Religiousness level and citizen preparedness for natural disasters

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

Cvetković, V., Gačić, J., & Babić, S. (2017). Religiousness level and citizen preparedness for natural disasters. Vojno delo, 69(4), 253-262.

 

Vladimir M. Cvetković*, Slađana Babić** and Jasmina Gačić**

The Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies, Belgrade*

Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade**

Abstract: The subject of quantitative research was examination relationship between the level of religiousness and perception of citizen’s flood disaster preparedness. The aim of such research was a scientific explanation of relationships of these characteristics and perception. Bearing in mind all local communities in Serbia where floods occurred or there is a high risk of flooding, randomly it was selected sample consisting 19 of 150 municipalities and 23 towns, as well as the city of Belgrade, in which was surveyed 2,500 persons in 2015. The research included following communities: Obrenovac, Šabac, Kruševac, Kragujevac, Sremska Mitrovica, Priboj, Batočina, Svilajnac, Lapovo, Paraćin, Smederevska Palanka, Jaša Tomić, Loznica, Bajina Basta, Smederevo, Novi Sad, Kraljevo, Rekovac and Užice. Selected communities research was undertaken in those areas which  were most affected in relation to the amount of water or potential risk of flooding. The survey used strategy of testing in households with the use of a multi-stage random sample. In the first stage were determined the parts in the administrative headquarters which were threatened by a hundred-year-old water or by a potential risk of high water. In the second stage streets and their parts were established, and in the third stage were determined the households in which the survey was conducted. The number of households was coordinated with the size of the community. The fourth stage of sampling referred to the procedure of respondent selection within previously defined household. The respondent selection was conducted using the random sampling method on the adult household members who were present at the time of the survey. The results indicate that there is a a statistically significant correlation level of religiosity with  perception in terms of preparedness of citizens to respond. The research results can contribute to improving citizens’ preparedness to respond to such events and can be used in creation of the strategy for improving the level of preparedness of citizens to respond.

Keywords: security, natural disasters, citizens, religiosity level, perception.

Introduction

Looking through academic works and government reports connected with human security,[1] security threats seems so horrible and so endless: war threats, war, organised criminal, social disagreements, political repression, economic crises, long-term changes on the environment, poverty, mass migrations and internal displacement, terrorism, technological and natural disasters, etc.  Central part of the topic of the humam security is based on these threats, their inclusion or exclusion from the human security program, their gradation and prioritization. In the past decades, vulnerability to natural hazards took precedence over technological and other hazards threatening the community. According to the data from the OFDA/CRED International Disasters Database (EM-DAT), the number of natural disasters appears to be increased worldwide. In the decade 1900-1909, natural disasters occurred 73 times, but in the period 2000-2005 the number of occurrences rose to 2,788. Furthermore, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies reported in 2004 that 231,764 people were killed by disasters in Asia from 1972 to 1996. (Kusumasari, Alam, & Siddiqui, 2010).

Studying natural disasters (Jakovljević, Cvetković, & Gačić, 2015) from the aspect of governing, the researchers have dealt directly/indirectly the issue of preparedness as a theoretical concept and a practical discipline (Cvetković, 2015, 2016b, 2016c; Cvetković, Gačić, & Jakovljević, 2015). Russell and  associates (Russell, Goltz, & Bourque, 1995) under preparedness mean any preventive activity done by an individual, a household, a community or a state before and during a disaster, including obtaining, dealing with and distributing of significant information on preventive activities, getting plans, supplies and equipment. In the theory of disasters researchers searched the influence of different factors on the preparedness of citizens to respond: sex (Becker, 2011), age (Levac, Toal-Sullivan, & OSullivan, 2012), fear (Dooley, Catalano, Mishra, & Serxner, 1992), perception of risk (Mulilis, Duval, & Rogers, 2003), knowledge/education (Çakın, Petal, Sezan, & Türkmen, 2006) etc. Determining the influence of different factors on the preparedness of citizens to react is important because of planning strategy and campaigns for preparedness promotion, but also for emergency and rescue services acting (Cvetković, 2016a; Cvetković & Gačić, 2016).

Religiousness could be connected to spiritual health, as a part of holistic model of health: physical, social, emotional, intellectual  and spiritual health, and in that way can enhancing motivation for community and self-protection. (O’Donnell, 2009).  A frequently asked question about percentage of religious citizens of Serbia are not so simply to answer. In research survey of religiousness of citizens of Serbia and their relation to the European Union with the sample of 1219 examinees, it is concluded that a very high percentage of citizens express themselves as believers (93%) (Bigović & Bone, 2011). According to the results,  3,1% of examinees are absolutely unreligious, 7,8%  are unreligious to a certain extent,  neither religious nor unreligious 57,9%,  20,7% of examinees are religious to a certain extent, and finally 7% of examinees are absolutely religious. According to the results of tables cross-examination, there were more unreligious males than females.

Our investigation aimed to  search the influence of religiousness on the preparedness of citizens to respond to a natural disaster caused by flood in the Republic of Serbia.

Methodology of research

For the purposes the survey realization, statistical method and the method of empirical generalization stratified the local communities with high and low risk of flooding in the Republic of Serbia. Thus the stratum was obtained, i.e. population that consisted of adult residents of local communities where flooding took place or existed a risk of flooding. Using the random sampling method, 19 out of 154 communities with the induced risk of flooding were chosen from the resulting stratum. The research included following communities: Obrenovac, Šabac, Kruševac, Kragujevac, Sremska Mitrovica, Priboj, Batočina, Svilajnac, Lapovo, Paraćin, Smederevska Palanka, Jaša Tomić, Loznica, Bajina Basta, Smederevo, Novi Sad, Kraljevo, Rekovac and Užice. The multilevel random sampling was used in the further procedure. In the first stage were determined the parts in the administrative headquarters which were threatened by a hundred-year-old water or by a potential risk of high water. In the second stage streets and their parts were established, and in the third stage were determined the households in which the survey was conducted. The number of households was coordinated with the size of the community. The fourth stage of sampling referred to the procedure of respondent selection within previously defined household. The respondent selection was conducted using the random sampling method on the adult household members who were present at the time of the survey. 2500 citizens were involved in the survey (Table 1).

Table 1 – Structure overview of features of local communities in which it is conducted citizen surveys

Municipality Total area

  u km2

Settlements Population Number of households Number of respondents Percentages (%)
Obrenovac 410 29 72682 7752 178 7,71
Sabac 797 52 114548 19585 140 6,06
Krusevac 854 101 131368 19342 90 3,90
Kragujevac 835 5 179417 49969 91 3,94
Sremska Mitrovica 762 26 78776 14213 174 7,53
Priboj 553 33 26386 6199 122 5,28
Batocina 136 11 11525 1678 80 3,46
Svilajnac 336 22 22940 3141 115 4,98
Lapovo 55 2 7650 2300 39 1,69
Paracin 542 35 53327 8565 147 6,36
Smed. Palanka 421 18 49185 8700 205 8,87
Secanj – Jasa Tomic 82 1 2373 1111 97 4,20
Loznica 612 54 78136 6666 149 6,45
Bajina Basta 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
Uzice 667 41 76886 17836 147 6,36
In total 10784 634 1500091 283602 2500 100

 

Table 2 gives a detailed structure overview of the interviewed citizens. The implementation of these sampling techniques provided solid representation of the sample; sample size provided reliability in the conclusion regarding the basic set – population.

Table 2 – Structure overview of the sample of interviewed citizens.

Variables Categories Frequency Percentages (%)
Gender Male 1244 49,8
Female 1256 50,2
Years of age From 18 to 28 years 711 28,4
From 28 to 38 years 554 22,2
From 38 to 48 years 521 20,8
From 48 to 58 years 492 19,7
From 58 to 68 years 169 6,8
Over 68 years 53 2,2
Level of education Primary school 180 7,2
Three-years-long secondary education 520 20,8
Four-years-long secondary education 1032 41,3
College (three years) 245 9,8
Faculty (four years) 439 17,6
Master 73 2,9
Doctor of science (PHD) 11 0,4
Marital status Single 470 18,8
Related 423 16,9
Engaged 67 2,7
Married 1366 54,6
Divorced 99 4,0
Widow / widower 75 3,0
Distance household from the river Up to 2 km 1479 59,2
From 2 to 5 km 744 29,8
From 5 to 10 km 231 9,2
Over 10 km 46 1,8
Incomes Up to 25,000 dinars 727 29,1
Up to 50,000 dinars 935 37,4
Up to 75,000 dinars 475 19,0
Over 90,000 dinars 191 7,6

 

Results

Results of  χ–square test of independency (χ2) showed that there is a statistically significant correlation between the level of religiousness and the following variables: preventive measures (p = 0,03 < 0,05, v = 0,072);  engaged in the area (p = 0,010 < 0,05, v = 0,076); engaged in the reception centre  (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,135); prolonged raining (p = 0,034 < 0,05, v = 0,068); increasing the level of rivers (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,098); media reports (p = 0,007 < 0,05, v = 0,079); the level of preparedness (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,078). On the other side, it is not observed statistically significant correlation with the following variables:  visits to the flooded sites (p = 0,100 < 0,05, v = 0,059), financial means (p = 0,090 < 0,05, v = 0,060) (Table 3). According to the obtained results, the highest percentage of the citizens who are not religious to a certain extent would offer to help endangered citizens in the area (28,9%), would help in one of reception centers (10,8%), thoughts of preparedness are aroused by media reports (45,2%), do nothing to prepare themselves  to respond  (66,2%); releigious people to a certain extent are aroused to think about preparedness to respond  by the  increase of the water level (41,5%), have taken preventive measures in order to lessen the flood effects (21%), still are not ready but are going to start preparations next month (14,3%), have recently started preparations (11,8%); absolutely religious citizens are aroused to think about preparedness to respond by prolonged raining (48,2%), still are not ready but are going to do it in the next six months (15,2%), have been preparing for at least 6 months (7,9%).

On the other side, the smallest percentage of unreligious citizens to a certain extent are aroused to think about preparedness to respond by the increase of water level  (26%), have been preparing for at least 6 months (1,4%); neither religious nor unreligious citizens would help in one of the reception centers, have recently started preparations, still are not ready but are going to start preparations next month;  religious citizens to a certain extent have taken preventive measures in order to lessen the flood effects (10,2%), would offer to help endangered citizens in the area (14,3%); absolutely religious citizens are aroused to think about preparedness to respond by prolonged raining (35%), media reports (25,3%), still are not ready but are going to do it in the next six months  (10,4%) do nothing to prepare themselves to respond  (52,6%).

Тable 3. Results overview of  Х-square test of independency (χ2) of  religiousness level and mentioned variables on perception of preparedness to respond

  value df Asymp. Sig. (2 – sided) Cramers V
Preventive measures 22,899 8 ,003* ,072       
Financial means 8,055 4 ,090 ,060
Engaged in the area 13,302 4 ,010* ,076       
Engaged in the reception center 41,751 4 ,000* ,135       
Visit to the flood sites 7,769 4 ,100 ,059
Prolonged raining 10,433 4 ,034* ,068       
Increase  of river level 21,857 4 ,000* ,098       
Media reports 13,993 4 ,007* ,079       
Level of preparedness 53,994 20 ,000* ,078       

* statistically significant correlation – p ≤ 0,05

 

One-way analysis of variance (оne-way ANOVA) searches the influence of religiousness level on dependant continual variables on the perception of preparedness to respond. Subjects are divided in 5 groups according to the level of religiousness (absolutely unreligious, unreligious to a certain extent, neither religious nor unreligious, religious to a certain extent, absolutely religious).

According to the results, there is a statistically significant difference among mean values in mentioned groups with the following dependant continual variables: preparedness of local communities (F = 2,79, p = 0,026, ek = 0,0070); preparedness of the state (F = 4,75, p = 0,001, ek = 0,0044); the importance of taken measures (F = 3,77, p = 0,005, ek = 0,0063); I do not have time for that (F = 4,57, p = 0,001, ek = 0,0061); it will not influence the security (F = 2,41, p = 0,049, ek = 0,0037); I am not able (F = 5,69, p = 0,000, ek = 0,0087); I do not have support (F = 3,17, p = 0,013, ek = 0,0054); I can’t prevent it (F = 4,70, p = 0,001, ek = 0,0067); neighbors (F = 3,22, p = 0,013, ek = 0,0051); non-governmental humanitarian organizations (F = 4,93, p = 0,001, ek = 0,0082); international humanitarian organizations (F = 4,57, p = 0,001, ek = 0,0077 – little influence); religious community (F = 15,37, p = 0,000, ek = 0,0243; police (F = 5,59, p = 0,000, ek = 0,0094); ВСЈ (F = 2,71, p = 0,030, ek = 0,0051); awareness (F = 4,24, p = 0,002, ek = 0,0070); state institutions work (F = 2,70, p = 0,031, ek = 0,0038); citizens from the flooded area (F = 6,31, p = 0,000, ek = 0,0086); lack of time (F = 7,67, p = 0,000, ek = 0,0115); too expensive (F = 3,97, p = 0,004, ek = 0,0071); police efficiency (F = 2,96, p = 0,020, ek = 0,0038); efficiency of firefighters and rescue brigades (F = 3,17, p = 0,014, ek = 0,0058); and medical emergency service efficiency  (F = 2,60, p = 0,036, ek = 0,0047) (table 2).

Citizens who are neither religious nor unreligious showed higher level of individual preparedness to respond to flood compared to absolutely religious citizens; citizens who are absolutely unreligious showed higher level of state and local community preparedness to respond to flood compared to absolutely religious. Regarding the barriers of preparedness, citizens who are absolutely unreligious point out to a greater extent the reason like “I don’t have time for that” and “I don’t have a local community support” for not taking preparedness measures compared to citizens who are exceptionally religious.  On the other side, citizens who are exceptionally religious point out to a greater extent “ I think that it won’t influence my personal security nor the security of my family” for not taking preparedness measures compared to citizens who are absolutely unreligious. Citizens who are absolutely unreligious point out to a greater extent “I am not able to do that” as a reason for not taking preparedness measures compared to citizens who are absolutely religious. Citizens who are absolutely unreligious point out to a greater extent “I can’t prevent the consequences in no way” as a reason for not taking preparedness measures compared to citizens who are absolutely religious. From now on, regarding the expectancy of help in a situation of natural disaster, citizens who are absolutely unreligious rely on household members’ help and neighbors’ help to a greater extent compared to citizens who are absolutely religious.  On the other side, citizens who are exceptionally religious rely on nongovernmental humanitarian organizations’ help to a greater extent compared to citizens who are absolutely unreligious. Citizens who are neither religious nor unreligious rely on nongovernmental humanitarian organizations’ help to a greater extent compared to citizens who are absolutely unreligious. Citizens who are unreligious to a certain extent  point out to a greater extent “I expected citizens from flood area to be engaged in the first place” as a reason for not helping endangered people with the flood consequences compared to citizens who are absolutely unreligious. Citizens who are absolutely unreligious point out to a greater extent “I didn’t have time” as a reason for not helping endangered people. Citizens who are unreligious to a certain extent estimate the efficiency of police reaction to a greater extent compared to citizens who are religious to a certain extent.

Results of  χ–square test of independency (χ2) showed that there is a statistically significant correlation between the level of religiousness and the following variables: knowledge about flood  (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,090); evacuation (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,074); education at school (p = 0,001 < 0,05, v = 0,076); education in a family  (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,087); education at work (p = 0,038 < 0,05, v = 0,061); assent to evacuation (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,114); help – the elder, the invalids (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,087); neighbors – individually (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,081); flood risk chart (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,087); potential infections (p = 0,018 < 0,05, v = 0,064); water valve (p = 0,031 < 0,05, v = 0,060); electricity switch plug (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,091); handling water valve (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,079); handling gas valve (p = 0,009 < 0,05, v = 0,074); handling electricity switch plug (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,087); information by the household members (p = 0,030 < 0,05, v = 0,069); information by neighbors (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,120); information by friends (p = 0,001 < 0,05, v = 0,088); information from family (p = 0,001 < 0,05, v = 0,093); information through the informal system (p = 0,002 < 0,05, v = 0,088); information at work (p = 0,001 < 0,05, v = 0,090); information on TV (p = 0,004 < 0,05, v = 0,082); information by radio (p = 0,008 < 0,05, v = 0,078); information by press (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,121); information by internet (p = 0,005 < 0,05, v = 0,081); wish to attend a training course (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,079); education over video games (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,155); education over internet (p = 0,044 < 0,05, v = 0,066); education over lectures (p = 0,002 < 0,05, v = 0,088).

On the other side, statistically significant correlation is not determined with variables: the elder, the handicapped (p = 0,058 < 0,05); gas valve (p = 0,092 < 0,05); familiarity with security procedures. (p = 0,064 < 0,05); official warning (p = 0,0051 < 0,05); information at school (p = 0,658 < 0,05); information at faculty (p = 0,563 < 0,05); information in a religious community (p = 0,503 < 0,05); completed training course (p = 0,237 < 0,05); education by TV (p = 0,566 < 0,05); education by radio (p = 0,286 < 0,05); informal system (p = 0,933 < 0,05) (табела 2).

According to the obtained results, the greatest percentage of citizens who are unreligious to a certain extent know what is flood (90,7%), would evacuate in a reception centers (9,5%), point out that a person at school talked about floods (33,8%), received information on floods on TV (67,5%), would like to attend training course for treating such natural disasters (49,3%), would like to be educated over internet  (29,3%); neither religious nor unreligious citizens would evacuate to neighbors (15,8%), to friends (38,6%), would evacuate in the case of incoming flood wave (94,9%), are familiar what kind of help need the elders, the invalids and the infants (58,6%), think that their neighbors can rescue themselves on their own in the case of flood (47,8%), would like to be educated on floods through video games (8,2%); citizens who are religious to a certain extent would evacuate to a reception centers (14,2%), are familiar with handling electricity switch plug (74,3%), gained information on floods at work (16,3%), gained information on floods by press (36,5%), over internet (31,5%), would like to be educated on lectures (32,9%), are familiar with the flood risk chart of a local community (19,4%), gained information on floods from household members (36,2%), through informal system of education (10,9%); absolutely religious citizens would evacuate to higher floors of the house (49%), point out that a household member talked about the floods (45,1%), someone at work talked (33,3%), are familiar with viruses and infections threatening after the flood (48,8%), are familiar with where is the water valve (85,3%), electricity switch plug (80,8%), know how to operate water valve (78,3%), gas valve (53,2%), gained information on floods from neighbors  (31,2%), from friends (20,4%), family (15,9%), by radio (18,6%);

Results of  χ–square test of independency (χ2) showed that there is a statistically significant correlation between the level of religiousness and the following variables: household supplies (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,116); food supplies (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,146 –a little influence); water supplies (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,225); radio transistor (p = 0,005 < 0,05, v = 0,111); a torch (p = 0,007 < 0,05, v = 0,107); a shovel (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,132); a hack (p = 0,050 < 0,05, v = 0,088); a hoe and a spade (p = 0,012 < 0,05, v = 0,102); initial fire extinguisher (p = 0,028 < 0,05, v = 0,097 – a little influence); supplies renewal  (p = 0,001 < 0,05, v = 0,103); supplies in a vehicle (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,078); first aid kit in a house (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,103); first aid kit in a vehicle (p = 0,047 < 0,05, v = 0,066); first aid kit– easily accessible (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,086); acting plan (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,112); discussion about a plan (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,089 – a little influence); copies of documents (p = 0,000 < 0,05, v = 0,109); insurance (p = 0,017 < 0,05, v = 0,064) (table 219).

According to the obtained results, in the greatest percentage: absolutely unreligious citizens have food supplies for two days (21,7%); to a certain extant unreligious citizens have food supplies for four days (43,2%), water supplies for one day (59,5%), never renew supplies (57,1%); neither religious nor unreligious  citizens have  a radio transistor  (19,7%), a shovel (36,4%), an initial fire extinguisher (15,9%); religious citizens to a certain extant have supplies in the case of flood  (35,3%), have water supplies for two days (41%), a radio transistor (41,8%), a hack (29,2%), renew supplies once a month (43,5%), keep a first aid kit at an easily accessible place (73,2%), have a written plan for acting in the case of flood (3,3%), have unwritten  plan for acting in the case of flood (17,7%); absolutely religious citizens have food supplies for four days (77,3%), water supplies for four days (66%), a shovel (43,6%), renew supplies once a year (24,2%), supplies in a vehicle (10,4%), first aid kit at home (61,3%), discussed about the plan of acting (19,6%), have copies of important personal, financial documents (32,2%), insured household against flood consequences (10,5%).

Conclusion

 

Inquiring into the correlation between the level of religiousness and preparedness of citizens to respond,  the following conclusions are reached:

– statistically significant correlation is determined among the level of religiousness and the following category variables regarding the perception of preparedness: preventive measures, engagement on the site, engagement at the reception centre, prolonged rain, increasing level of rivers, media reports, level of preparedness. Furthermore, statistically significant correlation is determined with the following continual variables: preparedness of a local community, preparedness of a state, the importance of  preventive measures, I don’t have time for that, it won’t influence the security, I am not able, I don’t have support, I can’t prevent, neighbors, non-governmental humanitarian organizations, international humanitarian organizations, religious communities, police, firefighter and rescue  brigade, awareness, state institution work, citizens from the flooded area, lack of time, too costly, efficiency of police, firefighter brigades and urgent medical services;

– statistically significant correlation is determined among the level of religiousness and the following variables regarding the knowledge: knowledge about flood, evacuation, education at school, education in a family, education at work,  assent to evacuation, help – the elders, the invalids, neighbors – individually, flood risk chart, potential infections, water valve, electricity switch plug, handling water valve, handling gas valve, handling electricity switch plug, information by household members, information by neighbors, information by friends, information by family, information through informal system, information at work, information on TV, information by radio, information by the press, information over the internet,  wish to attend a training course, education over video games, education over the internet, education on lectures;

– statistically significant correlation is determined among the level of religiousness and the following variables on supplies: supplies at home, food supplies, water supplies, radio transistor, torch, a shovel, a hack, a hoe and a spade, initial fire extinguisher, renewal of supplies, supplies in a vehicle, first aid kit at home, first aid kit in a vehicle, first aid kit -easily accessible, acting plan, discussion about the plan, copies of documents, insurance.

 

References

 

Becker, P. (2011). Whose risks? Gender and the ranking of hazards. Disaster Prevention and Management, 20(4), 423-433.

Bigović, R., & Henri, B. (2011). Religioznost građana Srbije i njihov odnos prema procesu Evropskih integracija. Beograd: Hrišćanski kulturni centar, Centar za evropske studije, Fondacija Konrad Adenauer.

Çakın, Y., Petal, M., Sezan, S., & Türkmen, Z. (2006). Public Education–Disaster Preparedness Education Program in Turkey. Paper presented at the poster), 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference, CA: San Fransisco.

Cvetković, V. (2015). Spremnost za reagovanje na prirodnu katastrofu – pregled literature. Bezbjednost, policija i građani, 1-2/15(XI), 165-183.

Cvetković, V. (2016a). Policija i prirodne katastrofe. Beograd: Zadužbina Andrejević.

Cvetković, V. (2016b). Strah i poplave u Srbiji: spremnost građana za reagovanje na prirodne katastrofe. Zbornik matice srpske za društvena istraživanja, 155(2/2016).

Cvetković, V. (2016c). Uticaj motivisanosti na spremnost građana Republike Srbije da reaguju na prirodnu katastrofu izazvanu poplavom. Vojno delo, 3/2016.

Cvetković, V., & Gačić, J. (2016). Evakuacija u prirodnim katastrofama. Beograd: Zadužbina Andrejević.

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. Ecologica, 22(80), 584-590.

Dooley, D., Catalano, R., Mishra, S., & Serxner, S. (1992). Earthquake Preparedness: Predictors in a Community Survey1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(6), 451-470.

Jakovljević, V., Cvetković, V., & Gačić, J. (2015). Prirodne katastrofe i obrazovanje. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet bezbednosti.

Kusumasari, B., Alam, Q., Siddiqui, K. (2010). Resource capability for local government in managing disasters, Disaster Prevention  and Management, Vol. 19, No. 4, 438-451.

Levac, J., Toal-Sullivan, D., & OSullivan, T. L. (2012). Household emergency preparedness: a literature review. Journal of community health, 37(3), 725-733.

Mulilis, J. P., Duval, T. S., & Rogers, R. (2003). The Effect of a Swarm of Local Tornados on Tornado Preparedness: A Quasi‐Comparable Cohort Investigation1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(8), 1716-1725.

O’Donnell M.P.(2009) Definition of Health Promotion 2.0: Embracing Passion, Enhancing Motivation, Recognizing Dynamic Balance, and Creating Opportunities. American Journal of Health Promotion, 24(1).

Russell, L. A., Goltz, J. D., & Bourque, L. B. (1995). Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and after two earthquakes. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 744-770.

[1] Despite the fact that the needs of this work are not such that request deeper entering the problem of defining the human security, we consider it necessary to explain our approach to this phenomenon. The term “human” indicates to be the focus on an individual and the term “security” refers to the need of protection against the threats and creation of safe environment. Therefore, we consider “human security” as a new, incoming concept dealing primarily with the security of people and individuals rather than with the security of state territory and which is based on the survival, everyday life and dignity of human beings. The word “survival“ reflects the security aspect and means the protection against attack on physical integrity as well as the satisfaction of basic needs; the word “dignity“ refers to the strong bond between human rights and human security, while the word “everyday life“ indicates the specific nature of  human security ie. it goes further than achieving security and dignity, connecting safety problems with the issues of living in communities and families, enlarging the scope of security against violent threats problems to yet unexplored fields. This leads to further exemining human security as “designed to include management and protection of political communities into the broader scope of concern for achiving individual prosperity and invulnerability. In that context we have dealt the above mentioned topic in this work.

Leave a Reply

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