6.
[4] Cvetković, et al. (2015). Uticaj statusa regulisane vojne obaveze na spremnost građana za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu izazvanu poplavom u Republici Srbiji (Impact of the status of military obligations on preparedness for flood disaster in serbia). Ecologica, 22(80), p. 584; Cvetković, V., & Stanišić, J. (2015). Relationship between demographic and environmental factors with knowledge of secondary school students on natural disasters., SASA, Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, 65(3), p. 324; Cvetković, V., (2015). Faktori uticaja na znanje i percepciju učenika srednjih škola u Beogradu o prirodnim katastrofama izazvanim klizištima ((Factors of influence to the knowledge and perception of secondary school students in Belgrade about natural disasters caused by landslides)). Bezbednost, LVII(1/2015), p. 32; Cvetković, et al. (2015). Knowledge and perception of secondary school students in Belgrade about earthquakes as natural disasters. Polish journal of environmental studies, 24(4), p. 1553.
[5] Cvetković, V. (2015). Spremnost za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu – pregled literature (Preparedness for natural disaster – review of the literature). Bezbjednost, policija i građani, XI (1-2), p. 165; Gillespie, D. F., & Streeter, C. L. (1987). Conceptualizating and measuring disaster preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 5(2), p. 155. Cvetković, V. (2015). Spremnost građana za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu izazvanu poplavom u Republici Srbiji (The preparedness of citizens to respond to natural disaster caused by floods in Serbia). (Doktorska disertacija – Doctoral thesis), Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet bezbednosti.
[6] According to statistical data for 2014, Republic of Serbia without Kosovo and Metohija ha 168 municipalities.
[7] FEMA (2009) Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the Citizen Corps National Survey [online]. http://www.citizencorps.gov/ready/research.shtm [accessed 24. December 2015].
[8] Werritty et al. (2007). Exploring the social impacts of flood risk and flooding in Scotland: Scottish Executive, Edinburgh, p. 122.