Knowledge and Perceptions of Students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies About Natural Disasters

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

Cvetković, V., Ivanov, A., & Sadiyeh, A. (2015). Knowledge and perceptions of students of the Academy of Criminalistic and police studies about natural d disasters. International scientific conference “Archibald Reiss days” Thematic conference proceedings of international significance., Belgrade, The Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, Volume II, 181-195.

Vladimir M. Cvetkovic

The Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, Belgrade

Aleksandar Ivanov2

University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Bitola, Faculty of Security, Skopje

Alen Sadiyeh3

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies

Abstract: The subject of quantitative research is the analysis of the factors influencing the knowledge and perceptions of first-year students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies about natural disasters. The authors used a survey method to identify and describe the factors that influence the knowledge and perceptions of students about natural disaster. Out of the total number of first-year students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, 360 of them were examined. The results show that respondents have a high level of knowledge on natural disasters and the best knowledge on safety procedures when handling droughts. Limitation of research relates to the fact that the research is based only on the first-year students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies. Considering the evident lack of education on natural disasters in Serbia, the survey results can be used when creating the strategy of educational programs, which would contribute to improving the safety of youth culture. The research results can be used for the improvement of existing knowledge and preparedness for responding to natural disasters.

Keywords: security, emergency situations, natural disasters, statistics, students, knowledge, perception, fear.

INTRODUCTION

Natural disasters, as adverse events to people, their material goods and environment, occur on/in dif- ferent spheres of the earth (lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere), such as, for example, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, hurricanes, etc. Depending on the nature of onset process, natural disasters can be divided into: geophysical (earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, landslides, mudslides); meteorological (tropical cyclones/hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes, lightning, hailstorms, snowstorms, ice storms, blizzards, cold and hot waves, snow landslides, fog and frost); hydrological (floods, streams); biological (epidemics and insect pests); and cosmic (meteors)4. In the period from 1900 to 2013 there were 25,552 natural disasters. Most of them were hidrospheric disasters, followed by atmospheric, lithospheric and biospheric oness.5

  1. This paper is the result of the research on project: “Management of police organization in preventing and mitigating threats to se- curity in the Republic of Serbia“, which is financed and carried out by the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, Belgrade – the cycle of scientific projects 2015-2019.

  2. akademec@gmail.com
  3. alensadiyeh@gmail.com
  4. Mlađan, D., Cvetković, V.: Classification of Emergency Situations. Belgrade: Thematic Proceedings of International Scientific Con- ference “Archibald Reiss Days“, Academy of criminalistic and police studies, 2013, pp. 275-291; Cvetković, V.: Geoprostorna i vremen- ska distribucija vulkanskih erupcija. NBP – Žurnal za kriminalistiku i pravo, 2/2014, 153-171; Cvetković, V.: Spatial and temporal distribution of floods like natural emergency situations. International scientific conference Archibald Reiss days (pp. 371-389). Belgrade: The academy of criminalistic and police studies, 2014.

  5. Cvetković, V., Mijalković, S.: Spatial and Temporal distribution of geophysical disasters. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, Journal of the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” 63/3, 345-360; Cvetković, V., Milojković, B., & Stojković, D.: Analiza geoprostorne i vremenske distribucije zemlјotresa kao prirodnih katastrofa. Vojno delo, 2014, letnje izdanje; Cvetković, V.: Geoprostorna i vremenska distribucija vulkanskih erupcija. NBP – Žurnal za kriminalistiku i pravo, 2/2014, 153-171; 46; Cvetković, V., Dragićević, S.: Prostorna i vremenska distribucija prirodnih nepogoda. Zbornik radova Geografskog instituta „Jovan Cvijić“ SANU, 293-309, 2014.

    Historically, the role of education has, in some way, ignored the importance of the need for education in the field of disasters. There are several reasons:Disasters have always been considered as the events that rarely occur, appear in many different forms, bring a variety of different causes and consequences. These considerations lead to the conclusion that it is almost impossible to standardize forms of action. However, practice has shown that children familiar with the phenomenon and the response in natural disasters are able to react quickly and appropriately in order to protect themselves and to warn others of potential dan- gers. One of the classic examples of the power of knowledge and education is the story of 10-year-old girl from Britain, Tilly Smith, who warned tourists to flee before the tsunami in the Indian Ocean came to the coast.In this way, she saved more than 100 tourists in 2004. She recognized the signs of an approaching tsunami, having learned at school about this phenomenon within geography, only a week before she visited Thailand.Also, it is necessary to bear in mind that the UK is not a state in which such phenomena occur, and that she had no previous experience, but acquired knowledge at school and thus contributed to saving the lives of a large number of people.

    The role of education in reducing the risk of natural disasters is often directly or indirectly regulated by legislation and policy documents. For instance, the law on emergency situations of the Republic of Serbia in point 6 titled training and education, Article 119 states that in order to acquire the necessary knowledge in the field of personal and collective protection, citizens receive education and training in preventive care and rescue. Furthermore, it is stated that the training is done within primary and secondary education in order to acquire knowledge about the dangers of natural and other disasters and how to protect against them, in accordance with the specific law and the appropriate program.Educational activities which are carried out through educational programs in schools are effective measures to emphasize the importance of reducing the risk of natural disasters, because working with children, this knowledge extends to their families.10

    Bearing in mind the enormous importance of education about natural disasters, the authors – within a quantitative study – analyze the factors that influence the knowledge and perceptions of first-year students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies about natural disasters. In this paper, the authors used the survey method to describe and identify the factors that have an impact on the students’ knowledge and perception on natural disasters. The first part of the paper is a discussion on the previous studies that have dealt with this issue. The second part is devoted to the issues of the methodological framework. The third part of the paper presents the results of descriptive statistics and use of chi – square test.

    LITERATURE REVIEW

    The role of education in reducing the risk of natural disasters is a very topical issue studied by many disaster researchers.11 In addition, a large number of papers relate to the link between education and preparedness to respond in the event of a natural disaster.12 Tanaka examines how education on disasters increases the preparedness of people for disasters.13 Specifically, in the paper Impact of education about disasters on preparedness of population and mitigation of effects of earthquakes: the comparison between a city in Japan and city in California, the author deals with the following research questions: What kind of education is the most appropriate to encourage the preparedness of population for future earthquakes?; How does ed-

     

  6. Lidstone, J.: Disaster education: Where we are and where we should be. In: Lidstone, J. (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching about hazards and disasters (p. 3). Philadelphia, USA: Channel View Publications, 1996:34.

  7. Rajib, S., Koichi, S., Yukiko, T.: Disaster education. United Kingdom, Emerald Group Publishing, 2011.

  8. UN/ISDR.: World disaster reduction campaign. Disaster risk reduction begins at school. Available at http://www.unisdr.org/eng/pub- lic_aware/world_camp/2006-2007/pdf/WDRC-2006-2007-English-fullversion.pdf,2006 (Accessed on January 10.04. 2013).

  9. Zakon o vanrednim situacijama Republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, broj 111/2009.

  10. Ivanov, A., Cvetković, V.: The role of education in natural disaster risk reduction. Horizons, international scientific journal, year X Volume 16, 2014.

  11. Radu, C.: Necessity of training and education in earthquake-prone country, Training and Education for Improving Earthquake Disaster Management in Developing Countries, UNCRD Meeting Report Series, 1993, No. 57, pp. 15-33; Kuroiwa, J.A.: Peru’s na- tional education program for disaster prevention and mitigation (PNEPDPM)”, Training and Education for Improving Earthquake Disaster Management in Developing Counties, UNCRD Meeting Report Series, No. 57, 1993, pp. 95-102; Arya, A. S.: Training and drills for the general public in emergency response to a major earthquake, Training and Education for Improving Earthquake Disaster Management in Developing Countries, 1993, pp. 103-14, UNCRD Meeting Report Series No. 57; Ronan, K. R., & Johnston, D. M.: Correlates of hazard education programs for youth. Risk Analysis, 2001, 21(6), 1055-1064; Frew, S.L.: Public awareness and social mar- keting”, Regional Workshop on Best Practices in Disaster Management, Bangkok, 2002, pp. 381-393; Shaw, R., Shiwaku, K., Kobayashi, H., Kobayashi, M.: Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management, 2004, 13(1), 39–49; Panic, M., Kovacevic-Majkic, J., Miljanovic, D., & Miletic, R.: Importance of natural disaster education – case study of the earthquake near the city of Kraljevo: First results. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, SASA, 63(1), 2013, 75-88.

  12. Faupel, C. E., Kelley, S. P., & Petee, T.: The impact of disaster education on household preparedness for Hurricane Hugo. Interna- tional Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters10(1), 1992, 5-24; Edwards, M. L.: Social location and self-protective behavior: Im- plications for earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 11(3), 1993, 293-303; Liu, S., Quen- emoen, L. E., Malilay, J., Noji, E., Sinks, T., & Mendlein, J.: Assessment of a severe-weather warning system and disaster preparedness, Calhoun County, Alabama, American journal of public health, 86(1), 1996, 87-89.

  13. Tanaka, K.: The impact of disaster education on public preparation and mitigation for earthquakes: a cross-country comparison between Fukui, Japan and the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA. Applied Geography, 2005, 25(3), 201-225.

    ucation on disasters increase the preparedness of disasters?; Can education about disasters really encour- age that is motivate residents to take appropriate actions? Awareness about disasters and knowledge about neighborhood, and prior experience have a significant contribution to improving citizens’ preparedness for an earthquake.14

    Tomio et al. suggest that the older, female members and better educated individuals are positively associated with a higher level of preparedness for disasters at the household level, while at the community level such a connection exists with length of residence, marital status, presence of an older family member.15 By examination of association between participation in educational programs about the dangers and aware- ness about danger, risk perception, knowledge and preparedness of households, Finnis et al. indicated that there is a positive correlation between participation in educational programs and a higher level of preparedness of the household.16. Kohn et al. suggest that there are significant variations in the results of research related to the impact of education on the level of preparedness of citizens 17. Some research indicates that individuals with high levels of specific knowledge are likely to be prepared for such events.18 Edwards indi- cates that households with higher levels of education, higher income and children will be to a greater extent adapted to the implementation of necessary measures of preparedness.19 Faupel et al. suggest by their re- sults that participation in educational programs about disasters is closely linked with the level of preparedness.20 Becker et al. suggest that traditional education programs about disasters that are focused on passive information provide a very low level of awareness and motivation in relation to disaster preparedness.21 Shaw et al., as a result of their work, state the fact that previous experience with an earthquake does not contribute significantly to awareness about this disaster, but it helps students to know what an earthquake is.22. In addition, they stress that school education is crucial in improving the knowledge and perceptions about an earthquake as a disaster. Johnson et al. indicate that there is a positive correlation between the preparedness of households with participation of children in educational programs on disasters.23 Mishra and Suar suggest that education about disasters and resources are partial mediators between anxiety and preparedness for floods and major mediators between anxiety and preparedness for heat waves.24. Shiwaku et al. present the results that current school education – which is based on the lessons – can raise awareness about the risks, but cannot allow students to know the importance of preventive measures aimed at reducing the risk.25. At the same time, they indicate that self-education about disasters is effective to implement the measures and that the local community plays a decisive role in promoting the undertaking of current actions by students. Future school education must be based on active learning. Adem shows that there is a clear correlation between knowledge and attitudes about an earthquake26 Hurni and McClure point out that prior knowledge about earthquakes is correlated with preparedness to earthquakes.27 Ronan and Johnston confirm the significant role of educational programs about dangers in raising the level of preparedness of households for disasters.28 Kurita et al. indicate that more than 90% of the population does not have adequate knowledge about tsunami and that the main sources of information during disasters were family members and neighbors.29 In addition, they point out that school education is very important in raising the awareness on disasters.

     

  14. Ibid..

  15. Tomio, J., Sato, H., Matsuda, Y., Koga, T., & Mizumura, H.: Household and Community Disaster Preparedness in Japanese Pro- vincial City: A Population-Based Household Survey. Advances in Anthropology2014.

  16. Finnis, K. K., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R., & White, J. D.: Hazard perceptions and preparedness of Taranaki youth. Disaster Prevention and Management19(2), 2010, 175-184.

  17. Kohn, S., Eaton, J. L., Feroz, S., Bainbridge, A. A., Hoolachan, J., & Barnett, D. J.: Personal disaster preparedness: an integrative review of the literature. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 6(03), 2012, 217-231.

  18. Mishra, S., & Suar, D.: Do lessons people learn determine disaster cognition and preparedness? Psychology & Developing Socie- ties19(2), 2007, 143-159.

  19. Edwards, M. L.: Opus citatum.

  20. Faupel, C. E., Kelley, S. P., & Petee, T.: Opus citatum.

  21. Becker, J., Johnston, D., Paton, D., & Ronan, K.: Community resilience to earthquakes: Understanding how individuals make mean- ing of hazard information, and how this relates to preparing for hazards. Paper presented at the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, 2009.

  22. Shaw, et al.: Opus citatum.

  23. Johnson, V. A., Ronan, K. R., Johnston, D. M., & Peace, R.: Evaluations of disaster education programs for children: A methodo- logical review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 9, 2014, 107-123.

  24. Mishra, et al.: Opus citatum.

  25. Shiwaku, K.: Essentials of school disaster education: Example from Kobe, Japan. In: R. Shaw & R. Krishnamurthy, R. (Eds), Disas- ter management: Global challenges and local solutions (pp. 321–387). India: Universities Press, 2009.

  26. Adem, Ö.: The Relationship between Earthquake Knowledge and Earthquake Attitudes of Disaster Relief Staff. Disaster Advances, 4(1), 2011, 19-24.

  27. Hurnen, F., & McClure, J.: The effect of increased earthquake knowledge on perceived preventability of earthquake damage.

    Australas. J. Disaster trauma study (3), 1997.

  28. Ronan, K. R., Johnston, D. M., Daly, M., & Fairley, R.: School children’s risk perceptions and preparedness: A hazards education survey. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 1, 2001

  29. Kurita, T., Nakamura, A., Kodama, M., & Colombage, S. R.: Tsunami public awareness and the disaster management system of Sri Lanka. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(1), 2006, 92-110.

    METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

    The subject of quantitative research is to examine the level of knowledge, factors that influence the knowledge and perceptions of students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies about natural disasters. In addition, perceptions and actual knowledge of students about natural disasters are measured. In order to reach valid conclusions about what influences the knowledge of respondents about natural disasters, we examined the impact of several groups of factors. First, we examined the influence of de- mographic characteristics and the impact of factors of the close environment of the respondents such as gender, education, people with whom she/he lives, employment and education of parents on the knowledge of natural disasters. We then examined the effect of place or media where the respondent has obtained information about natural disasters. The results of the impact of these factors will allow the selection of instruments that will be the most effective way to influence the knowledge of high school students about an earthquake. In addition, this paper will examine the impact of personal experience or experience of closest family members related to natural disasters. These results will determine whether it is necessary the same degree of influence on the education of students of the Academy in the areas where they occurred in areas where major consequences occurred and in areas where major consequences of natural disasters were not reported. Finally we examine the association between feelings of fear and knowledge about the earthquake and the linkage of knowledge and desire for further learning about the earthquake. The results of these tests will allow the selection of the best ways of learning. The following will show concrete results in the order provided in this paragraph.

    Sample

    Bearing in mind that the students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies are in formed groups of years of studying we chose a cluster sample. Therefore, we decided not to perform the election of members of the population for the sample directly but to select an entire group (first-year students). We have chosen the first year because it is the largest and did not have the subjects related to this area. More spe- cifically, members of the population consisting of all students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies (from the first to the fourth year of study) were not pulled out individually for the sample but from the population one group (first year students) was pulled out. Since we have decided to include all members of the selected year in the sample, we conducted single-stage cluster sampling. The advantages of this kind of sampling are related to lower costs of implementation, while the negative side is that there is no question about the independence of the election, as members of the same cluster are more likely to be found in the sample than members of different clusters (years of studies).

    In order to gain insight into the representativeness of the sample it is necessary to analyze the structure of respondents according to key characteristics for the field of natural disasters. Below we will present the structure of the sample by gender, family members with whom respondents live, education of these family members and their employment. The survey covered a total of 360 respondents. The men in the sample represented 60.3%, while women made up 39.7%. Based on the structure of students by the members of the household with whom they live, it is observed that 90.3% of respondents live with their father and 97.5% with the mother. It is observed that a smaller number of respondents live with their father, which could be related with the divorce proceedings or other factors. In addition to parents, 10.6% of respondents live with a grandfather as well, while 21.4% also live with a grandmother. Also, it is expected that a small number of high school students live with grandparents. In order to gain a better insight into the representativeness of the sample we analyzed the structure by education of parents. The results showed that the structure of edu- cation of parents both in the sample and in the population does not differ substantially and that the struc- ture of education is expected. There is a very small percentage of respondents with parents who have only primary education. Also, it is expected that most parents have completed secondary school (63.3% of fa- thers, 65% of mothers), then higher education (19.2% of fathers, 13.6% of mothers), high education (9.6% fathers, 13.6% mothers) and finally with academic titles (4% of fathers, 1.4% of mothers). If we observe the structure by the parents’ employment, it can be seen that in 46.1% of cases, both parents are employed, in 37.5% of cases only one parent, and in 16.4% of cases, both parents are unemployed (Table 1).

    Table 1 Review of descriptive statistical indicators of categorical variables

     

     

    Variables Categories Frequency Percent (%)

    Gender

     

                 Male                      217              60.3%      

     

    Female 143 39.7%

    Living with father                   Yes                      325              90.3%      

    No 35 9.7%

     

     

     

    Living with mother Yes 351 97.5%

    No 9 2.5%

     

     

    Living with grandfather Yes 38 10.6%

    No 322 89.4%

     

     

    Living with grandmother Yes 77 21.4%

    No 283 78.6%

     

     

    Primary education 19 5.3%

     

    Secondary education 227 63.3%

     

    Education of father

    Education of mother

     

    Employment of parents

    Higher education 69 19.2%

     

     

    High education 35 9.7%

    Academic title 10 1.4%

     

    Primary education 23 6.4%

     

    Secondary education 234 65.0%

     

    Higher education 49 13.6%

     

    High education 49 13.6%

    Academic title 5 1.4%

     

    One parent is employed 135 37.5%

     

    Both parents are employed 166 46.1%

    Unemployed 59 16.4%

     

    Bearing in mind the importance of calculating the “aggregated” statistical indicators for continuous variables, we chose to perceive the mean, median and standard deviation for variables such as age and av- erage score of respondents in the previous year relating to the final year in high school. For the age variable, we have data on 360 respondents, their age ranges from 18 to 22 years, a mean is 19.1 years and a standard deviation from this mean is 0.698 years. Average score ranges from 2.92 to 5.00, mean is 4.46 and standard deviation from this mean is 0.48550. It is very important to say something about the distribution of values of continuous variables (skewness and kurtosis of their distribution). The positive value of the skewness of 1.223 for age of respondents shows that most of the results is on the left from the middle value among smaller results, while positive value of kurtosis of 3.723 indicates that the distribution is more peaked than normal distribution, i.e. more results are concentrated around the center of the distribution. The positive value of the skewness of 1.223 for ages of respondents shows that most of the results are on the left from the mean among smaller results, while positive value of kurtosis of 3.723 indicates that the distribution is more peaked than normal distribution, i.e. more results are concentrated around the center of the distribution. On the other hand, negative skewness and kurtosis values for average score of respondents indicate that most of the results is on the right from the mean among higher values, while the value of the kurtosis which is below 0 indicates that the distribution is more peaked than normal distribution (Table 1 and Table 2).

    Table 2 Review of descriptive statistical indicators of continuous variables

    Variables

    N

    Mini-

    mum

    Maxi-

    mum

    Mean

    Std. De-

    viation

    Skewness

    Kurtosis

    Sta-

    tistic

    Statis-

    tic

    Statistic

    Statis-

    tic

    Statistic

    Statistic

    Std.

    Error

    Statistic

    Std.

    Error

    Age of respon-

    dents

    360

    18

    22

    19.01

    .698

    1.223

    .129

    3.723

    .256

    The average

    score

    360

    2.92

    5.00

    4.4641

    .48550

    -.756

    .129

    -.014

    .256

    Instrument

    The main instrument used in the study was a questionnaire which was created for the purposes of re- search. All questions are closed-ended. The first set of questions relates to the knowledge and perceptions of students about natural disasters, while the second set refers to a way of gaining information about natural disasters. Other questions were related to feelings (fear, anxiety) and the desire to learn more about natural disasters.

    Method of questioning

    All first-year students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies received questionnaires which they filled out under the supervision in one of the amphitheaters. All confusions and questions that the students had regarding the questionnaire, were responded by the present interviewer.

    Data analysis

    Analysis of data collected from the survey was based on the application of the methods of descriptive statistics, namely the determination of frequencies, calculating percentages and mean values. Used statisti- cal tests are the chi-square test for testing the independence between the knowledge of the respondents in terms of natural disasters and the factors that are assumed to influence this knowledge.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    In the first step, the respondents answered the question of whether they know what represents one of the following natural disasters. During the survey, respondents were noted that this does not refer to the knowledge of definition, but rather a clear idea of what such natural disaster presents. Based on the results, it is evident that there is a high level of knowledge on natural disasters. However, in the first place by the level of knowledge on natural disaster are floods 99.4%, followed by drought 99.2%, fire, 98.6%, earthquake98.3%, tsunami 98.1%, epidemics 97.8%, hurricanes 96.9%, volcanic eruptions 96.1%, extreme temperature 95.3% and landslides 93.3%. Thus, the natural disasters that are best known are common in our region. Landslides are in the last place. However, the answers that were given represent a subjective judgment about the knowledge on natural disasters (Table 3). That is why we decided to also examine real- istic knowledge of natural disasters.

    Table 3 Review of responses to the question related to knowledge on certain natural disaster

    Frequency

    Percent

    Earthquake

    Yes

    354

    98.3

    I’m not sure

    5

    1.4

    No

    1

    .3

    Flood

    Yes

    358

    99.4

    I’m not sure

    2

    .6

    Total

    360

    100.0

    The extreme tem- perature

    Yes

    343

    95.3

    I’m not sure

    15

    4.2

    No

    2

    .6

    Landslide

    Yes

    336

    93.3

    I’m not sure

    18

    5.0

    No

    6

    1.7

    Drought

    Yes

    357

    99.2

    I’m not sure

    2

    .6

    No

    1

    .3

    Volcanic eruptions

    Yes

    346

    96.1

    I’m not sure

    10

    2.8

    No

    4

    1.1

    Tsunami

    Yes

    353

    98.1

    I’m not sure

    5

    1.4

    No

    2

    .6

    Hurricane

    Yes

    349

    96.9

    I’m not sure

    11

    3.1

    Total

    360

    100.0

    Forest fire

    Yes

    355

    98.6

    I’m not sure

    3

    .8

    No

    1

    .3

    Epidemic

    Yes

    352

    97.8

    I’m not sure

    2

    .6

    No

    6

    1.7

    The results of testing of real knowledge on certain natural disasters differ from their subjective percep- tions on knowledge. Specifically, of 98.3% of respondents who answered that they know what an earth- quake is, 92.2% of respondents was right. Thus, 6.1% of respondents only think they know what an earth- quake is. When talking about other natural disasters, the results are as follows: flood (99.4% replied posi- tively, 93.1% really know, 6.3.% only think they know); drought (99.2% answered positively, 97.8% really

    know, 1.4.% only think they know); fire (98.6% responded positively, 71.9% really know, 26.7% only think they know); tsunami (98.1% responded positively, 88.9% really know, 9.2% only think they know); epidem- ics (97.8% answered positively, 98.1% really know, therefore, more respondents know than the number of respondents who think they know); hurricane (96.9% answered positively, 95.6% really know, 1.3% only think they know); volcanic eruptions (96.1% replied positively, 95.6% really know, 1.5% only think they know); extreme temperatures (95.3% replied positively, 77.8% really know, 17.5% only think they know); landslides (95.3% replied positively, 59.4% really know, 35.9% only think they know). Based on the results we can conclude that most respondents wrongly believed that they know about landslides 35.9%, fire 26.7% and extreme temperatures 17%) (Table 4).

    Table 4 Review of responses to the question of what best describes a particular natural disaster

    Frequency

    Percent

    Earthquake

    Massive landslides

    20

    5.6

    Sudden shakes

    332

    92.2

    Raising in water level

    5

    1.4

    Flood

    Heavy rains

    23

    6.4

    Large ponds on the

    street

    1

    .3

    Raising in water level and overflow of the

    river bed

    335

    93.1

    The extreme temperature

    A large number of fires

    70

    19.4

    High and low tempera-

    tures

    280

    77.8

    Snowfalls

    2

    .6

    Landslide

    Sudden movement

    of soil

    214

    59.4

    Cracking of soil

    58

    16.1

    Slow movement of soil

    71

    19.7

    Drought

    Bad weather conditions

    4

    1.1

    Lack of rainfalls

    352

    97.8

    Increased humidity

    2

    .6

    Volcanic erup- tions

    Lava and ash

    344

    95.6

    Underwater earth-

    quakes

    6

    1.7

    Tsunami

    Surge

    320

    88.9

    Snow slips

    1

    .3

    Strong gusts of wind

    34

    9.4

    Hurricane

    Hot air

    8

    2.2

    Strong winds

    344

    95.6

    High temperatures

    1

    .3

    Forest fire

    A lot of smoke

    28

    7.8

    Process of uncontrolled burning of combustible

    materials

    259

    71.9

    Process of spreading

    fire without smoke

    70

    19.4

    Epidemic

    Massive number of

    diseased people

    353

    98.1

    A large number of

    insects

    1

    .3

    Massive number of

    infected plants

    7

    1,6

    Given the importance of knowledge on safety procedures in the event of a natural disaster, we wanted to research the level of their knowledge about it. The best knowledge on safety procedures refers to drought, because 98.6% of respondents indicate appropriate action. The lowest level of knowledge on safety proce- dures is registered in extreme temperatures and it amounts to 52.5%. Specifically, the respondents were in a serious dilemma when deciding whether it is necessary in extreme temperatures to drink plenty of fluids or not to leave the house. The problem can be found in the fact that many people associate extreme temper-

    atures only with high temperatures. Yet even in these situations, the use of liquid cannot help in protecting the health and life of humans. In addition to extreme temperatures, concern refers to one of the most com- mon natural disasters such as forest fires. Although 60.3% gave the correct answer, it is worrying that even 26.4% of respondents opted for pouring as one of the ways of protection. Thus, one third of respondents are in a serious delusion that they will be protected against the effects of fire and smoke by pouring. Results related to knowledge on safety procedures in the event of natural disasters are: floods, 85.3% of respondents gave the correct answer; landslides 91.9%; volcanic eruptions 95%; tsunamis 97.2%; hurricanes 92.2.%;

    epidemics 77.8% (Table 5).

    Table 5 Review of responses to the question of how to stay safe in the event of a natural disaster

    Frequency

    Percent

    Earthquake

    I leave the house in an open space.

    265

    73.6

    I go to the basement.

    67

    18.6

    I hide myself next to the wall.

    25

    6.9

    Flood

    Seeking the help of rescuers

    32

    8.9

    Climbing to higher ground

    307

    85.3

    Closing all the openings in the

    apartment/house

    20

    5.6

    Extreme temperature

    Going out into the open

    18

    5.0

    Staying in the house

    189

    52.5

    Drinking plenty of fluids

    145

    40.3

    Landslide

    Going outside to watch

    5

    1.4

    Getting out of the path

    331

    91.9

    Getting in the house

    6

    1.7

    Drought

    I don’t leave the house

    3

    .8

    Ensuring adequate supplies of water

    355

    98.6

    Volcanic eruptions

    Going to lower ground

    7

    1.9

    I stay in the house

    1

    .3

    Evacuation or finding shelter

    342

    95.0

    Tsunami

    Immediate evacuation

    350

    97.2

    Lying down on the ground

    6

    1.7

    Hurricane

    Entering the boat and going as far

    away from the coast

    14

    3.9

    Staying at safe home until the end

    of the hurricane

    332

    92.2

    Getting out into the open space

    8

    2.2

    Forest fire

    Water pouring

    95

    26.4

    Lying down on the ground and

    crawl to a safe place

    217

    60.3

    Closing the openings in the room

    46

    12.8

    Epidemic

    Going to an open place

    1

    .3

    Going to the infirmary

    73

    20.3

    Avoidance of contact with other

    people

    280

    77.8

    When talking about reducing the risk of natural disasters, we can say rightly that schools are unavoida- ble entities that play an increasingly important role. They play a crucial role in providing basic information on natural disasters in a local community. Shivaku says that the importance of school education on natural disasters has increased rapidly, stating the following reasons: children are most susceptible category in so- ciety; they represent the future; school is a center of education and the actual outcomes of the educational process are transferred to their families and local community itself; schools are recognized as centers of culture and education.30 The question is what the situation is with the education of students about natural disasters in Serbia. Based on survey results, it can be said that serious attention is given to these thematic units. Of the total number of respondents, 86.9% answered that someone at school talked them about nat- ural disasters, as opposed to 13.1% who answered negatively (Table 6).

     

  30. Lindstone, J.: Isto, str 45.

    Table 6 Review of answers to the question of whether someone at school has talked about natural disasters

    Frequency

    Percent

    Valid Percent

    Cumulative Percent

    Valid

    Yes

    313

    86.9

    86.9

    86.9

    No

    47

    13.1

    13.1

    100.0

    Total

    360

    100.0

    100.0

    When asked to indicate person at school who has talked to them about some of the natural disasters, the respondents said: teacher 63.6%, school organized a lecture on the topic 10.8%, and some other services (police, first respondents, emergency service), 12.8%.

    Of the total number of respondents, 79.2% were introduced with some of the natural disasters by a family member, while 20.8% were not introduced. When asked who in the family introduced them to some of the natural disasters, the respondents said: father 66.4%, mother, 55.3%, grandfather 21.4% , grandmother 15.3%. When asked to specify these natural disasters, they gave the following answers: floods 56.9%, flash floods17.2%, tsunami 22.5%, epidemics 39.4%, extreme temperatures 23.9%, droughts 38.9%, landslides 20.3%, volcanic eruptions 20.3%, about every disaster a little bit 23.1%, about some other disasters 5.6% (Table 7).

    Table 7 Review of answers to the question whether someone in the family has talked to you about natural disasters

    Frequency

    Percent

    Valid Percent

    Cumulative Percent

    Valid

    Yes

    285

    79.2

    79.2

    79.2

    No

    75

    20.8

    20.8

    100.0

    Total

    360

    100.0

    100.0

    In order to improve the knowledge and security culture of Academy students, it is important to exam- ine what are the most common ways in obtaining information about natural disasters. In this way, we can get clear arguments in encouraging certain ways of transferring knowledge. The largest number of students gained information about natural disasters through television 92.8% , the Internet 71%, lectures 37.5%, radio 13.9% and video-games 5.8% (Table 8).

    Table 8 Review of answers to the question about

    the way of obtaining information about natural disasters

    Sources of information

    Frequency

    Percent

    Valid Percent

    Cumulative Percent

    Television

    Yes

    334

    92.8

    92.8

    92.8

    No

    26

    7.2

    7.2

    100.0

    Radio

    Yes

    50

    13.9

    13.9

    13.9

    No

    310

    86.1

    86.1

    100.0

    Video games

    Yes

    21

    5.8

    5.8

    5.8

    No

    339

    94.2

    94.2

    100.0

    Internet

    Yes

    256

    71.1

    71.1

    71.1

    No

    104

    28.9

    28.9

    100.0

    Lectures

    Yes

    135

    37.5

    37.5

    37.5

    No

    225

    62.5

    62.5

    100.0

    In order to better understand the attitude towards natural disasters, it is important to consider whether someone in the family suffered the consequences of natural disasters. The question that arises refers to the relationship between experienced natural disasters and education of children in such situations. According to the survey results, it is evident that a small number of people suffered the consequences and these are: fathers 13.1%, mothers, 6.9%, grandparents 10.8% and grandmothers 10.6%. The next question was relat- ed to the specifying the natural disaster that someone from the family suffered: earthquake 28.6%, flood 10.6%, flash flood 1.1%, extreme temperatures 6.4%, droughts 3.6%, landslides 0.6% (Table 9).

    Table 9 Review of answers to the question of whether someone in your family directly / indirectly suffered the consequences of natural disasters

    Frequency

    Percent

    Valid Percent

    Cumulative Percent

    Father

    Yes

    47

    13.1

    13.1

    13.1

    No

    313

    86.9

    86.9

    100.0

    Mother

    Yes

    25

    6.9

    13.1

    13.1

    No

    335

    93.1

    86.9

    100.0

    Blanket

    Yes

    39

    10.8

    10.8

    10.8

    No

    321

    89.2

    89.2

    100.0

    Grandmother

    Yes

    38

    10.6

    10.6

    10.6

    No

    322

    89.4

    89.4

    100.0

    Given the seriousness of the consequences of natural disasters, one of the most important measures of preparedness refers to the education of citizens. In this part of the paper we examine the motivation of stu- dents to acquire knowledge about various natural disasters. Based on survey results, it is unequivocally rec- ognized that the interest is high. Specifically, 81.1% of them said that they want to learn more, about 10% were not sure and 8.9% do not want to learn more. The question that arises refers to the way in which they would like to learn. Therefore, we asked students if they would like to learn more about natural disasters in school or family. 77.8% of them stated that they wanted to learn in school, while 9.7% chose the family. When asked why they want to learn more, most respondents gave as answer one of the reasons of security (Table 10)

    Table 10 Review of responses to the question of whether you would like to learn more about natural disasters

    Frequency

    Percent

    Valid Percent

    Cumulative Percent

    Valid

    Yes

    292

    81.1

    81.1

    81.1

    I’m not sure

    36

    10.0

    10.0

    91.1

    No

    32

    8.9

    8.9

    100.0

    Being protected against natural disasters is a very important safety issue. Such a variable can be in a very close relationship with the taking of measures of preparedness for a specific natural disaster. The survey results indicate that 60.6% of respondents feel protected, 32.2.% are not sure and 6.9% do not feel protected in the facilities of the Academy when it comes to natural disasters. Of the total number of respondents who answered that they feel protected against natural disasters, the reasons were as follows: because the school buildings are safe, 22.5% of respondents; because teachers are trained in handling such situations, 23.6%; because I know what I should do in such situations, 30.6% (Table 11).

    Table 11 Review of answers to the question whether you feel secure in the building of the Academy from natural disasters

    Frequency

    Percent

    Valid Percent

    Cumulative Percent

    Valid

    Yes

    218

    60.6

    60.7

    60.7

    I’m not sure

    116

    32.2

    32.3

    93.0

    No

    25

    6.9

    7.0

    100.0

    Total

    359

    99.7

    100.0

    Of the total number of respondents, 26.4% feel the fear from natural disasters, 20.3% are not sure and 53.3% do not feel fear. It can be said that the number of respondents who feel fear is not negligible, especially considering the number of those who are not sure. Accordingly, we wanted to examine in which natural disasters that fear reaches its highest level (Table 12).

    Table 12 Review of answers to the question of whether you have a fear of natural disasters

    Frequency

    Percent

    Valid Percent

    Cumulative Percent

    Valid

    Yes

    95

    26.4

    26.4

    26.4

    I’m not sure

    73

    20.3

    20.3

    46.7

    No

    192

    53.3

    53.3

    100.0

    Total

    360

    100.0

    100.0

    By the question referring to the concern, we examined the level of concern for each of these natural disas- ters. Results correspond to logic of common sense that respondents are most unconcerned about natural dis- asters that have never happened in our area. For instance, 71.1% of respondents are not concerned about tsu- namis and 70% about volcanic eruptions. However, when it comes to earthquakes 35%, extreme temperatures 36.4%, landslides 24.7% and epidemics 29.2%, there is a distinct level that refers to sporadic concerns. It is characteristic that most respondents are extremely concerned about epidemics with share of 8.6% (Table 13).

    Table 13 Review of answers to the question of how much you are concerned about natural disasters

    Flood

    Earth-

    quake

    Extreme

    temperature

    Land-

    slides

    Tsu-

    nami

    Volcanic erup-

    tions

    Epidemics

    I am not concerned

    42.5%

    42.5%

    39.7%

    56.7%

    71.1%

    70.0%

    30.3%

    Sometimes concerned

    35.0%

    35.0%

    36.4%

    24.7%

    11.7%

    10.3%

    29.2%

    Concerned

    17.8%

    17.8%

    16.9%

    12.2%

    8.3%

    10.3%

    23.3%

    Very concerned

    3.1%

    3.1%

    3.6%

    4.4%

    5.3%

    5.3%

    8.6%

    Extremely concerned

    1.7%

    1.7%

    3.3%

    1.9%

    3.6%

    4.2%

    8.6%

    A frequently asked question relates to the interest of citizens, students and pupils on training in emer- gency situations. That is why we wanted to examine the interest of students of the Academy for one such training. A large number of respondents 83.9% would like to undergo training, 8.9% are not sure and 7.2% do not want this training. The results are in some way expected bearing in mind the work of police officers which they are educated for. Of course, we wanted to examine the reasons why they would like training: 60.3% said they would feel safer; 45% said they could inform their family members about the ways of pro- tection against natural disasters. Accordingly, we examined whether they are for the introduction of the subject on which they would be educated about emergency situations. 55.6% of them answered positively, while 37.8% were not sure and 6.7% answered negatively (Table 14).

    Table 14 Review of answers to the question of whether you would like to get some form of training in emergency situations caused by natural disasters?

    Frequency

    Percent

    Valid Percent

    Cumulative

    Percent

    Valid

    Yes

    302

    83.9

    83.9

    83.9

    I’m not sure

    32

    8.9

    8.9

    92.8

    No

    26

    7.2

    7.2

    100.0

    Total

    360

    100.0

    100.0

    Most of the respondents 58.3% answered that they would like to obtain information about natural dis- asters and the way of protection through educational films and series. These are followed by workshops 41.1%, classical lessons 26.4%, case studies 25.8% and interesting video games 8.6% (Table 15).

    Table 15 Review of answers to the question of how you would like to gain information about natural disasters and how to protect against them?

    Methods of obtain-

    ing information

    Classic

    lessons

    Educational films

    and series

    Case stud-

    ies

    Interesting video

    games

    Workshops

    Yes

    26.4%

    58.3%

    25.8%

    8.6%

    41.1%

    No

    73.3%

    41.4%

    73.9%

    91.1%

    58.6%

    To test the independence of individual factors and knowledge of the respondents it is used the chi- square test. The final results were obtained summing the test results for each type of natural disasters and dividing by the total number of disasters.

    In order to determine a correlation between certain characteristics of respondent and his/her perception and knowledge on safety procedures for responding to natural disasters, we have opted for the chi-square test of independence (Chi-Square – χ2). In order to research the level of impact of gender, we used Cramer’s V which takes into account the number of degrees of freedom. We chose Cramer’s coefficient instead phi coefficient because it is a table larger than 2 by 2. Taking into account that for R-1 or K-1, in our case it is equal to 1, to assess the level of impact of gender on the knowledge of security procedures we used the fol- lowing criteria: small = 0.01; medium = 0.30; big = 0.50 impact. Judging by the results, there is a statistically significant correlation between: father’s education (p = 0,03≤0,05, phi = 0.30 – medium); mother’s educa- tion (p = 0,04≤0,05, phi = 0.10 – small); employment of parents (p = 0,05≤0,05, phi = 0.30 – medium) and knowledge about natural disasters. Also, there is a statistically significant relationship between television and the perception of knowledge about natural disasters (p = 0,05≤0,05, phi = 0.21 – medium) (Table 16).

    of parents

     

    education

     

    education

     

    grandmother

     

    grandfather

     

    mother

     

    father

     

    Table 16 Results of testing the influence of selected factors on the knowledge of high school students about the earthquake

    Gender

    Living with

    Living with

    Living with

    Living with

    Father’s

    Mother’s

    Employment

    Fear

    Television

    Radio

    Internet

    Lectures

    Perception of knowledge

    x2

    2.23

    1.19

    0.98

    3.12

    1.42

    2.01

    3.12

    1.21

    5.16

    18.6

    1.03

    19.5

    1.72

    df

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    3

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    p

    0.39

    0.54

    0.78

    0.09

    0.24

    0.41

    0.32

    0.41

    0.68

    0.05

    0.60

    0.04

    0.44

    V

    0.07

    0.03

    0.04

    0.01

    0.10

    0.02

    0.17

    0.05

    0.08

    0.30

    0.20

    0.20

    0.02

    Knowledge

    x2

    1.10

    0.38

    0.18

    1.96

    2.65

    23.7

    18.6

    19.6

    1.73

    0.43

    1.14

    3.41

    2.57

    df

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    3

    2

    2

    3

    2

    3

    p

    0.57

    0.62

    0.96

    0.36

    0.08

    0.03

    0.04

    0.05

    0.42

    0.80

    0.12

    0.12

    0.09

    V

    0.05

    0.03

    0.02

    0.07

    0.26

    0.30

    0.10

    0.30

    0.06

    0.04

    0.02

    0.04

    0.05

    Knowledge of

    security procedures

    x2

    5.12

    1.28

    1.90

    9.79

    1.18

    1.90

    1.73

    0.477

    2.66

    1.42

    2.14

    3.1

    4.1

    df

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    2

    3

    3

    2

    3

    2

    3

    2

    p

    0.24

    0.43

    0.13

    0.58

    0.93

    0.13

    0.28

    0.38

    0.07

    0.55

    0.28

    0.30

    0.41

    V

    0.02

    0.02

    0.07

    0.06

    0.03

    0.00

    0.03

    0.03

    0.03

    0.02

    0.07

    0.06

    0.03

    CONCLUSION

    Experience has shown that access to high-quality educational programs about natural disasters is of crucial importance in protecting children and their families. It was also noted that instead of considering children and women as the most vulnerable categories (victims), they can be recognized as contributors to the recovery of community assuming that they have acquired a solid knowledge on natural disasters and elimination of their consequences. Education about risk of natural disasters can be represented through special programs or through the implementation into basic curriculum. Furthermore, such education can be realized through curricular and extra-curricular activities (such as, for example, various workshops, games, etc.). Although the education of young people for the protection of life, health and the environment has its roots in the family and pre-school education, the school is irreplaceable in achieving this goal. The school is obliged to develop the knowledge, awareness and habits that prevent dangers, in fact, in its basic function it has the task to enable humans, on the one hand, to rule over nature, and on the other, protec- tion against hazards that may befall them and against his ‘human nature’ itself.31 It is important to have awareness that we ‘cannot escape’ from dangers; they can only be prevented,that is, their consequences can be prevented by knowledge, awareness and education to automatism of habits. In addition, education for active and passive protection of self and others, physical integrity or natural properties and the environ- ment, while creating habits and feelings of responsibility, truthfulness, humanity, justice, modesty is subject of educational influence of school education. The main findings are: respondents showed a high level of knowledge about natural disasters, however, the level is the highest in natural disasters that are present in our region; the best knowledge on safety procedures is in relation to droughts, because 98.6% of respond- ents indicate appropriate treatment. The lowest level of knowledge of safety procedures is registered in extreme temperatures and amounts 52.5%; of the total, 86.9% of respondents said that they had someone at school who talked about natural disasters, as opposed to 13.1% who responded negatively, 79.2% of respondents were introduced with some of the natural disaster by a family member, while 20.8% were not; 60.6% of respondents feel protected, 32.2.% are not sure and 6.9% do not feel protected in the facilities of the Academy when it comes to natural disasters; 26.4% feel the fear of natural disasters, 20.3% are not sure and 53.3% do not feel fear; 83.9% of respondents would like to undergo training, 8.9% are not sure and 7.2% do not want; the largest number of respondents gained information about natural disasters through television 92.8%, and the smallest number through video-games 5.8%. The results indicate that there is a statistically significant correlation between: the father’s education (p = 0,03≤0,05, phi = 0.30 – medium); mother’s edu- cation (p = 0,04≤0,05, phi = 0.10 – small); employment of parents (p = 0,05≤0,05, phi = 0.30 – medium) and knowledge about natural disasters. Also, there is a statistically significant relationship between television and the perception of knowledge about natural disasters (p = 0,05≤0,05, phi = 0.21 – medium);

     

  31. Kuroiwa, J. A.: Peru’s national education program for disaster prevention and mitigation (PNEPDPM). Training and Education for Improving Earthquake Disaster Management in Developing Countries, UNCRD Meeting Report Series, 57, 95–102, 1993.

REFERENCES

  1. Adem, Ö.: The Relationship between Earthquake Knowledge and Earthquake Attitudes of Disaster Relief Staffs. Disaster Advances, 4(1), 2011, 19-24.
  2. Arya, A. S.: Training and drills for the general public in emergency response to a major earthquake, Training and Education for Improving Earthquake Disaster Management in Developing Countries, 1993, pp. 103-14, UNCRD Meeting Report Series No. 57.
  3. Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., & Ronan, K. R.: A model of household preparedness for earth- quakes: how individuals make meaning of earthquake information and how this influences prepared- ness. Natural hazards, 64(1), 2012, 107-137.
  4. Becker, J., Johnston, D., Paton, D., & Ronan, K.: Community resilience to earthquakes: Understanding how individuals make meaning of hazard information, and how this relates to preparing for hazards. Paper presented at the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, 2009.
  5. Cvetković, V., Mijalković, S.: Spatial and Temporal distribution of geophysical disasters. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, Journal of the Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić’’ 63/3, 345-360.
  6. Cvetković, V., Milojković, B., & Stojković, D.: Analiza geoprostorne i vremenske distribucije zemljotresa kao prirodnih katastrofa. Vojno delo, 2014, letnje izdanje.
  7. Cvetković, V.: Geoprostorna i vremenska distribucija vulkanskih erupcija. NBP – Žurnal za kriminalis- tiku i pravo, 2/2014, 153-17.
  8. Cvetković, V., Dragićević, S.: Prostorna i vremenska distribucija prirodnih nepogoda. Zbornik radova Geografskog instituta „Jovan Cvijić“ SANU, 293-309, 2014.
  9. Cvetković, V.: Spatial and temporal distribution of floods like natural emergency situations. Internation- al scientific conference Archibald Reiss days (pp. 371-389). Belgrade: The academy of criminalistic and police studies, 2014.
  10. Edwards, M. L.: Social location and self-protective behavior: Implications for earthquake preparedness.

    International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 11(3), 1993, 293-303.

  11. Faupel, C. E., Kelley, S. P., & Petee, T.: The impact of disaster education on household preparedness for Hurricane Hugo. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters10(1), 1992, 5-24;
  12. Finnis, K. K., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R., & White, J. D.: Hazard perceptions and preparedness of Taranaki youth. Disaster Prevention and Management, 19(2), 2010, 175-184.
  13. Fortuin, J., Bush, R. (2010). Educating students to cross boundaries between disciplines and cultures and between theory and practice. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(1), 19–35, 2010.
  14. Frew, S.L.: Public awareness and social marketing”, Regional Workshop on Best Practices in Disaster Management, Bangkok, 2002, pp. 381-393.
  15. Hurnen, F., & McClure, J.: The effect of increased earthquake knowledge on perceived preventability of earthquake damage. Australas. J. Disaster trauma study (3), 1997.
  16. Ivanov, A., Cvetković, V.: The role of education in natural disaster risk reduction. Horizons, international scientific journal, year X Volume 16, 2014.
  17. Johnson, V. A., Ronan, K. R., Johnston, D. M., & Peace, R.: Evaluations of disaster education programs for children: A methodological review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 9, 2014, 107-123.
  18. Kohn, S., Eaton, J. L., Feroz, S., Bainbridge, A. A., Hoolachan, J., & Barnett, D. J.: Personal disaster pre- paredness: an integrative review of the literature. Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 6(03), 2012, 217-231.
  19. Kurita, T., Nakamura, A., Kodama, M., & Colombage, S. R.: Tsunami public awareness and the disaster management system of Sri Lanka. Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(1), 2006, 92-110.
  20. Kuroiwa, J.A.: Peru’s national education program for disaster prevention and mitigation (PNEPDPM)”, Training and Education for Improving Earthquake Disaster Management in Developing Counties, UNCRD Meeting Report Series, No. 57, 1993, pp. 95-102.
  21. Lidstone, J.: Disaster education: Where we are and where we should be. In: Lidstone, J. (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching about hazards and disasters (p. 3). Philadelphia, USA: Channel View Publica- tions, 1996:34.
  22. Liu, S., Quenemoen, L. E., Malilay, J., Noji, E., Sinks, T., & Mendlein, J.: Assessment of a severe-weath- er warning system and disaster preparedness, Calhoun County, Alabama, American journal of public health, 86(1), 1996, 87-89.
  23. Mishra, S., & Suar, D.: Do lessons people learn determine disaster cognition and preparedness?. Psy- chology & Developing Societies, 19(2), 2007, 143-159.
  24. Mlađan, D., Cvetković, V.: Classification of Emergency Situations. Belgrade: Thematic Proceedings of International Scientific Conference “Archibald Reiss Days“, Academy of criminalistic and police studies, 2013, pp. 275-291.
  25. Naill M. Momani, Asad Salmi,”Preparedness of schools in the Province of Jeddah to deal with earth- quakes risks”, Disaster Prevention and Management, 2012, Vol. 21 Iss: 4 pp. 463 – 473.
  26. Panic, M., Kovacevic-Majkic, J., Miljanovic, D., & Miletic, R.: Importance of natural disaster education- case study of the earthquake near the city of Kraljevo: First results. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, SASA, 63(1), 2013, 75-88.
  27. Radu, C.: Necessity of training and education in earthquake-prone country”, Training and Education for Improving Earthquake Disaster Management in Developing Countries, UNCRD Meeting Report Series, 1993, No. 57, pp. 15-33;
  28. Rajib, S., Koichi, S., Yukiko, T.: Disaster education. United Kingdom, Emerald Group Publishing, 2011.
  29. Ronan, K. R., & Johnston, D. M.: Correlates of hazard education programs for youth. Risk Analysis, 2001,

    21(6), 1055-1064.

  30. Ronan, K. R., Johnston, D. M., Daly, M., & Fairley, R.: School children’s risk perceptions and prepared- ness: A hazards education survey. Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 1, 2001.
  31. Shaw, R., Shiwaku, K., Kobayashi, H., Kobayashi, M.: Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management, 2004, 13(1), 39–49.
  32. Tomio, J., Sato, H., Matsuda, Y., Koga, T., & Mizumura, H.: Household and Community Disaster Pre- paredness in Japanese Provincial City: A Population-Based Household Survey. Advances in Anthro- pology, 2014.
  33. UN/ISDR.: World disaster reduction campaign. Disaster risk reduction begins at school. Available at http://www.unisdr.org/eng/public_aware/world_camp/2006-2007/pdf/WDRC-2006-2007-English- fullversion.pdf,2006 (Accessed on January 10.04. 2013).
  34. Zakon o vanrednim situacijama Republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, broj 111/2009.

Leave a Reply

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