Influence of Parenthood on Citizen Preparedness for Response to Natural Disasters Caused by Floods

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

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

 

  1. Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  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), 165-183;
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. Drabek, T. E. (1986). Human system responses to disaster: An inventory of sociological findings. New York, Springer, 1986.
  9. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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