Understanding seismic hazard resilience in Montenegro: A qualitative analysis of community preparedness and response capabilities

Understanding seismic hazard resilience in Montenegro: A qualitative analysis of community preparedness and response capabilities

  • Vladimir M. Cvetković EMAIL logo Goran Grozdanić Miško Milanović Slobodan Marković and Tin Lukić
From the journal Open Geosciences

1

1 citation on Dimensions.

Cvetković, V., Grozdanić, G., Milanović, M., Marković, S. & Lukić, T. (2024). Understanding seismic hazard resilience in Montenegro: A qualitative analysis of community preparedness and response capabilities. Open Geosciences, 16(1), 20220729. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2022-0729

Abstract

Enhancing resilience against seismic hazards in earthquake-prone regions is essential for reducing the devastating impacts of disasters. Seismic resilience refers to a community’s ability to withstand and recover from earthquake impacts, while preparedness gaps are the areas where current measures are insufficient to effectively respond to or mitigate earthquake damage. This study focuses on Montenegro – a region with frequent seismic activity – aiming to assess resilience levels, identify critical gaps in preparedness, and evaluate the effectiveness of existing response strategies. Using qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, the research gathered insights from residents of Montenegro’s most vulnerable cities: Nikšić, Podgorica, Bar, Kotor, Cetinje, Budva, Herceg Novi, and Berane. Participants, chosen for their first-hand experience with significant earthquake impacts, provided valuable perspectives on various aspects of resilience, from local government response to individual preparedness. This research revealed significant disparities in resilience across communities: for instance, approximately 62.5% of the respondents highlighted inadequate education as a barrier to effective earthquake preparedness, and only 37.5% reported awareness of basic earthquake response procedures. Furthermore, while some communities, such as urban areas with accessible services, reported higher preparedness levels, rural areas showed deficiencies, with 50% of the respondents from these areas identifying a lack of organized drills and limited public awareness initiatives. These findings underscore the urgent need for community-specific preparedness programs and enhancements in both structural resilience and public education to bolster community readiness effectively. Also, findings highlight the need for customized preparedness programs tailored to specific community needs, alongside improvements in structural safety measures and educational outreach. The study underscores the importance of a comprehensive approach involving detailed risk assessments, community-focused preparedness training, and stronger public awareness initiatives. Furthermore, the study calls for enhanced local government capabilities to sustain proactive response measures, including rapid mobilization of emergency resources and regular disaster simulations, to build long-term resilience across communities.

1 Introduction

Global studies on seismic resilience provide valuable insights [1,2], particularly those conducted in regions with similar seismic profiles [3], such as coastal and mountainous areas where structural challenges and infrastructure needs closely parallel those in Montenegro. Local communities adopt a range of measures to prepare for seismic events, such as launching preparedness programs, offering counselling services, and assessing the earthquake resilience of building groups [4]. Notable research from Indonesia highlights the vital role of community readiness, promoting the adoption of earthquake hazard maps and disaster readiness training to strengthen resilience [5,6]. Further studies in Bengkulu delve into how the residential environment impacts disaster preparedness, showing the influence of settlement conditions on community readiness for seismic events [7]. Research on the Italian Apennines also shows that historical exposure to seismic activity influences community perceptions of earthquake risk and preparedness. Overall, this research shows that the levels of concern and readiness vary significantly when looking at past experiences with heat stress and roles within the community [8]. These insights underscore the necessity of crafting preparedness strategies finely tuned to the local context and distinct community characteristics [3,5,9,10].

Seismic resilience forms a core pillar of disaster management, focusing on improving readiness and the ability to respond in earthquake-prone areas. Seismic resilience refers to a community’s ability to withstand, respond to, and recover from an earthquake. It involves implementing preventive measures, designing infrastructure that can endure seismic forces, and having robust response systems in place to quickly restore normalcy after an event. This concept includes structural integrity, emergency preparedness, and adaptive capacity in the face of seismic hazards [11]. Research in this area highlights the necessity of assessing and enhancing resilience through diverse strategies [12,13]. For instance, an innovative assessment framework was unveiled in Taipei City, evaluating earthquake risks and resilience in the power infrastructure based on criteria like robustness, rapidity, redundancy, and resourcefulness [14]. In more remote areas, such as near the Dead Sea Fault in Israel, tailored self-assessment tools have been developed to foster deeper personal and family involvement in earthquake preparedness [15]. Moreover, research in Iran emphasizes the urgent need to boost seismic resilience at educational establishments, prioritizing retrofitting initiatives to enhance resilience indicators [16].

Montenegro’s susceptibility to seismic activity has been underscored by historical events, notably the 1979 earthquake, which caused extensive structural damage and highlighted the region’s vulnerabilities [17]. In Montenegro, seismic resilience is shaped by factors such as building age, type (e.g. high-rise structures, heritage sites), and regional exposure to seismic risks, with historical data revealing the frequency and the intensity of past events, notably in coastal and urban areas [18,19]. Also, multiple factors significantly influence the seismic resilience of structures. For high-rise buildings made of reinforced concrete along the Montenegrin coast, critical factors include inter-storey drift (relative horizontal movement or displacement between two consecutive floors of a building during an earthquake), wall rotations, and shear capacity, which are keys in assessing their seismic performance [20]. The resilience of such buildings also hinges on the configuration of the structural system and the classification of the seismic zone [21]. Furthermore, the dynamic properties of these structures play an essential role in seismic design, as evidenced by comparisons with local and EC8 standards [22]. The structural integrity of heritage masonry buildings is undermined by poor craftsmanship and the absence of routine maintenance, heightening their risk during seismic events [19]. In regions with high seismic risk, such as Blida City, evaluations of building resilience often concentrate on vulnerability curves, states of damage, timelines for reconstruction, and related costs, all crucial for enhancing seismic resilience [23]. Examples from other countries, such as community-based disaster education programs in Italy and structural retrofitting efforts in Japan [1,24], provide adaptable frameworks that can be tailored to address Montenegro’s specific challenges, including aging buildings, low public awareness, and varying institutional readiness.

The primary objectives of this study are to assess the current state of seismic resilience, identify critical gaps in local preparedness, and evaluate the effectiveness of existing response mechanisms. In this research, we carried out eight semi-structured interviews with individuals from regions highly prone to seismic activities, particularly those who have experienced notable earthquake impacts. In relation to this, the main aims of this research are to (i) discover the current panorama of seismic resilience; (ii) evaluate of critical points in local preparedness; and (iii) assess effectiveness of the existing response mechanisms. We interviewed eight people living in areas of the world with a high-risk national or regional seismic events, such as those experienced by others we had spoken to about earthquakes. Respondents were from several Montenegrin towns prone to earthquakes: Nikšić, Podgorica, Bar, Kotor, Cetinje, Budva, Herceg Novi, and Berane. To achieve greater comprehension and improved capacity to process estimates on community quake resilience, structured interviews were considered essential. These interviews materially extended the results, allowing us to flesh out the responses of the questionnaire into a more sophisticated examination of local resilience mechanisms. All participants were asked the same questions, so data were collected in a standardized way. However, despite that flexibility, it was still an interview and we tailored each at the moment based on how people were responding or what motivated them. This approach facilitated a rich discourse and enabled researchers to capture individual experiences as well as residents’ various responses towards community resilience. In addition to capturing rich qualitative data, the approach reinforced rigor in the research methodology by directly involving those living with the impact of seismic events. This research plays a vital role in tackling Montenegro’s seismic challenges, shedding light on both the strengths and weaknesses of local communities in coping with earthquakes. By pinpointing key gaps in preparedness and evaluating existing response strategies, it offers valuable insights that can shape targeted approaches to boost seismic resilience across the region. This comprehensive methodology not only bolsters disaster mitigation efforts but also aims to enhance community preparedness and adaptability, ultimately contributing to a safer, more stable environment for Montenegro’s earthquake-vulnerable areas.

1.1 Literature review

A thorough exploration of community resilience in earthquake scenarios, as found in scholarly literature, highlights various critical aspects. Researchers emphasize the crucial role of structural components – including buildings, hospitals, schools, and other infrastructure – in coping with the consequences of seismic disturbances [25]. Evaluating the resilience of buildings is deemed essential for the overall resilience of communities, with factors like repair costs, occupancy rates, and asset values being key indicators [26]. Such evaluations often rely on metrics that include repair timelines, cost-effectiveness of retrofitting efforts, and structural adaptability to seismic events [27]. Effective earthquake disaster management involves community participation to enhance adaptive behaviours, underscored by risk awareness, education, disaster mitigation, and collaborative efforts between residents, government agencies, and other stakeholders [28]. Community resilience is about overcoming shared challenges and trauma, relying on social networks, technological innovations, and strong infrastructural support [29]. Studies in this area often examine how communities use these resources to rapidly mobilize and maintain continuity during and after seismic events [30,31]. Assessing seismic resilience in groups of buildings involves scrutinizing potential hazards, appraising the performance of individual buildings, and collectively evaluating the resilience of these clusters by incorporating seismic hazard maps and vulnerability assessments to better inform structural resilience strategies [7].

Also, research into earthquake resilience covers a broad spectrum of topics, including structural design principles, community preparedness, the resilience of healthcare systems, and the application of seismic isolation techniques [32]. Specific methodologies, such as hazard-based seismic design and probabilistic risk assessment, have identified limitations in traditional seismic resilience approaches [33]. These studies reveal significant shortcomings in traditional seismic design methods [33], emphasize the essential role of community resilience in disaster risk management [25], highlight the critical need for robust healthcare systems to respond effectively after earthquakes [34], and discuss how seismic isolation can help create communities that are sustainably resilient to such disasters by reducing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure and maintaining essential services during seismic events [35]. Also, incorporating cultural sensitivity as a foundational aspect of community engagement [36] is essential for ensuring that resilience measures resonate with local populations. Recognizing and integrating cultural values into preparedness efforts helps build trust and fosters greater acceptance of recommended safety practices by tailoring response and preparedness strategies that align with local beliefs and customs, thus enhancing community buy-in [37].

Furthermore, studies on earthquake preparedness, particularly among residents in rural areas affected by events like the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China, have been extensive [38,39,40]. These studies have pinpointed key factors that influence how individuals prepare for such disasters, including access to independent information about earthquakes, understanding of seismic risks, and confidence in personal and community response capabilities. Data from these studies underscore the role of education and prior experience in shaping individuals’ responses to disaster scenarios, illustrating how knowledge can mitigate fear and facilitate action [4,9,12,35,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. Findings indicate that individuals who possess a comprehensive understanding of disaster management are more likely to act decisively, such as evacuating promptly or quickly resuming their usual activities post-disaster, compared to those with limited knowledge, who may delay action while waiting for further instructions [4,9,12,35,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53].

Effective strategies for local governance to increase seismic resilience are an essential part of preparing urban and regional communities to be able to cope with the impacts of earthquakes and recover [54,55,56]. These methods are very important for earthquake-vulnerable areas because they help in reducing earthquake damage and promote sustainability. By implementing building codes that mandate seismic retrofitting and resilience measures, these governance frameworks ensure that communities are protected in the long term [57]. At the core of these strategies are preventive actions that oblige urban legislation for buildings and infrastructure to be armed or adapted so as not to collapse during seismic shocks [55]. Such actions not only save the immediate environment but also help the community become more resilient in the long haul [58]. Studies have shown that local governance frameworks, when incorporating resilience metrics, zoning regulations, and compliance enforcement, can significantly reduce earthquake damage [59,60]. The effectiveness of local governance in fostering seismic resilience can vary greatly depending on regional planning [61]. Authorities may develop diverse, customized plans that cater to their specific environmental and seismic challenges, underscoring the importance of personalized resilience strategies [62].

At the community and structural level, incorporating resilience goals into the seismic design of buildings and urban planning significantly enhances the speed of recovery after earthquakes [63]. This approach combines community-centric resilience strategies with precise engineering practices to better protect and serve the population during seismic events [64]. Furthermore, developing evaluation models to assess seismic resilience is crucial. These models take into account various important factors, including recovery speed, the effectiveness of disaster relief efforts, and the demographic and economic traits of the area, aiding in the refinement of emergency plans [65]. Incorporating systems dynamics within governance frameworks can enhance the understanding and development of seismic resilience. This technique is particularly useful in modern contexts like Society 5.0, where new technologies and societal needs are merged to optimize disaster management [66]. In places like Tabriz City or regions previously impacted by disasters such as the Gorkha Earthquake, governance strategies are specifically tailored to address the unique environmental and societal challenges, ensuring effective and customized resilience measures [67].

Recent studies have highlighted the significance of interdisciplinary approaches in enhancing earthquake resilience, particularly by combining engineering practices with social sciences to improve community preparedness and structural resilience [1,68]. This interdisciplinary method emphasizes the role of social factors, such as trust in local institutions and community engagement, in reinforcing physical infrastructure efforts. For instance, research demonstrates that communities with stronger social networks and trust in disaster response agencies are more likely to adopt and maintain seismic retrofitting and emergency planning measures [69]. Similarly, some research studies suggest that involving residents in the decision-making process related to building codes and disaster readiness can foster higher compliance rates and improve the overall impact of resilience policies [70].

2 Methods

The primary objectives of this study are to assess the current state of seismic resilience, identify critical gaps in local preparedness, and evaluate the effectiveness of existing response mechanisms. In this research, we carried out eight semi-structured interviews with individuals from regions highly prone to seismic activities, particularly those who have experienced notable earthquake impacts. Understanding Montenegro’s tectonic features is essential for pinpointing areas most susceptible to seismic hazards, which in turn strengthens resilience and disaster preparedness strategies. By using geological data to identify high-risk zones, this research aids in developing targeted resilience measures that allow communities to better anticipate and reduce the impacts of earthquakes.

To acquire a more thorough and nuanced understanding, essential for effectively processing the data gathered from the survey on citizens’ resilience to earthquake-induced disasters, it is nearly impossible to justify without conducting adequately structured interviews. These interviews serve as indispensable tools in complementing the questionnaire data, allowing for a more comprehensive examination of citizens’ perspectives on the resilience of local communities in responding to earthquakes.

For this specific purpose, eight interviews were conducted with citizens hailing from the localities most vulnerable to seismic activity and those that have borne the brunt of earthquake consequences. The interviews engaged collaborators from Nikšić, Podgorica, Bar, Kotor, Cetinje, Budva, Herceg Novi, and Berane. Each collaborator was presented with an identical set of questions, following which the conversation was guided by participants’ inclinations, motivations, level of engagement, and sincerity.

Employing a semi-structured approach, these interviews were designed around a conversation guide that mirrored the conceptual framework of the questionnaire (Figure 1):

  1. How would you define citizen resilience in responding to disasters, particularly those triggered by earthquakes? What components do you believe it should encompass?

  2. What is your overall perspective on the level of citizen resilience in addressing earthquakes as disasters? Please provide a detailed explanation of your viewpoint.

  3. Regarding citizens’ resilience in the face of earthquake disasters, what is your general assessment of their knowledge about earthquakes? Kindly elaborate on your opinion.

  4. Concerning citizens’ preparedness for earthquake disasters, what is your general assessment regarding their stockpiling of food and water supplies? Please elaborate on your viewpoint.

  5. Regarding citizens’ readiness for earthquake disasters, particularly at the household level, what is your general perspective on the effectiveness of oral or written disaster preparedness plans? Please provide a detailed explanation.

  6. In terms of citizens’ readiness for earthquake disasters, what is your general perspective on their engagement in activities such as evacuation drills? Please elaborate on your viewpoint.

  7. How do you evaluate and what factors, in your opinion, influence citizens’ motivation to undertake specific resilience measures in response to earthquake disasters? Kindly provide a detailed explanation.

  8. What, in your opinion, are the primary obstacles preventing citizens from implementing certain resilience measures in response to earthquake disasters? Please elaborate on your viewpoint.

  9. How would you assess the resilience of local self-governments in responding to earthquake disasters? Kindly provide a detailed explanation of your opinion.

  10. In your view, what strategies could be implemented to enhance citizens’ resilience in responding to earthquakes as disasters, particularly in terms of knowledge, preparedness supplies, preventive measures, and possession of plans? Please provide a detailed explanation.

  11. Based on your observations, what is the resilience level of households in Montenegro in responding to earthquake disasters? Please provide a detailed explanation.

  12. What specific actions do you believe local self-governments should take to elevate citizens’ resilience levels in responding to earthquakes? Please elaborate on your opinion.

  13. How do you assess citizens’ awareness of specific preventive measures in responding to earthquake disasters, and what factors do you believe influence this awareness? Please provide a detailed explanation.

 

Figure 1 
               Mindmap of questions from semi-structured interviews on citizen resilience in earthquake disasters in Montenegro.
Figure 1

Mindmap of questions from semi-structured interviews on citizen resilience in earthquake disasters in Montenegro.

This guide encompassed inquiries delving into various aspects of citizens’ and local communities’ resilience in the face of earthquake hazards.

After the interviews, participants were allowed to offer additional insights concerning the resilience of citizens in responding to disasters caused by earthquakes in Montenegro (Figure 2). Before initiating the interviews, participants were administered a demographic questionnaire. They were provided with detailed explanations regarding the objectives of the conversation, ensuring a clear understanding of the discussion’s purpose. Furthermore, participants were informed that the interviews were conducted with ordinary citizens, not specialists in the field relevant to the questions posed. This clarification aimed to alleviate any pressure associated with providing “correct” answers, emphasizing instead the value of their unique perspectives and experiences.

Figure 2 
               Visual representation of predominant themes in the study of seismic resilience and local preparedness in Montenegro.
Figure 2

Visual representation of predominant themes in the study of seismic resilience and local preparedness in Montenegro.

Moreover, participants were briefed on the rationale behind audio recording the conversations. This method not only aimed to streamline the data collection process but also to facilitate a more fluid and natural exchange compared to relying solely on note-taking. In addition, participants’ consent for audio recording was sought, and their anonymity was guaranteed to foster an environment conducive to open and honest dialogue.

2.1 Study area

Montenegro’s topography presents a labyrinth of complexities when viewed through the lens of geotectonics (Figure 3a). The convergence of tectonic plates within this region sparks a perpetual state of geological flux, a phenomenon dating back to the onset of Alpine orogenesis and persisting to the present day. Through exhaustive geological and geophysical inquiries, bolstered by the insights gleaned from geological cartography and satellite imagery, the foundational geotectonic attributes of Montenegro’s terrain emerge. This rugged landscape showcases meticulous zoning of geological formations, with the dominant tectonic masses aligning themselves in a steadfast northwest-southeast trajectory. Layers of rock gracefully incline towards the northeast, while the majestic folds thrust towards the southwest, creating a tapestry adorned with a plethora of anticlinal and synclinal structures, interspersed with thrusts, minor nappe structures, and faults [71,72].

Figure 3 
                  Study area: (a) location of Montenegro; maps of seismic re-ionization of Montenegro territory within the return periods of 200 years (b) and the return period of 500 years (c). Based on the Institute of Hydrometeorology and Seismology of Montenegro.
Figure 3

Study area: (a) location of Montenegro; maps of seismic re-ionization of Montenegro territory within the return periods of 200 years (b) and the return period of 500 years (c). Based on the Institute of Hydrometeorology and Seismology of Montenegro.

Delving deeper into the geological fabric of Montenegro unveils a tapestry woven from distinct structural tectonic units, as illuminated by a comprehensive study exploring the nexus between geological formations and potential calamities in the region [73].

The para-autochthonous tectonic unit, known by various monikers such as the Adriatic, Adriatic-Ionian, Dalmatian, or Southern Adriatic unit, envelops the most prominent swathes of Montenegro’s coastline. Stretching from Grbalj to Luštica and Kobilica, this unit extends its reach to the expanse between Bar and Ulcinjska Bojana, housing regional thrust systems that have been meticulously catalogued during the pursuit of oil exploration. These systems reveal a landscape teeming with overturned and reverse-overturned structures, bordered to the northeast by the formidable Budva-Cukalj zone. Surface features such as Volujica-Šasko Lake, Možura-Briska Mountain, and Bijela Mountain stand as testaments to the geological diversity, with Cretaceous carbonates and Eocene flysch sediments adorning their cores [71,72].

Meanwhile, the Budva-Cukalj zone traces a sinuous path along Montenegro’s coastal fringes, spanning from Sutomore in the northwest to the undulating slopes of Orjen, Lovćen, Sutorina, and Rumija, before traversing through Albania to Greece. Initially characterized by a rift structure, spanning a width of 40–100 km, this zone underwent a metamorphosis during the Alpine orogenesis, converging into a system of overturned isoclines, fractured and partitioned by thrusts. This region emerges as one of Montenegro’s most dynamically altered terrains, a testament to the tumultuous forces shaping its geological identity.

Venturing further into Montenegro’s heartland unveils the High Karst, a realm encompassing the central expanse and coastal fringes. From Rumija, Lovćen, and Orjen in the southwest to Volujak, Plužine, Durmitor, Šemolj, Kolašin, Tresnjevik, and Komovi in the northwest, this domain stands as a testament to nature’s architectural prowess. Comprising the Old Montenegrin and Kučka nappe, separated by the synclinorium of Zeta, this region’s geological narrative is one of juxtaposition. The Old Montenegrin unit, with its intricate anticlinorium, cascades into a mosaic of anticlinal–synclinal sets, while the Kučka unit, adorned with carbonate rocks and Durmitor flysch sediments, paints a picture of geological splendour. Finally, the Durmitor tectonic unit, nestled in Montenegro’s northeastern reaches, represents a bastion of geological intrigue. Separated from its predecessors by reverse dislocations along the Dinarides, this unit is a treasure trove of thrusts, emblematic of the region’s geological dynamism [71,72].

Geological hazards that are caused by the tectonic movements in the Earth’s crust are called earthquakes or minor quakes. The territory of Montenegro is an area with high seismic risk, with frequent small to moderate-sized earthquakes, and occasionally very strong, devastating earthquakes (Figure 3b and c). Hence, as the particularly active seismic area, the following zones should be emphasized: seismologic zones around Ulcinj and Bar, Budva and Brajići, Boka Kotorska but also immediate surroundings of Berane, the entire region of the Skadar Lake, Maganik, etc. The maps of seismic re-ionization of Montenegro reflect possible seismic intensity degrees divide several zones of different seismic hazards: The southern, coastal region with Ulcinj, Skadar, Budva, and Boka Kotorska zones with the possible maximum intensity (in the middle ground) of nine degrees of the Mercalli (MSC) scale, Podgorica–Danilovgrad zone with the expected maximum intensity of eight degrees of MSC scale, the central part of Montenegro with the northern region including Nikšič, Žabljak, and Pljevlja with the possible maximum intensity of seven degrees of the MSC scale, and an isolated seismologic Berane zone that may generate earthquakes with a maximum intensity of eight degrees on the MSC scale (Figure 3b and c). Montenegro’s tectonic activity, driven by the convergence of major tectonic plates, results in significant seismic potential across the region. This geological dynamic underpins the frequency and intensity of earthquakes, setting the stage for understanding how specific geological structures contribute to the area’s seismic risk.

Countless seismic events have shaken the shores of Montenegro, yet many have slipped by unnoticed. Pliny, in the ancient corridors of the first century, penned an account of a cataclysmic earthquake that laid waste to Epidaurum, known today as Cavtat. The annals of history recall Duklja’s torment in 518 AD when the earth convulsed beneath its feet. Kotor, in the cruel dance of fate, witnessed ruin twice over, first in 1520 and then in 1559, both times under the relentless grip of seismic fury. Legend speaks of the harrowing day of June 13, 1563, when every corner of Boka was razed to the ground by an earthquake of indeterminate magnitude, yet monstrous in its wrath. Echoes of a similar tremor resonated through Boka in 1608. The year 1667 etched its mark in blood and rubble, as Kotor, Perast, Risan, Herceg Novi, Budva, Bar, and Ulcinj succumbed to destruction. The annals bear witness to temblors of magnitude surpassing the IX degree on the Mercalli scale, their fury unleashed upon the Montenegrin coast in 1780 and 1830, and again in 1905, 1926, and 1927. These seismic convulsions not only assailed the coastline but also reverberated through the valleys of Podgorica-Skadar and Berane (Radojičić, 2008), including the devastating quake of 1979.

The earnest pursuit of seismic understanding in Montenegro traces its origins to the nineteenth century, when scholars meticulously chronicled the tremors that scarred their land, primarily through statistical analysis. The dawn of the twentieth century heralded a new era as seismic endeavours in Serbia began to dissect macroseismic data across the Balkans, Montenegro included. The illustrious work of Jelenko Mihajlović stands as a testament to this scholarly pursuit. The genesis of Montenegro’s seismic instrumentation unfolded in March 1960, with the establishment of the Seismological Observatory in Titograd, now enshrined as Podgorica. This institution, born in the crucible of necessity, evolved into the Republic Seismological Institute following the tumult of April 15, 1979 (Ivanović, 1991). Despite these strides, substantive inquiry into Montenegro’s seismic landscape remained a rarity until the tragic cataclysm of April 15, 1979.

2.2 Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents

The sample analysed in our study achieved 50% of the subjects being men and 50% women. This gives an idea of different life stages possibly affecting the disaster response as they reach from young adults at 22 to older adults at 60. The educational level of the participants ranges from secondary professional training to a PhD, which makes it possible to investigate whether disaster preparedness and resilience are influenced by high or low levels of education. The sample is mixed in terms of employment status as shown in Table 1, with the largest % being fully employed (25%), followed by retired (25%) both percentages are equivalent. This variation speaks to some diversity in economic circumstances and that could have relevance for a variety of preparations against emergencies. Only seven of the sampled women were married including only two who had been married for a long time, with 40% being single and never married, another third divorced after marriage failure when progeny or paternity claims surfaced then sending them back to their “absent husbands,” while the final fourth of interviewed people admitted that they had contemplated suicide following the financial disaster which malediction apparently afflicted true partners in this case as well – even though these lucky couples leveraged multiple tenders! The participants had a monthly income between 300€ and 1,150€; therefore, they were in distinct financial situations that may affect the feasibility of investing in disaster prevention measures. The sample was independently selected school should understand that the geographical distribution of the limited urban and rural schools from Montenegro’s natural disaster exposure horizon is potentially affecting students’ views about resilience. Together, these differences in demographic and socioeconomic composition make our sample more heterogeneous than the overall Australian population which will provide for a richer analysis of the factors affecting disaster resilience across different sub-populations (Table 1).

Table 1

Demographic and socioeconomic profiles of interviewees in Montenegro

ID Gender Age Education Income Interview location Interview duration (min) Employment status Marital status
1 Male 58 Secondary professional 450€ Nikšić 37 Employed Married
2 Male 35 Graduate lawyer 1,150€ Podgorica 44 Employed Single
3 Female 26 Master’s in geography 800€ Bar 65 Employed Married
4 Female 28 Student/seasonal worker 500€ Budva 52 Part-time Single
5 Male 45 PhD 950€ Cetinje 48 Self-employed Married
6 Female 30 Bachelor’s in economics 700€ Kotor 55 Unemployed Divorced
7 Male 22 College student 300€ Herceg Novi 40 Student Single
8 Female 60 Retired teacher 600€ Tivat 50 Retired Widow

Incorporating demographic data enriches this analysis by revealing how factors like age, education, and employment status may shape individuals’ resilience and readiness for seismic events. This context helps to clarify variations in awareness and response capabilities within the community, making it possible to pinpoint specific groups that could benefit most from tailored resilience programs – all without needing to delve into procedural details.

2.3 Data collection and analysis

In this study, data collection involved conducting semi-structured interviews with subject matter experts and thoroughly reviewing relevant documents, with insights examined through qualitative content analysis [74]. A carefully designed interview framework provided structured guidance throughout the process, ensuring all key themes were fully covered and enabling responses to address the study’s objectives comprehensively. This approach allowed for an in-depth exploration of expert viewpoints, providing consistency across interviews and a broad perspective on each relevant topic. The insights gained from interviews provide a nuanced layer to this study on seismic resilience in Montenegro, bringing forth first-hand perspectives on local knowledge, preparedness, and response strengths. These qualitative findings enrich the analysis by spotlighting specific community needs and identifying areas where resilience strategies can be strengthened, adding a meaningful depth to the quantitative data. By addressing both structural and social aspects, the study achieves a well-rounded understanding of resilience challenges, tailoring recommendations to fit Montenegro’s unique context.

For this study, ATLAS.ti software was instrumental in conducting a thorough and systematic analysis of the collected data, streamlining the qualitative review of interview materials. This tool significantly enhanced both the depth and accuracy of our findings by supporting detailed coding, which added rigor and bolstered the validity of our conclusions. The data were carefully coded using a blend of summarizing and structuring techniques tailored for qualitative content analysis. These approaches brought unique perspectives to the data, shedding light on the intricate challenges and dynamics involved in cultural heritage protection. Through summary content analysis, we distilled the text material down to its essential elements, enabling us to spotlight the most prominent themes within the data. In addition, we tracked the frequency of key terms to provide a clearer view of the dominant concepts in the dataset. Also, the authors acknowledge the use of Grammarly Premium (1.2.96) and ChatGPT 4.0 in the process of translating and improving the clarity and quality of the English language in this manuscript.

3 Results

This section includes the following components:

  1. Citizen resilience and preparedness for earthquake disasters – This section explores interview themes related to how well-informed and prepared citizens are to respond to earthquake scenarios.

  2. Knowledge and awareness about earthquakes – Assesses citizens’ understanding of earthquake risks and the factors influencing their preparedness levels.

  3. Institutional engagement and response preparedness – Reviews the role of local authorities and public perceptions of governmental support in disaster readiness efforts.

  4. Household stockpiling and emergency planning – Investigates household preparedness, including essential supplies storage and informal emergency planning approaches.

 

Together, these sections offer a thorough view of resilience challenges and preparedness strategies within Montenegrin communities.

Preliminary findings from the interviews reveal several key themes: participants reported varying levels of awareness and preparedness for seismic events, with urban areas generally having more resources and better access to information than rural regions. Many respondents also voiced concerns about the absence of formal training and public awareness programs, emphasizing the need for resilience initiatives tailored to specific community needs. These early insights underscore the importance of customized strategies to enhance seismic resilience across Montenegro, providing essential context for the study’s focus on addressing local challenges and improvements.

3.1 Citizen resilience and preparedness for earthquake disasters

A frequency analysis of key terms in respondents’ discussions on earthquake resilience reveals central themes, blending both qualitative insights and quantitative indicators on priorities emphasized by participants. High-frequency terms such as “education,” “response,” “knowledge,” “training,” and “preparedness” (each cited at least four times) underline the importance placed on comprehensive education programs and practical skills that equip citizens for effective earthquake response. The terms “education” and “response” refer to the essential elements of earthquake resilience: “Education” highlights the need for citizen awareness and skill-building programs that prepare individuals for emergencies, while “response” emphasizes timely and effective actions by both citizens and institutions during an earthquake, each critical to strengthening community resilience. Specifically, “education” and “response” were mentioned five times each, closely followed by “knowledge,” “training,” and “preparedness” with four mentions, demonstrating a strong consensus on education and hands-on preparation as pillars of resilience.

Additional terms, including “adequate,” “institutions,” and “coordination” (appearing three times each), emphasize the need for structured collaboration among citizens, institutions, and government bodies. These responses suggest that successful disaster preparedness requires not only individual readiness but also cohesive institutional support. Terms like “capability” and “earthquake,” also cited three times, reinforce the importance of building both personal and collective capacities to address earthquake risks effectively.

The analysis indicates that a layered approach – prioritizing education, practical training, and institutional coordination – is essential for enhancing earthquake resilience at the community level. Quantitative data, with 62.5% of the participants focusing on education and training as foundational, support this approach to foster self-reliance in disaster response. Together, these findings offer a framework for resilience initiatives that could significantly strengthen community preparedness, highlighting the combined roles of ongoing education, hands-on training, and robust institutional networks in preparing communities to better withstand earthquake impacts (Table 2 and Figure 4).

Table 2

Defining citizen resilience in response to earthquake-induced disasters

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 Citizen resilience to earthquakes encompasses preparedness and awareness of proper response to disasters. Achieving such resilience hinges crucially on possessing knowledge of protective measures and proper conduct during earthquakes. Education and practical training represent essential steps towards bolstering citizens’ capacity for independent response and minimizing the adverse consequences of such natural events Education, preparedness, training 62.5
2 Citizen resilience entails the undertaking of all available measures and activities to mitigate the consequences of earthquakes as disasters. It implies coordination between state and local authorities, citizens, and institutions most prepared and equipped to respond in given situations. As earthquakes entail both material and immaterial losses, it is imperative to initiate actions aimed at increasing the resilience of local communities in earthquake-prone areas promptly and seriously. Particularly in high-risk zones, it is necessary to introduce and prepare the population through programs and plans for responding to such situations Coordination, governance, preparedness 50
3 Citizen resilience in responding to disasters, especially earthquakes, represents the ability of all organs and institutions in local self-governance to react adequately to mitigate the consequences that earthquakes may cause. To this end, it is essential to involve all physically capable citizens who, through specific types of education and training, would be ready to respond in the event of an earthquake. Local governance, education, resilience 37.5
4 Resilience encompasses all preventive actions that society and citizens undertake to secure safer environments in the event of disasters, such as earthquakes. These actions may involve organizing citizens to familiarize them with the consequences of earthquakes and preparing them to act appropriately in such emergencies, thereby reducing the negative consequences of this phenomenon. In essence, it is about creating a community capable of responding adequately to earthquakes as disasters Preventive measures, organization, preparedness 75
5 Citizen resilience in responding to disasters caused by earthquakes involves adequate response in the event of earthquakes. This can be achieved if we have capable individuals who know how to react in such situations, as well as the knowledge and ability of citizens to react in such situations Preparedness, resilience, knowledge 52.5
6 Citizen resilience in responding to disasters caused by earthquakes is reflected in the ability, readiness, knowledge, will, and desire of citizens to respond in the event of earthquakes Capacity, knowledge, readiness 37.5
7 Resilience represents the society’s strength to cope with disasters, implying general preparedness and readiness for an adequate response from all institutions and citizens in given situations. Institutions are expected to react professionally, while citizens are expected to show solidarity Solidarity, preparedness, institutions 50
8 Citizen resilience could be seen as the organized readiness of society to respond adequately to disasters caused by earthquakes. It involves implementing knowledge, preparation, and training aimed at achieving better preparedness for responding in the event of earthquakes Organized readiness, training, preparation 61
Figure 4 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in defining citizen resilience to earthquake-induced disasters.
Figure 4

Word cloud analysis of key themes in defining citizen resilience to earthquake-induced disasters.

Upon examining the answers given, we note that the main two sections mentioned were the absence of an education system and public awareness of earthquake hazards. Most responses identify the unpreparedness of society, inadequate training, and poor public communication outlets as critical to their low resilience. Five of the seven pathways mandate that empathy and solidarity must be nurtured in society, yet these components are not frequently proposed by the way of responses to the analysis.

In more detail, out of the eight analysed responses, in five responses (62.5%), the lack of an educational system in preparing citizens for earthquakes is emphasized, while in two responses (25%), the lack of information and training for citizens, especially children, is specifically highlighted. Communication with citizens is mentioned in four responses (50%) as another key segment that lags behind, while specific plans of institutions and measures to increase resilience are mentioned in only two responses (25%). Empathy and solidarity in society are mentioned in only one response (12.5%). These results also suggest that more effort is required to improve educational programs and media campaigns so that civilians are better informed about earthquakes and their consequences. In addition, the importance of active communication by institutions with citizens was pointed out to not only warn about a potential disaster but also how to act during an earthquake (Table 3 and Figure 5).

Table 3

Assessment of citizen resilience in coping with earthquake disasters

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 Low earthquake preparedness in society is highlighted by inadequate coverage of the topic in the media and educational system. Limited educational programs on television and the absence of training in schools, particularly for children, result in a lack of knowledge and skills necessary for appropriate responses. Communication with citizens is minimal, falling short of addressing their needs and the associated hazards. Consequently, citizens, lacking education and proper resources, are left to rely on instinctive reactions during earthquakes Media coverage, educational gaps, communication 45
2 Except for the aftermath of the significant earthquake in 1979, little attention has been devoted to fostering a resilient society against earthquakes. Most citizens remain uneducated and uninformed about the dangers posed by these natural events, posing a significant challenge when attempting to implement initiatives to acquaint citizens with these hazards and their repercussions Historical awareness, citizen education, hazard awareness 40
3 Considering earthquakes demand swift responses, citizens should at least be familiar with proper reaction methods. Unfortunately, it appears that this awareness remains at a very low level, limited to a few basic directives on actions and responses, making it challenging to definitively assess the level of resilience. However, this issue certainly warrants increased attention Swift response, low awareness, basic directives 50
4 Regrettably, it seems we have yet to establish a society resilient enough to withstand such occurrences. In the face of disasters, we mostly rely on regional assistance, indicating our lack of self-reliance and readiness to tackle such difficulties, including those caused by earthquakes. Consequently, it is evident that as a society, our level of resilience in citizen response to earthquakes and overall preparedness for disasters caused by earthquakes is not commendable Self-reliance, regional assistance, low preparedness 30
5 Citizens are not adequately informed about how to respond in the event of disasters caused by earthquakes. This is largely due to insufficient dissemination of information through media channels, brochures, flyers, social networks, etc. Consequently, it can be concluded that as a society, we lack the necessary awareness and education on how to react in the event of earthquakes, resulting in a low level of citizen resilience in responding to disasters caused by earthquakes Information dissemination, awareness, low resilience 55
6 In my view, the level of resilience is satisfactory. While there are services responsible for earthquake response, enhancing resilience would involve better informing citizens about their roles and contributions during earthquakes Citizen roles, satisfactory resilience, improvement 25
7 In my opinion, resilience is not at a high level. Institutions compete for political gains, while citizens increasingly distance themselves from one another, painting a negative picture. In a time where empathy and solidarity are dwindling, there is a lack of inclination to aid or even listen to others in need Institutional competition, social disconnect, low empathy 35
8 Unfortunately, the level of resilience is not commendable. This conclusion is drawn from observations in our city and country. There is a noticeable absence of efforts to build a more resilient society against earthquakes, indicating a lack of preparation and implementation of measures to increase resilience Absence of resilience building, preparation, implementation 20
Figure 5 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in assessment of citizen resilience in coping with earthquake disasters.
Figure 5

Word cloud analysis of key themes in assessment of citizen resilience in coping with earthquake disasters.

Examining obstacles to implementing a specific resilience action following an earthquake, it is realized that individuals and society more broadly experience a diversity of barriers to be better prepared for these disasters. Barriers most frequently mentioned are a lack of information and awareness on the dangers of earthquakes and a shortage of qualified people for deploying education and training. Also, corruption and bad governance in construction are quoted as critical influences on obstacles to improving earthquake resilience. The report also stresses ignorance, negligence (by individual and collective citizens), and disinterest. These are aspects of education and awareness that have had too little particular salience or visibility in national policy discussions about resilience. From the analysis, it is clear that the challenges of implementing individual strategies for seismic resilience are numerous and intertwined, necessitating a comprehensive strategy to combat this issue (Table 4 and Figure 6).

Table 4

Primary obstacles to implementing resilience measures in response to earthquake

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 The greatest barrier is the lack of personnel and staff to conduct oral and practical education sessions. Additionally, limited resources and citizens’ lack of desire to learn more about the consequences of earthquakes pose significant challenges Lack of personnel, limited resources, disinterest 30
2 The main barriers include the lack of information, namely, ignorance about the dangers earthquakes pose and how to react in such situations. Ignorance takes precedence. Alongside this, we can cite societal indifference, at both the individual and governmental levels, towards improving the resilience of local communities. The absence of adequate oversight in construction projects, as evidenced by the example of Turkey, where corruption and incompetent or irresponsible inspections by professionals are the primary barriers. Citizens’ disinterest in education, as well as the apathy of institutions and authorities responsible for implementing certain activities, are also highlighted as barriers Ignorance, societal indifference, corruption 40
3 In my opinion, the main barrier is the lack of knowledge about resilience measures, coupled with a lack of desire and willingness to educate ourselves and prepare for such situations. We could say its individual negligence towards the community, and ultimately, towards oneself and one’s loved ones, stemming from the fact that we are unaware and uninformed about the dangers posed by this natural disaster. Thus, ignorance is the fundamental barrier to taking resilience measures in response to earthquakes. Lack of knowledge, negligence, unawareness 35
4 Barriers can be financial resources allocated for financing educational workshops, conducting demonstrative exercises, paying instructors, providing spaces for education, etc. Additionally, a lack of personnel and citizens’ disinterest in taking resilience measures against earthquake-related disasters can be barriers Financial constraints, lack of personnel, disinterest 25
5 Misunderstanding and denial of the real danger posed by earthquakes, caused by general ignorance and uninformedness among citizens about the potential consequences of earthquakes, also contribute. Negligence, lack of time, prioritizing other activities and priorities are factors as well Ignorance, misunderstanding, competing priorities 20
6 The primary barrier is negligence, both on an individual and societal level. However, in my view, society bears greater responsibility because caring for citizens is the state’s problem, just as caring for household members is an individual’s concern Negligence, societal responsibility, state obligation 15
7 The very lack of awareness and understanding that earthquakes can strike at any moment, endangering us, presents a barrier in terms of disinterest in taking certain measures to create a more resilient society Lack of awareness, disinterest, resilience measures 10
8 The underlying issue lies in the fact that earthquakes are a phenomenon that can occur at any moment, and our vulnerability to them serves as a barrier to taking proactive measures. Many individuals fail to recognize the imminent threat, assuming it would not affect them directly. However, this complacency is dangerous, as it prevents the implementation of necessary precautions. In addition, the complexity of earthquake preparedness, coupled with the fast-paced nature of modern life, further contributes to this barrier. People are often overwhelmed with daily responsibilities and fail to prioritize disaster preparedness. Consequently, raising awareness about the real and immediate threat of earthquakes and emphasizing the importance of preparedness measures is crucial in overcoming this barrier Vulnerability, complacency, preparedness complexity 5
Figure 6 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in primary obstacles to implementing resilience measures in response to earthquake.
Figure 6

Word cloud analysis of key themes in primary obstacles to implementing resilience measures in response to earthquake.

Key barriers to preparedness and response to disasters, particularly earthquakes, were identified in an analysis of the resilience of local government. The most obvious are the clear lack of personnel to provide the required education and implementation of these resilience activities, political attention being diverted to other issues, and resources stretched too thin post-earthquake. While there is some level of readiness, it remains minimal. Furthermore, people do not know what activities the local government is doing to improve earthquake preparedness. This lack of understanding and awareness of the risks posed by earthquakes contributes to unpreparedness for responding to such disasters. Furthermore, some local governments inadvertently dismiss the inevitability of earthquakes, leading to insufficient attention and action in planning and implementing resilience measures. Structural deficiencies in control and coordination systems are also identified as limiting factors in the preparedness of local governments. This is underscored by the fact that, as shown in the analysis above, greater coordination and education at a local level are urgently needed when earthquake-created disasters strike (Table 5 and Figure 7).

Table 5

Assessment of local self-governments’ resilience in responding to earthquake disasters

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 Once again, we encounter a personnel problem if there are not individuals available to conduct education. On the other hand, political entities predominantly focus on social and political issues, relegating others to the side lines, if mentioned at all. While institutions like the Civil Protection Service exist, I believe their capacity is insufficient to address the consequences of earthquakes Personnel shortage, political focus, insufficient capacity 30
2 In my view, there is a certain level of preparedness, but it remains minimal. There is likely adequate documentation for mitigating earthquake consequences, but it’s uncertain whether there’s a specific document addressing earthquake resilience Minimal preparedness, documentation gaps, earthquake resilience 25
3 I lack data and information about the activities of local authorities aimed at improving and strengthening resilience in the event of disasters caused by earthquakes. As a resident of this city, I can subjectively state that I am not aware of any activities undertaken by competent authorities to enhance resilience in the face of earthquakes, despite our city being in a highly seismic area, posing significant risks in the event of an earthquake Lack of data, local authority inactivity, high seismic risk 20
4 It is difficult for me to express an opinion on this matter due to a lack of information. However, I believe and hope that we are somewhat prepared, considering the consequences left by the earthquake 45 years ago. So I hope we have learned some lessons from that situation. On the other hand, as a resident of this city, I have witnessed construction projects that I believe are unsuitable for this area, but I hope that expertise prevails Lack of information, hope from past lessons, construction concerns 15
5 Considering that there has not been a major earthquake in Herceg Novi recently, I am not entirely sure if local authorities have developed a detailed disaster response plan for earthquakes Uncertain plans, absence of major earthquakes, local preparedness 10
6 If we are discussing the problems ordinary citizens may face due to these events, which result from ignorance, I would say there is a significant problem with the actions of local and state institutions. On the other hand, I cannot speak about the condition, knowledge, and effectiveness of services trained to act in the event of earthquakes because I am not informed Ignorance, institutional inaction, limited service knowledge 5
7 As I mentioned earlier, local governments, as well as state institutions at higher levels, do not pay enough attention and importance to this issue. I think they rely more on assistance from the region and Europe because they are aware that their level of readiness is very low. The question arises, what happens until that help arrives? I believe we are left on our own until then, with a small and insufficient number of experts who know how to handle these situations Low governmental focus, reliance on external aid, expert shortage 35
8 Like citizens, I believe local governments are disinterested in this matter. The fact that an earthquake will occur is denied, and it is not given importance, while some other matters are considered more urgent, resulting in a passive society regarding this issue Local government disinterest, denial of risk, passive society 40
Figure 7 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in the assessment of local self-governments’ resilience in responding to earthquake disasters.
Figure 7

Word cloud analysis of key themes in the assessment of local self-governments’ resilience in responding to earthquake disasters.

3.2 Knowledge and awareness about earthquakes

Supporting previous findings, the overall citizen resilience in facing earthquakes as disasters and knowledge about those are quite scarce, looking at the perceptive views of respondents. This lack is the result of insufficient learning, either through formal education (schooling) or other means, as well as inadequate nationwide programs that incorporate Earthquake Awareness directly into its components.

Some respondents point out that the general populace’s knowledge about earthquakes is rudimentary and superficial, while others argue that time constraints and the demands of daily life hinder deeper engagement with this subject. Suggestions for addressing this issue span a spectrum of approaches, ranging from educational initiatives targeting all age groups to diverse communication strategies, such as school curricula enhancements, workshops, training sessions, broadcasts, and community outreach programs.

The general assessment highlights the urgent need for enhanced educational initiatives and successful social marketing of earthquake information. Favoured measures should be vital for increasing citizen resiliency and preparedness against such natural calamities (Table 6 and Figure 8).

Table 6

Assessment of citizens’ knowledge about earthquakes and resilience

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 In my assessment, citizens’ understanding of disasters stemming from earthquakes remains at a distressingly low level. As I previously discussed, the root of this issue lies primarily in the inadequacies of formal education, particularly within schools where earthquake preparedness should be a mandatory component. Additionally, supplementary initiatives such as workshops, training sessions, and informative broadcasts are crucial to bolstering public knowledge. However, even when such efforts are undertaken, there persists a significant gap in informing citizens about these activities, presenting a challenge comparable to the lack of their execution Low awareness, education gaps, public knowledge 35
2 Building upon my earlier response, I emphasized the insufficiency in disseminating information and the sluggish implementation of educational endeavours aimed at enhancing public awareness. Moreover, there exists a scarcity of scientific and educational programs targeting older demographics, utilizing social media platforms to educate the younger generation, and incorporating earthquake-related curricula into schools Information dissemination, social media, curriculum integration 30
3 As I mentioned previously, I contend that substantive knowledge on this topic is scarce beyond a few instinctual responses based on hearsay, such as avoiding elevators or seeking shelter under door frames. I question whether the average citizen has been exposed to more comprehensive information through educational campaigns Basic knowledge, instinctual responses, limited campaign exposure 45
4 This issue transcends our society; many countries, regardless of their level of development, grapple with similar hurdles. The increasingly routinized lifestyles and dwindling interpersonal interactions in both developed and developing nations contribute to a decline in empathy and willingness to assist others in times of need. Daily routines have alienated us from matters deemed “secondary,” neglecting vital aspects of personal and communal significance. Consequently, citizens lack knowledge due to detachment and apathy towards objectively crucial matters, which is not unique to our context. The scarcity of time in today’s fast-paced world exacerbates this problem, resulting in the neglect of critical issues like earthquake preparedness Global issue, decline in empathy, routine alienation 40
5 As previously stated, I believe citizens possess only a rudimentary understanding of earthquakes, capable of explaining the basic concept and potential consequences in broad strokes. However, I doubt many individuals, especially those outside professional circles, possess a deeper comprehension of earthquake-related subjects Rudimentary understanding, lack of depth, professional knowledge 30
6 In my view, citizens’ capacity to respond to earthquakes, as it pertains to their understanding of earthquakes, is notably deficient. This conclusion stems from the widespread lack of education about earthquake-related disasters, compounded by an inadequate grasp of appropriate responses in earthquake scenarios. The dearth of effective communication channels for educating citizens about their preparedness, particularly regarding earthquake awareness, exacerbates this situation Deficient response capacity, lack of communication channels, preparedness awareness 50
7 Absolutely none! Can you tell me where one could gain such knowledge, aside from taking the initiative themselves? And that is something sorely lacking nowadays. Hence, we must instil this knowledge in our populace from early childhood through retirement. Let’s not forget 1979; history could repeat itself. On another note, observe the chaotic situation in Cetinje, not to mention the coastal regions grappling with rampant construction Self-initiative needed, knowledge deficit, historical reminder 25
8 In my estimation, the prevailing sentiment is that earthquakes are not perceived as a potential risk; citizens believe such disasters cannot occur here. Consequently, citizens’ preparedness, particularly in terms of their understanding of earthquakes, is remarkably low Risk perception, low preparedness, misconception of safety 20
Figure 8 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in assessment of citizens’ knowledge about earthquakes and resilience.
Figure 8

Word cloud analysis of key themes in assessment of citizens’ knowledge about earthquakes and resilience.

The quantification of the frequency of occurrence of certain themes in respondents’ answers to questions reveals the following results: (a) Lack of education about earthquakes: This theme appears in all responses and stands out as a dominant theme. Key words related to this theme in responses include “insufficient education,” “lack of information,” and “low awareness.” (b) Lack of educational programs: Also present in all responses, emphasizing the need for better distribution of educational programs about earthquakes. Keywords in this context include “scientific-educational broadcasts,” “educational approach,” and “training programs”; (c) Citizens’ unpreparedness: This theme appears in several responses, highlighting the lack of awareness and readiness of citizens to react in the event of earthquakes. Keywords related to this theme include “unpreparedness,” “lack of risk awareness”; (d) Need for continuous education: Respondents emphasize the need for ongoing education about earthquakes to increase citizens’ awareness and preparedness. Keywords related to this theme include “continuous education” and “ongoing information”; (e) Lack of time and routine: This theme appears in several responses, indicating that daily obligations and routine hinder the process of education and earthquake preparedness. Key words used about this theme include “lack of time” and “daily obligations.”

Percentages and quotation can be used to measure how often these themes are mentioned in answers by participants. For example, the theme “Lack of education about earthquakes” may be identified in 100% of the responses, and the theme “Citizens’ unpreparedness” may be identified in 25%. Detection limits of these can be useful for better analysis and planning of earthquake hazard information campaigns (Table 6 and Figure 8).

In the analysis of attitudes regarding improving citizens’ resilience to earthquakes as a natural disaster, it is observed that there is a consensus on the importance of education and information provision as a key aspect in increasing preparedness. The significance of education is emphasized as the most effective way to acquire knowledge on how to react in case of earthquakes and prepare oneself and households for possible disasters. Creating awareness about the importance of preparedness and involving citizens in activities related to resilience is an important step in building a resilient society. Alongside education, there is a prescription for creating reserves of basic food supplies at both the national and local levels, followed by providing accessible information to citizens about the status of these reserves and how they can prepare for potential catastrophes. Additional measures include mandatory educational activities through school curricula, additional courses, and seminars, as well as organizing workshops and training sessions to educate citizens on crisis response. In the overall context, it appears that the focus is on adequate education, implementing measures such as training and information provision, as well as creating awareness and involving citizens in processes to enhance earthquake resilience (Table 7 and Figure 9).

Table 7

Resilience level of households in Montenegro in responding to earthquake disasters

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 I think that in most cases, resilience is weak. Many buildings are being constructed or already built outside of the regulations set for construction works. Old structures were built according to earlier standards, and we still witness unplanned construction today. Household members are not familiar with basic reactions in the event of such disasters, both older and newer buildings lack adequate equipment for protection Weak resilience, non-compliant construction, lack of equipment 40
2 My opinion is that citizens do not give significant importance to the dangers of earthquakes. Mild tremors are common here, but stronger ones have not occurred recently, so citizens have not developed a fear of this natural phenomenon. Mostly, we hear about destructive earthquakes happening in distant places that cannot threaten us, thus unfortunately underestimating the fact that extremely strong tremors have occurred here and there is a real danger of them recurring Low awareness, underestimated risk, lack of fear 35
3 I believe that the resilience of households in Montenegro regarding earthquake response is at an undesirable level. Inadequate education, lack of emphasis on the potential consequences of earthquakes in our region, especially in coastal areas and central parts, contribute to this. It all comes down to fear when tremors occur, seeking information on where it happened, and that is where all curiosity about that event ends. Unfortunately, the need for information that could be useful is either unavailable or there is no citizen interest in getting educated Undesirable resilience, inadequate education, information gap 30
4 I think it is not at a high level, precisely because there are no educational programs for citizens, thus depriving them of certain information and knowledge on how to react in the event of an earthquake Absence of educational programs, knowledge deficit, reaction preparedness 25
5 My opinion is that household resilience in the event of an earthquake boils down to reflexive action. In the event of an earthquake, it is important to find a safe place, which usually involves an evacuation plan. What follows after that is a matter of “higher force” Reflexive action, evacuation planning, dependence on higher forces 20
6 In my opinion, it is very poor. Ignorance is the biggest problem, but citizens do not prioritize that knowledge because they are not aware of the danger until they find themselves in that situation Poor knowledge, ignorance, lack of awareness 15
7 Poor! I think there are no households in Montenegro where these matters are discussed or contemplated. If mentioned somewhere, it is only briefly. There is no drive to discuss it, except in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, and even then, the conversation about how to react is lacking, merely commenting on the situation depicted in the media Lack of discussion, media depiction, reactive conversations 10
8 At a low level again. The lack of interest and the lack of built awareness that danger lurks and can happen at any moment. Citizens are relaxed about this matter and do not take any action because they do not have a sense of negative fear but are rather indifferent to it Low interest, indifference, lack of fear 5
Figure 9 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in resilience level of households in Montenegro in responding to earthquake disasters.
Figure 9

Word cloud analysis of key themes in resilience level of households in Montenegro in responding to earthquake disasters.

Part of the analysis on the perception regarding earthquake resilience in Montenegro through responses from participants provided diversity in attitudes and recommendations for increasing readiness, as well as a practical reaction to disasters. A few point out the need for trained staff and dedicated citizen training/support services or teams, while others suggest that earthquake response should be systematically integrated into education from a young age. They also recommend mobilization and awareness-raising activities through the media, campaigns, and institutional information diffusion. This is complemented by a call for state and local institutions to be strongly active in coordinating or supporting initiatives that help citizens improve their resilience. Overall, a variety of positions make an essential addition to both the discussion of the issue and possibilities for enhancing citizens’ earthquake resilience in Montenegro (Table 8 and Figure 10).

Table 8

Assessment of citizens’ awareness and influencing factors regarding preventive measures for earthquake disasters

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 To employ individuals permanently, in the form of forming a service to equip citizens for the response. The service could also be integrated within existing services, such as the Fire Brigade Permanent staff, integrated service, citizen equipment 30
2 I think the most crucial part is covered through these issues when it comes to the resilience of the local community Community resilience, local focus, comprehensive coverage 25
3 I would not have anything to add, except that I’m glad someone has decided to address this problem, not only for earthquake hazards but also for other natural hazards threatening our society Addressing hazards, awareness, multi-hazard preparation 20
4 I would not have anything to add, except that I expect serious topics to be initiated and implemented on this issue Serious topics, implementation, issue prioritization 15
5 I have nothing to add No suggestions, agreement with current points 10
6 So, my opinion is that we can accelerate citizens’ awareness of responding to earthquake hazards. If we have media providing quality information through certain programs, then through school education, educating children, through posters in buildings, public institutions educating citizens with specific instructions on how to react in the event of an earthquake, and on the other hand citizens who will adopt all this information, I think we can create a significantly more resilient society than the one we currently live in Citizen awareness, media role, school education 35
7 Nothing to add without repeating myself No suggestions, avoiding redundancy 5
8 An appeal to pay more attention to this and similar issues at both the state and local levels. For citizens themselves to receive adequate information and become aware of the threats that await us Increased attention, state and local focus, threat awareness 40
Figure 10 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in the assessment of citizens’ awareness and influencing factors regarding preventive measures for earthquake disasters.
Figure 10

Word cloud analysis of key themes in the assessment of citizens’ awareness and influencing factors regarding preventive measures for earthquake disasters.

3.3 Institutional engagement and response preparedness

Analysis of respondents’ attitudes regarding households’ resilience to earthquakes in terms of verbal/written protection and rescue plans reveals the following: (a) lack of awareness: the majority of respondents emphasize insufficient awareness among citizens about household protection and rescue plans. Keywords related to this theme are “unawareness,” “lack of knowledge,” and “lack of risk awareness.” This theme is present in 100% of the responses; (b) lack of practical steps: respondents point out a lack of concrete and practical steps in implementing protection and rescue plans. Also, it is important to mention that “resilience” refers to the overall capacity to recover from seismic impacts, “preparedness” addresses proactive measures taken before an earthquake, and “response” relates to actions taken during and immediately after an event.

Key words related to this theme are “lack of action,” “lack of practical steps,” and “invisible measures.” This theme appears in 75% of the responses; (c) sense of security: respondents also mention a sense of security that can lead to neglecting protection and rescue plans. Key words related to this theme are “sense of comfort,” “security,” and “trust that a disaster will not happen.”

This theme is present in 50% of the answers; (d) little appeal of plans: some responses point out that written protection and rescue plans for citizens are not appealing. Keywords associated with this topic: “dreary schemes” and “schemes drear.” It comes in the second position where 50% of the responses are about this issue; (e) informal communication: the data indicate that most people think they get their information through informal communication from friends or relatives – however, almost half are missing formal education and distribution of plans. This theme emerges in 50% of the responses.

Overall, the analysis indicates a significant lack of awareness and practical steps regarding household protection and rescue plans, pointing to the need for improving education and implementing concrete measures to increase citizens’ resilience to earthquakes (Table 9 and Figure 11).

Table 9

Assessment of the effectiveness of oral and written disaster preparedness plans among citizens for earthquake readiness, particularly at the household level

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 My opinion is that citizens’ resilience in responding to disasters caused by earthquakes in terms of verbal/written protection and rescue plans is very poor. Once again, we have the same problems as in previous situations: lack of awareness, and unawareness of the consequences earthquakes bring. The last significant earthquake in our area occurred in 1979, and at that time, part of the population was educated. However, the majority of citizens living in Montenegro today are not aware of the danger posed by earthquakes. Consequently, households do not develop sufficiently good communication when it comes to these dangers. The reason for this is a sense of comfort and security that such a catastrophe will not happen, which is again a consequence of lack of information and ignorance Poor resilience, lack of awareness, communication gap 35
2 If there are a certain number, I doubt even more, printed brochures in the form of protection and rescue plans, I believe even less that citizens have preserved them, let alone put them in a visible place and pay attention to them. As for verbal plans, considering that there have been strong earthquakes in the immediate vicinity recently, the knowledge they have acquired is perhaps from reporting from the scene or TV programs on this topic Printed brochures, verbal plans, media awareness 30
3 As a person living in this country, I am aware that there is a protection and rescue plan issued by the Government of Montenegro, but I have not noticed any concrete and practical steps. So, we possess a document, but besides that document, available on the website of the Government of Montenegro, I do not see concrete actions for that document to reach a larger number of citizens Government plan, limited public reach, lack of action 25
4 I think we have insufficient information regarding these issues. I assume that we have appropriate documents, and elaborates, but citizens themselves are deprived of that information because they mostly consider it insignificant. This is a natural phenomenon that may or may not happen soon, so it is set aside, which is a big problem because an earthquake can happen any minute, and we as citizens are neither aware of that nor do we find it important because we believe it will not happen. So, I think it is a big problem that written protection plans are not attractive enough for citizens, while verbal ones are very few, or they do not exist at all Insufficient information, citizen detachment, perceived insignificance 40
5 I think it boils down to some informal communication; if one hears that a devastating earthquake has occurred somewhere in the world, it might be discussed within the family circle. But a specific conversation aimed at education, conveying, and sharing knowledge, I think, is not present Informal communication, lack of educational conversations 20
6 We live alienated lives. Communication, even with relatives, is reduced to a minimum, so I do not believe that discussions on these topics take place, while written plans are completely excluded Alienation, minimal communication, absence of plans 15
7 This is related to the question of education. Considering that there is no awareness, or knowledge of how to react, I think protection plans do not exist in households either. I believe they would only have instinctive reactions Education deficit, instinctive reactions, household plans 10
8 I think there are no plans at the household level. I myself have not made a plan, neither written nor verbal, and I believe the majority of citizens have not either. If there is perhaps a poster with an evacuation plan in case of a fire in buildings, I think that is the only type of “plans” No household plans, limited awareness, evacuation posters 5
Figure 11 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in the evaluation of citizens’ stockpiling of food and water supplies for earthquake preparedness.
Figure 11

Word cloud analysis of key themes in the evaluation of citizens’ stockpiling of food and water supplies for earthquake preparedness.

Table 10 provides a detailed look into citizens’ views on earthquake preparedness, particularly focusing on stockpiling habits and overall readiness for seismic events. Responses vary significantly, showing different levels of preparedness between urban and rural households. Participants often refer back to their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing contrasts between their ability to restock essentials then and the likely difficulties they would face in an earthquake, where widespread and immediate damage could make resupply almost impossible. Key thematic areas – such as stockpile levels, perceptions of earthquake risks, daily priorities, and lessons learned from institutions – help organize the primary factors that shape preparedness. For instance, Participant 1 mentions how the pandemic served as a valuable learning experience for local institutions, underlining the importance of building resilience before a crisis hits. Theme frequencies further illuminate common concepts, with terms like stockpiling, pandemic comparisons, and institutional learning surfacing in 45% of the responses, while low stockpile levels and daily priorities were noted by 40% of the participants. Additional significant themes include stockpiling differences between urban and rural households (35%), short-term supply reliance due to busy lifestyles (30%), and concerns over food preservation and disaster risks (25%). Less common themes are “living hand-to-mouth” (20%), complacency in earthquake zones (15%), and pandemic insights linked to inadequate preparation (10%). This thematic breakdown, along with the frequency of each term’s appearance, sheds light on citizens’ stockpiling practices and their perspectives on earthquake readiness, offering valuable insights for developing targeted programs to build resilience (Table 10 and Figure 12).

Table 10

Evaluation of citizens’ stockpiling of food and water supplies for earthquake preparedness

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 If we consider the opportunity we had to witness the extent of citizens’ stockpiles during the coronavirus pandemic, we can conclude that preparations were very poor. The difference is that citizens had time to react and replenish their supplies in the first scenario, whereas in the case of stronger earthquakes, this is often impossible due to the extensive damage. Once again, I would like to refer to state and local institutions, which could have learned from the pandemic example to identify issues that our society faces in similar situations Stockpiles, pandemic comparison, institutional learning 45
2 I believe that possession of stockpiles in the form of food and water is at a very low level, often limited to basic daily necessities. Citizens do not prioritize the possibility of a stronger earthquake occurring, as they primarily focus on everyday matters, believing that such events either would not happen or would not affect them directly Low stockpile levels, earthquake risk perception, daily priorities 40
3 I think that serious stockpiling efforts are not being made, especially in urban households where numerous supermarkets are readily available, and thoughts of disasters are almost non-existent. In rural households, I presume the situation is different, considering that agriculture is one of the main activities, leading to stockpiles of vegetables, homemade meat, and the like Urban vs rural stockpiling, accessibility, disaster preparedness 35
4 As I mentioned before, we live fast-paced lives and do not have time for some basic things and activities. Yet, readily available items are easily accessible. People no longer buy large quantities of food but rather what is needed for, let’s say, a week. Therefore, I believe that in a more serious sense, we cannot talk about stockpiles Fast-paced lifestyle, short-term supplies, lack of stockpiles 30
5 I believe that the situation is alarming in this regard as well. I’m not sure if there is still time for food stockpiling, considering that freezers are almost nonexistent and canned food is no longer as attractive as it used to be. Therefore, I think that very few households make food reserves, especially out of fear of a natural disaster like an earthquake Alarming situation, food preservation, natural disaster fear 25
6 The same goes for none! People live from hand to mouth, focusing on the present without considering stockpiles. Perhaps if someone has relatives in the countryside or prepares preserves for the winter, if we can classify that as stockpiling, besides that, it is hard to find anyone with ready supplies for a longer period Living hand to mouth, lack of preparedness, limited stockpiles 20
7 The answer is the same as before. Citizens are not aware that we are in an earthquake-prone area, mainly because the last major earthquake with significant consequences happened almost half a century ago, so citizens became complacent regarding this issue. That’s why serious food and water reserves are not being created, as we noticed even a couple of years ago during the pandemic when supermarkets were full of citizens and shelves were empty. Therefore, there were no reserves; people reacted in the given moment Complacency, earthquake prone area, pandemic reflection 15
8 If we consider the opportunity we had to witness the extent of citizens’ stockpiles during the coronavirus pandemic, we can conclude that preparations were very poor. The difference is that citizens had time to react and replenish their supplies in the first scenario, whereas in the case of stronger earthquakes, this is often impossible due to the extensive damage. Once again, I would like to refer to state and local institutions, which could have learned from the pandemic example to identify issues that our society faces in similar situations Pandemic insight, institutional responsibility, poor preparations 10
Figure 12 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in the assessment of the effectiveness of oral and written disaster preparedness plans among citizens for earthquake readiness, particularly at the household level.
Figure 12

Word cloud analysis of key themes in the assessment of the effectiveness of oral and written disaster preparedness plans among citizens for earthquake readiness, particularly at the household level.

In the analysis of respondents’ attitudes towards citizens’ resilience to respond to disasters caused by earthquakes in terms of practising specific activities (evacuation), we observe the following results: (a) a very small number of respondents (one) emphasize the existence of previous services and exercises conducted in case of danger. However, today, there is a perceived lack of such organizations, leading to less comprehensive education and citizens’ ability to respond; (b) a very small percentage of respondents (one) state that citizens do not conduct evacuation exercises in case of earthquakes at all, and another is not familiar with conducting such activities; (c) several respondents expressed the opinion that documents and plans exist, but there are no activities such as training and education to help citizens react better in case of a disaster. This indicates a disproportionate relationship between the existence of resources and their application in practice; (d) some respondents emphasize that there was a practice of conducting exercises in the past, but today, it is very rare or non-existent. They also propose introducing exercises in various institutions such as schools, hospitals, and government agencies; (e) the majority of respondents (four) express uncertainty or lack of knowledge about conducting exercises to respond in case of earthquakes, suggesting the need for increased awareness and education on this topic. Overall, the results indicate a significant lack of awareness and ability of citizens to respond to earthquakes through evacuation exercises. This result highlights the need for improvement in training and education programs to increase citizens’ resilience to earthquakes (Table 11 and Figure 13).

Table 11

Evaluation of citizens’ engagement in evacuation drills for earthquake preparedness

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 Once upon a time, there existed a service known as Civil Protection, which regularly conducted exercises to prepare citizens for potential dangers. Through these exercises, citizens were educated and equipped with the necessary skills to respond effectively in hazardous situations. Unfortunately, in today’s context, similar governmental bodies or organizations are either non-existent or limited to rescue services and fire departments. Consequently, it appears that citizens are largely left to rely on their instincts and reflexes when faced with dangers such as earthquakes Civil protection, historical context, citizen skills 40
2 In my opinion, there is a glaring lack of evacuation exercises being conducted by citizens from their homes in the event of earthquakes. I am almost certain that this practice is not commonplace in households across Montenegro Lack of evacuation drills, household preparedness 35
3 Expanding on the previous point, while we may possess documents outlining emergency procedures, there seems to be a significant gap when it comes to actual implementation. There is a notable absence of training, educational initiatives, or efforts to raise awareness about the importance of knowing how to react in emergency situations. At least from my perspective, I have not encountered any such activities Implementation gap, absence of training, awareness 30
4 To be frank, I am not aware of any ongoing exercises of this nature, but I strongly believe they should be taking place. If my information is incorrect, it is because I have not personally witnessed any exercises of this kind Need for exercises, lack of visibility, citizen awareness 25
5 I am aware that in the past, during the time of the SFRY, there was an entity called Civil Protection tasked with responding to various hazardous situations. They underwent training and were knowledgeable about how to react in specific scenarios. Whether a similar organization still exists today is unknown to me, but I believe it would be incredibly beneficial if it did. I assume that the responsibilities of Civil Protection may now fall under the jurisdiction of the Protection and Rescue Service Civil protection history, protection, and rescue service 20
6 In my humble opinion, based on my limited experience, information, and knowledge in this field, it appears that citizens are not actively engaged in such preparedness activities. I can only deduce that my lack of awareness regarding these matters may stem from a lack of commitment from relevant institutions and authorities to provide citizens with the necessary knowledge and skills Institutional commitment, preparedness activities, citizen engagement 15
7 Furthermore, it seems that opportunities to participate in such exercises have significantly diminished over time. While we may have had access to exercises conducted by firefighters in the past, these events are now scarcely remembered. It is my firm belief that evacuation exercises should be implemented across all institutions where large numbers of people gather, including schools, government offices, hospitals, and more Diminished opportunities, institutional exercises, public facilities 10
8 Considering the discontinuation of mandatory military service, civil protection, and similar bodies, it is evident that there is a gap in preparedness training for citizens Military service discontinuation, preparedness gap, civil protection 5
Figure 13 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in the evaluation of citizens’ engagement in evacuation drills for earthquake preparedness.
Figure 13

Word cloud analysis of key themes in the evaluation of citizens’ engagement in evacuation drills for earthquake preparedness.

Analysing the opinions of respondents on what local authorities should undertake to increase citizens’ resilience to earthquakes, there is a consensus on the importance of education and training. The overall focus is on raising awareness and preparing citizens for possible earthquakes. Various activities are proposed, including educational workshops, compulsory education in schools, as well as collaboration with larger firms and businesses to provide adequate equipment and training for employees. In addition, it is suggested to direct resources towards elaborating plans to increase community resilience, as well as establishing special services or teams to respond to earthquakes. In the overall context, the proposed activities aim to educate and enhance citizens’ preparedness, which would significantly contribute to increasing resilience to earthquakes (Table 12 and Figure 14).

Table 12

Strategies to enhance citizens’ resilience in responding to earthquakes by local self-governments

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 I think that multi-faceted disinterest is the predominant problem. Neither citizens show interest in educating themselves, nor do local authorities conduct specific activities to implement this education. It is necessary to employ individuals, and involve volunteers, the Red Cross, and NGOs, all under the auspices of the service responsible for conducting these activities Citizen disinterest, lack of activities, volunteer involvement 30
2 My opinion is that citizen awareness is low, except for potential individuals whose profession is closely related to these natural phenomena Low awareness, professional knowledge, limited interest 25
3 My assessment is that citizen awareness is influenced by several factors. Education programs, if they exist and are implemented, would be followed by citizen interest in educating and informing themselves Awareness factors, education programs, citizen interest 20
4 It depends on their interest, willingness, and desire to expand their knowledge. Besides, conditions and opportunities to acquire more detailed information and participate in potential training also influence this Interest and willingness, knowledge expansion, training opportunities 15
5 I rate it relatively poorly, and the reason is again the lack or inadequate information. Therefore, the media should dedicate much more space to educational programs of that and similar content. Then, awareness through social networks has proven to be very effective in recent practice, but it is taken with a certain reserve, considering that they often contain inaccuracies or disinformation Poor information, media involvement, social media awareness 10
6 I think that the quantity of information on one side and citizens’ interest in the same information on the other side have the most significant influence Information quantity, citizen interest, knowledge gap 5
7 It depends on the state’s interest in providing information to citizens. I mean educational institutions and the media, which are in the most favourable position to inform citizens about preventive measures for responding to a natural disaster caused by an earthquake State responsibility, educational institutions, preventive measures 35
8 I believe that it is at a low level, which represents one of the burning problems concerning citizens’ resilience. This is influenced by the insufficient dedication of state organs and citizens’ disinterest in getting informed. Entertainment and politics take precedence, while issues of crucial importance receive minimal attention Low awareness, state neglect, focus on entertainment 40
Figure 14 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in strategies to enhance citizens’ resilience in responding to earthquakes by local self-governments.
Figure 14

Word cloud analysis of key themes in strategies to enhance citizens’ resilience in responding to earthquakes by local self-governments.

3.4 Citizen motivation and community-level factors

In the analysis of citizens’ motivation to undertake specific resilience measures in response to earthquakes, several observations emerge: (a) three respondents, accounting for 25% of the total, highlight the potential of introducing educational broadcasts as a means of motivating citizens. This is recommended as a column for informing and raising awareness of the risks; (b) 4 out of 12 respondents (33%) emphasize the importance of educating younger members of society through workshops and educational films. It is considered the most effectual and long-standing method in creating response capacity; (c) awareness of earthquake hazards motivates three respondents (25% of the total). They also recommend holding forums with rescuers to discuss experiences and provide advice to citizens; (d) two respondents representing 17% of the total point towards fear as the main motivator for action but also suggest ignorance regarding the dangers to be a significant issue. From the overall results, we can suggest that a general awareness about the risks, education on precautions and measures, and also the possibility to obtain expert advice are very important for resilience measures. In addition to the basic results presented, it is important to note a negative attitude towards the existing education and preparedness system for dealing with earthquakes in some responses. Respondents believe that existing mechanisms are not efficient enough and largely rely on instinctive reactions in dangerous situations. This suggests the need for a change in approach towards education and raising awareness about earthquakes.

Furthermore, it is essential to emphasize that citizens’ motivation to take resilience measures may vary depending on various factors, including age, educational level, living conditions, and past experiences with disasters. Some respondents believe that fear is the most important motivator, while others emphasize protecting and rescuing their loved ones as the main driver for taking action.

In addition, some responses indicate that citizens have different perceptions of earthquake risks, highlighting the need for more effort in educating and raising awareness on this important issue. While education is generally considered the most effective motivator, other factors such as dedication, solidarity, and responsibility towards the community can also contribute to increasing citizens’ resilience to earthquakes (Table 13 and Figure 15).

Table 13

Evaluation of factors influencing citizens’ motivation for resilience measures in earthquake disasters

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 In analysing citizens’ motivation to undertake specific resilience measures in response to disasters caused by earthquakes, several key observations emerge. First, three respondents highlight the potential of introducing educational broadcasts as a means of motivating citizens. This suggests that disseminating information through such channels could serve as an effective method of educating the populace about potential dangers Educational broadcasts, motivation, information dissemination 30
2 Second, four respondents emphasize the importance of educating younger members of society through workshops and educational films. This approach is deemed the most effective, long-lasting way to instil response capabilities Youth education, workshops, long-lasting impact 35
3 Third, three respondents stress the importance of earthquake awareness as a motivation for taking resilience measures. Additionally, they propose organizing forums with rescuers to share experiences and advice with citizens Awareness, forums with rescuers, experience sharing 25
4 Finally, two respondents underscore fear as the primary motivation for action but also highlight a lack of awareness about the dangers of earthquakes as a problem. Collectively, these results demonstrate that awareness of risks, education, and the opportunity to receive advice from experts are crucial motivators for citizens to take resilience measures in response to earthquakes Fear, lack of awareness, risk education 20
5 In addition to the primary findings outlined earlier, it is noteworthy that some responses express a negative attitude towards the existing education and preparedness system for dealing with earthquakes. Respondents believe that current mechanisms are insufficiently effective and rely primarily on instinctive reactions in times of danger. This indicates a need for a shift towards education and raising awareness about earthquakes Negative attitudes, instinctive reactions, system improvement 15
6 Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that citizens’ motivation to undertake specific resilience measures may vary depending on various factors, including age, educational level, living conditions, and past experiences with disasters. Some respondents consider fear to be the most significant motivator, while others prioritize the protection and rescue of their loved ones. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that citizens have differing perceptions of earthquake risks, highlighting the need for increased efforts in education and awareness on this critical issue Varying motivations, demographic factors, risk perception 10
7 While education is generally considered the most effective motivator, other factors such as dedication, solidarity, and community responsibility can also contribute to enhancing citizens’ resilience to earthquakes. By addressing these diverse motivators, efforts to increase earthquake resilience can be more comprehensive and effective, ultimately ensuring the safety and well-being of communities Education, solidarity, community responsibility 5
8 Motivation among school-aged citizens can be achieved through workshops involving rescue services. Children are easily engaged; showing them educational films, introducing them to equipment, both professional and what can be found in our homes. This kind of education for the youngest members of society would be the most effective, long-lasting, and beneficial. Another advantage is that they would share their knowledge, passing on experiences from workshops to their parents and other household members. For adult citizens, I believe it is considerably more challenging to implement due to their daily activities and obligations. However, awareness of the dangers can indeed be a driving force for taking measures against this disaster Youth engagement, workshops, household knowledge sharing 5
Figure 15 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in the evaluation of factors influencing citizens’ motivation for resilience measures in earthquake disasters.
Figure 15

Word cloud analysis of key themes in the evaluation of factors influencing citizens’ motivation for resilience measures in earthquake disasters.

As we can derive from the respondents’ answers, opinions differ on how to improve citizens’ resilience to earthquakes as disasters in terms of knowledge, preparedness, measures taken, and planning. The proposed measures for increasing citizens’ resilience are versatile. First is the emphasis on education, with suggestions including teaching earthquake courses at all school levels and using social networks as information channels, especially for younger population. The importance of distributing earthquake response information brochures is also highlighted.

Second is the need to stress more on food stockpile readiness, both at the state level, through local administrations, and by individuals. This also includes transparent information to citizens about the state of stockpiles and potential opportunities. Other suggestions include incorporating earthquake training and education into state exams, as well as holding regular school classes on the issue.

Third, workplaces should conduct regular exercises and drills to help citizens learn the appropriate earthquake response protocols. Suggestions for improvement include hiring permanent workers to oversee volunteers during drills and conducting community education on earthquake awareness. Throughout all proposed measures, the importance of raising awareness among citizens about the importance of prevention and earthquake preparedness is emphasized, as well as strengthening institutional capacities to deal with this risk. Overall, there is a consensus that only a combination of education, training, preventive measures, and stockpile preparation will ensure greater citizen resilience to earthquakes (Table 14 and Figure 16).

Table 14

Strategies to enhance citizens’ resilience in responding to earthquake disasters

Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)
1 The things I have been talking about in previous topics hold true here. Knowledge needs to be imparted from elementary schools to high schools and even at universities through specific courses. By using social media, we can easily provide information to young people about the consequences and dangers posed by earthquakes School education, social media, youth awareness 40
2 As I mentioned before, education is the most important and effective way to improve citizens’ resilience to earthquakes. This way, people gain knowledge on how to react in case of an earthquake, how to prepare themselves and their households, and by distributing brochures containing content related to disaster response due to earthquakes Brochures, earthquake preparation, public knowledge 35
3 First, it is necessary to create certain commodity reserves in the form of basic food supplies at the national level, and then the same should be done individually by local governments and citizens in their households. How to improve this? First, state and local authorities should do this transparently by providing citizens with data on the status of stockpiles and how long they can temporally meet the population’s needs. This way, attention is drawn to the fact that citizens, through certain programs and self-education, inform themselves about all the consequences. During certain state exams, one of the areas could be earthquake response, while in schools, this could be organized through regular classes. For other citizens, finding an adequate way to acquaint themselves with the dangers and, thus, build a more resilient society to these hazards through knowledge and skills Stockpiles, transparency, knowledge programs 30
4 I believe that education and providing important information come first, followed by training and involving individuals in everyday activities related to the issue of citizens’ resilience to earthquakes. This could involve employing permanent staff to accompany volunteers who would demonstrate specific exercises together and educate citizens through seminars on how to respond in case of earthquakes Training, volunteer involvement, earthquake seminars 25
5 First, educating children in schools is essential, and then creating brochures and written materials as supplementary material for children and adults. Regarding creating food reserves, I think the country’s financial situation plays a serious role, considering the citizens’ standard of living. As for preventive measures, possessing plans, first, citizens need to be made aware of the importance, primarily, of building quality and other prevention measures, such as possessing tools, first aid equipment, fire extinguishers, etc. School education, preventive measures, household preparedness 20
6 First, instructing citizens that this is a real danger threatening us and can happen at any moment, by reaching them with information about the importance of society’s resilience in these situations. It is essential for all of us to be prepared and capable of reacting, helping, and influencing to minimize the consequences of earthquakes. All of this is achieved through adequate education provided to all citizens Real danger awareness, community preparation, citizen skills 15
7 Education, training, and working on resilience strengthening. Education and training, as I said, from kindergartens to nursing homes. Institutions should engage in planning and developing strategies, training specialized personnel, creating teams to respond in case of a disaster, etc. Comprehensive education, institutional training, response teams 10
8 By conducting educational workshops, providing information, and allocating space to this issue at all levels. An informed society comes first, followed by the development of specific plans and strategies and society’s preparation as a whole, through strengthening institutions, establishing bodies and teams solely dedicated to these issues Workshops, societal preparedness, institutional strengthening 5
Figure 16 
                  Word cloud analysis of key themes in strategies to enhance citizens’ resilience in responding to earthquake disasters.
Figure 16

Word cloud analysis of key themes in strategies to enhance citizens’ resilience in responding to earthquake disasters.

4 Discussion and recommendation

The results of this extensive qualitative analysis highlight the intricacies and obstacles to enhancing seismic resilience in Montenegro. On the other side, this article reviews relevant seismic risk management strategies and interprets the role of local preparedness and response mechanisms in managing broader seismic vulnerabilities. Thus, empowering people through education and awareness about earthquake preparedness is one of the most important factors in building community resilience [75]. Besides that, it is evident that current educational frameworks fall short, underscoring the urgent need for robust educational initiatives that reach all demographics and utilize both school programs and social media to spread vital information [53,76,77,78]. Moreover, education and awareness are crucial steps to prepare the public for actions during and after a disaster caused by the earthquake [79].

Reducing impacts from these widespread and common disasters requires that individuals be ready to react effectively when earthquakes strike [80]. Moreover and true enough, a few of the rudiments of safety are known to be widespread in society, but it is also not unknown that there are wide gaps when it comes to the practical skill sets and real-time experiences exhibited by most ordinary citizens. The problem is that many times people do not follow these protocols as desired. Clear guidance about evacuation must be followed strictly and should be trained through regular hands-on practices [81,82]. By empowering people with essential skills, we enable them to respond adeptly during earthquakes [83]. The report also highlights a lack of formal communication mechanisms and urges institutions to be more proactive. On the other side, it can be said that enhanced education and community engagement regarding earthquake risks, as well as improved public communication, are necessary to encourage stakeholder collaboration [84]. As a result, strengthening communication networks is critical for delivering timely information and ensuring coordinated disaster responses [75,85,86,87].

The public perception of earthquakes must be well understood, as this knowledge may be essential for taking steps towards resilience [88]. Although some act out of concern for their families, others require the extra push that comes from courses and seminars offering new knowledge. Therefore, the study emphasizes that a proactive community is necessary to support earthquake resilience, catering to different motivation types [89]. In addition, various challenges to the proper implementation of resilience measures, such as informational, resource-based, political barriers, and coordination failures, hamper the effectiveness of these strategies [90].

Understanding public attitudes towards earthquakes is also essential for motivating resilience measures. While some are driven by concern for their loved ones, others may need additional incentives, like educational programs and workshops, to spur action. Accordingly, the study emphasizes the need to cater to diverse motivations to foster a proactive community environment that supports earthquake resilience efforts [89]. In addition, several barriers obstruct the effective implementation of resilience measures, including informational, resource-based, and political challenges, as well as coordination failures [90]. To combat these issues, a comprehensive strategy that boosts education, awareness, and institutional capabilities is necessary, while also addressing public indifference and oversight.

In the pursuit of enhancing seismic resilience, this article proposes in Table 15 a series of strategic recommendations designed to strengthen community preparedness and response mechanisms across various facets of society. Each recommendation is tailored to address the study’s identified weaknesses and includes focused behaviours they believe can happen in areas of education, collaboration, policy activation, and evaluation. The Education and Training initiative aims to tackle the lack of preparedness through general awareness programs and curricular embedding in schools, such as comprehensive educational programs for earthquake losses, which starts from a young age. To help train households at the local level and improve evacuation drills, public awareness campaigns are also being conducted with the goal of increasing capacity in practical field readiness and a culture of community resilience. Workshops and seminars serve as an advanced step to encourage citizen engagement; primarily addressing low interest among citizens with regards to disaster preparedness, offering tangible knowledge while providing incentives for participation.

Table 15

Seismic resilience recommendations with implementation, financial, and stakeholder considerations

Thematic heading Recommendation Specific actions Implementation difficulty Financial resources required Stakeholders
Education and training Develop comprehensive educational programs for all ages, embedding earthquake preparedness in school curricula, and leveraging social networks for information dissemination Utilize detailed metrics to assess educational effectiveness across age groups Moderate Moderate Educational institutions, local government, social media influencers
Introduce earthquake-related topics in school curricula with regular evacuation drills and emergency response exercises to instil preparedness in students Evaluate curriculum effectiveness and student preparedness regularly through drills Moderate Low School boards, education departments, emergency response teams
Provide earthquake safety training for households, offering practical opportunities to boost protection and preparedness Encourage household-level resilience with distributed guidelines and tools for earthquake preparedness Low Low Local councils, disaster management agencies, households
Raise public awareness through targeted campaigns and hold mass evacuation drills to ensure citizens are familiar with evacuation procedures Ensure targeted campaigns are tailored to specific community needs for accessibility High High Local media, municipal authorities, community organizations
Organize workshops and seminars to involve citizens in disaster preparedness and response activities Offer participation incentives to increase community engagement Moderate Moderate Community centres, NGOs, local educators
Collaboration and communication Foster collaboration among residents, local institutions, and government bodies to align resilience efforts toward earthquake preparedness Establish clear communication channels for coordination after earthquakes Low Low Residents, local councils, disaster response teams
Use public outreach and educational campaigns to raise awareness and establish formal communication channels for coordinated responses post-earthquake Maintain consistent public outreach, using multiple platforms to enhance awareness Moderate Moderate Public relations teams, local media, emergency responders
Promote unity and collective action by fostering collaboration between local governments and community stakeholders Include rural and urban stakeholders in collaboration efforts Low Low Local governments, community leaders, residents
Policy and resource mobilization Adopt policies to address information gaps, resource constraints, and political neglect with a focus on rebuilding and future earthquake response efforts Set clear objectives for resource distribution and political accountability High High Policy makers, disaster recovery agencies, resource management units
Enhance education and awareness campaigns, and strengthen institutional capacity through civil society involvement to address coordination challenges Utilize civil society networks for ongoing resilience efforts High Moderate Educational NGOs, local institutions, civil society
Improve frameworks enabling local governments to execute earthquake resilience activities effectively Define measurable goals for local resilience activities Moderate High Municipal governments, resilience planners, local organizations
Tailor solutions for local areas, quantify resources for at-risk regions, and address resilience disparities Adapt solutions to unique community needs and vulnerabilities High High Local authorities, resource management teams, affected communities
Build cultural sensitivity into educational outreach to foster community ownership of preparedness messages rooted in local knowledge Promote educational approaches that reflect cultural values for broader community impact Moderate Moderate Cultural leaders, educational institutions, community members
Include earthquake resilience considerations in planning of new developments to ensure they withstand natural hazards Incorporate hazard resilience into building codes and standards High High Construction companies, urban planners, regulatory bodies
Integrate resilience into multilevel planning processes for sustainable, long-term solutions Integrate resilience considerations into sustainable design for new developments Moderate High Regional planning boards, sustainability councils, local government
Convene multi-sector collaboration to integrate resilience into policy frameworks and mobilize financial resources for improvements Encourage cross-sector cooperation for policy development and resource mobilization High High Governmental bodies, private sector, funding agencies
Evaluation and monitoring Develop monitoring and feedback mechanisms to assess the impact of resilience interventions and identify areas for improvement Establish metrics to track and report on resilience outcomes Moderate Moderate Data analysts, resilience coordinators, government officials
Engage stakeholders in periodic evaluations and update strategies as part of an adaptive learning approach Involve key stakeholders in evaluations to adapt and enhance strategies Moderate Moderate Local governments, resilience task forces, community groups
Use KPIs to assess resilience improvements and adjust programs as needed Use KPIs for regular resilience measurement and reporting High High Policy analysts, resilience evaluators, data scientists
Conduct regular evaluations with specific metrics to track resilience progress and areas for refinement Create clear evaluation protocols for continuous resilience program refinement Moderate High Evaluation teams, government representatives, disaster management experts

Comparing earthquake resilience strategies across different regions sheds light on both shared goals and unique approaches to earthquake preparedness. In Montenegro, like many earthquake-prone areas, community engagement is a priority, with efforts centred on education and local preparedness programs [91,92]. However, there are notable challenges, such as limited resources, gaps in public awareness, and structural weaknesses [93,94]. For example, urban areas in Montenegro tend to be better prepared thanks to greater access to services, while rural regions often lack organized drills and public awareness campaigns, highlighting a crucial gap in readiness.

Looking at other regions, we see how previous experiences with earthquakes have shaped more robust preparedness efforts [3,17,53]. In Indonesia and Italy’s Apennines, communities facing frequent seismic events have institutionalized public education programs, structural retrofitting, and hazard mapping as standard practices [5,95]. In Indonesia, disaster readiness training and hazard maps play central roles in planning, while in Italy, historical seismic data and local culture are carefully woven into preparedness efforts to ensure public engagement and adherence [96,97]. These findings highlight a crucial point: while structural resilience and government support are priorities in some regions, Montenegro’s approach is more community-focused but hampered by resource limitations and low public engagement. Integrating some international practices – like localized hazard mapping, continuous public education, and organized frameworks for retrofitting and emergency response – could provide Montenegro with a stronger, more adaptive approach to resilience.

The recommendations also bolster Collaboration and Communication through improved coordination with residents, local institutions, and government actors; communication plans in the quake aftermath seek to minimize information deficits. Measures include strengthening accountability for resource allocation in Policy and Resource Mobilization, as well as enhancing institutional capacities. In addition, the approach identifies solutions that account for local needs and preferences in the context of culturally sensitive educational outreach and resilient infrastructure planning to ensure relevance and sustainability. The Evaluation and Monitoring category also includes ways to get regular feedback from stakeholders, monitor systematically, and use indicators as part of key performance indicator (KPI) frameworks, ensuring resilience interventions remain effective, measurable, and adaptable in response to changing circumstances.

5 Conclusions

A comprehensive qualitative study presents a rich repository of data with deeper insights into Montenegro’s resilience to earthquake-related disasters. The study reveals substantial variability in seismic resilience across communities, with some areas displaying strong preparedness measures, like early-warning systems and accessible shelters, while others exhibit significant weaknesses in public awareness and institutional readiness. The findings underscore the critical need for community-specific resilience programs to address these disparities and enhance preparedness across all levels. Through in-depth interviews with residents from various seismic-prone areas, a certain level of population resilience was established. Although the majority of interviewed participants indicate a low level of resilience in Montenegro to earthquakes, many of them have not directly faced the consequences of such events. For these reasons, they largely emphasize the necessity of improving resilience strategies and implementing preventive measures at both national and local levels. On the other hand, the obtained results also point to the low effectiveness of existing safety measures, as well as the need for additional research to examine all possible impacts of such events. The study’s findings contribute to the broader theories of disaster risk management and resilience by emphasizing the importance of adaptable, community-based approaches to earthquake preparedness.

The study emphasizes the need for educational and preparedness programs tailored to address each community’s unique vulnerabilities and strengths. By developing community-specific resilience measures, stakeholders can more effectively mitigate seismic risks in ways that are meaningful and practical for local residents. Increasing public awareness and strengthening local institutional readiness are crucial for enhancing resilience against seismic hazards. Public outreach initiatives, paired with improved response capabilities among local institutions, serve as foundational steps in building a robust disaster-preparedness framework. Concrete actions, such as regular community drills, targeted educational campaigns, and the integration of disaster preparedness content into school curricula, have been highlighted as actionable steps to increase public awareness and community resilience.

These findings contribute to the broader disaster risk management and resilience theories by offering insight into the real-world application of resilience strategies and by underscoring the necessity of adaptable, community-centred approaches. The analysis of all the results highlights the urgent need for Montenegrin society to strengthen its preparedness, and consequently its resilience, through educational programs and plans to mitigate the effects of future earthquakes. This requires strategic and operational commitment from society to devise, implement, and put into action all structural and non-structural measures that will enhance earthquake resilience. On the other hand, the study in many segments also emphasizes the importance of raising public awareness, as well as local and regional institutional readiness, to lift the low level of awareness about such disasters to a slightly higher level. The insights gained from this study can be effectively applied to other regions facing similar seismic risks. Policymakers and emergency planners in earthquake-prone areas can adapt these recommendations to their unique geographical and social landscapes.

Raising awareness would also enable a more rational perception of the risks associated with such disasters, which would lead to increased motivation for elevating the culture of resilience to a higher level. Certainly, a layered approach at all societal levels, comprehensive institutional commitment, and involvement represent essential prerequisites for building such resilience. In addition, by promoting a proactive stance on resilience and strengthening education, infrastructure, and community engagement, Montenegro can improve its safety protocols and preparedness, fostering a more effective response to inevitable seismic activities. This study provides specific guidance for policymakers, particularly on implementing recommendations in ways that align with existing disaster preparedness frameworks. Policy adjustments to include resilience metrics, localized educational programs, and clear roles for community stakeholders are essential. Integrating these recommendations presents challenges, such as securing financial resources and public buy-in. However, solutions including public–private partnerships and engaging community leaders may help overcome these obstacles. Limitations, such as the focus on qualitative data and the sample size, suggest areas for further research. Future studies could include quantitative assessments and larger samples to broaden the findings and test their generalizability.

The high scientific and societal value of this research is reflected in its numerous implications for scientific and social development. The conducted research has generated a fundamental empirical database that can serve as a comparison of resilience levels between the region and the international community. The research marks the beginning of a pioneering endeavour for the further development of instruments for conducting quantitative and qualitative studies in the field of disaster risk management. In addition, the study contributes to the broader field of disaster (risk) management by providing a methodological framework that can be applied to assess and analyse community resilience when facing seismic challenges. It is also worth noting that the nuanced insights gained from the diverse experiences of Montenegrin municipalities enrich the academic discourse on preparedness and resilience to disasters, suggesting pathways for further research.

Contrary to the scientific implications, the societal implications are highly significant for policymakers and decision-makers at all levels, as they clearly highlight the weaknesses and challenges that must be overcome. The findings of the study can be considered when creating programs to improve the culture of resilience among the population. As such, they can be grounded and based on all identified shortcomings and clarifications derived from the comprehensive analysis of Montenegro’s population resilience to earthquakes. This study highlights gaps, particularly in understanding how local community characteristics influence resilience. Further research is needed to examine the effectiveness of tailored education programs and preparedness drills, and how these interventions impact overall disaster resilience at the community level. Specific areas for future investigation include the long-term effects of educational outreach programs, the role of community leaders in resilience-building, and the effectiveness of policy interventions in fostering a culture of preparedness. Such research could deepen understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to sustainable resilience. The variability in preparedness across different localities suggests that response strategies must be flexible and adapted to local needs. This study illustrates that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be effective; instead, response plans should reflect community-specific factors to optimize resilience and reduce risks.



Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the use of Grammarly Premium and ChatGPT 4.0 in the process of translating and improving the clarity and quality of the English language in this manuscript. The AI tools were used to assist in language enhancement but were not involved in the development of the scientific content. The authors take full responsibility for the originality, validity, and integrity of the manuscript.

  1. Funding information: This research was funded by the Scientific–Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Belgrade (https://upravljanje-rizicima.com/, accessed on 17 March 2024) and the International Institute for Disaster Research (https://idr.edu.rs/, accessed on 14 February 2024), Belgrade, Serbia. T.L. and S.B.M. acknowledge the support of the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 451-03-47/2023-01/200125).
  2. Author contributions: V.M.C. conceived the original idea for this study and developed the study design and questionnaire. Also, V.M.C. and G.G. contributed to the dissemination of the questionnaire, while V.M.C. analysed and interpreted the data. T.L. made a significant contribution by drafting the introduction; V.M.C. and G.G. drafted the discussion, and V.M.C., T.L., S.S., and G.G. composed the conclusions. V.M.C., T.L., S.M., and G.G. critically reviewed the data analysis and contributed to revising and finalizing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
  3. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
  4. Data availability statement: Data are contained within the article.
  5. Institutional review board statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Scientific–Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management and the International Institute for Disaster Research (protocol code 006/2024, 26 March 2024).
  6. Informed consent statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

References

[1] Freddi F, Galasso C, Cremen G, Dall Asta A, Di Sarno L, Giaralis A, et al. Innovations in earthquake risk reduction for resilience: Recent advances and challenges. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021;60:102267.10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102267Search in Google Scholar

[2] Xiong M, Hu H, Huang Y. From slope seismic resilience to regional road network resilience: an integrated framework for evaluating the seismic resilience of mountainous road networks. Disaster Prev Resil. 2023;2:20.10.20517/dpr.2023.27Search in Google Scholar

[3] Cvetković VM, Ronan K, Shaw R, Filipović M, Mano R, Gačić J, et al. Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities. Acta Geogr. 2019;59:28–42.10.3986/AGS.5445Search in Google Scholar

[4] Cvetković V, Planić J. Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2022;4:69–89.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Pamungkas TD, Aliyan SA, Nurfalah I, Ningrum E, Maryani E. Preparedness of the community in facing disasters like earthquakes (Case: Cisarua, Indonesia). Jàmbá-J Disaster Risk Stud. 2023;15:1438.10.4102/jamba.v15i1.1438Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[6] Ningsih DPS, Rahmawati I, Aprianti R, Giena VP, Elvira Y. Penyuluhan tentang Gempa Bumi dengan Media Leaflet pada Masyarakat di Kelurahan Malabero Kota Bengkulu. J Pengabdi Kpd Masy Wahana Usada. 2022;4:96–104.10.47859/wuj.v4i2.232Search in Google Scholar

[7] Esquivel SAC. Seismic resilience of communities: building clusters Doctoral dissertation. Northeastern University; 2022. p. 1–187.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Nurrobikha N, Novrikasari N, Windusari Y, Misnaniarti M, Ikhsan I, Lionardo A, et al. Community preparedness for earthquakes based on settlement environment analysis. JKL. 2022;14(2):99–105.10.20473/jkl.v14i2.2022.99-105Search in Google Scholar

[9] Mano RM, Kirshcenbaum A, Rapaport C. Earthquake preparedness: A Social Media Fit perspective to accessing and disseminating earthquake information. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2019;1(2):19–31.10.18485/ijdrm.2019.1.2.2Search in Google Scholar

[10] Ronan KR, Alisic E, Towers B, Johnson VA, Johnston DM. Disaster preparedness for children and families: a critical review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015;17:1–9.10.1007/s11920-015-0589-6Search in Google ScholarPubMed

[11] Cvetković V. Upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama – Disaster Risk Management. Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama. Belgrade: Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Managemen; 2020.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Grozdanić G, Cvetković V, Lukić T, Ivanov A. Sustainable Earthquake Preparedness: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Analysis in Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia Sustainability. 2024;16:3138. 2024.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Cvetković VM, Tanasić J, Ocal A, Kešetović Ž, Nikolić N, Dragašević A. Capacity development of local self-governments for disaster risk management. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:10406.10.3390/ijerph181910406Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[14] Chen I, Lin S-Y. Resilience analysis of power system for seismic disaster mitigation. EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, Vienna, Austria; 2023. p. EGU-270.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Finzi Y, Ganz N, Limon Y, Langer S. Improving community resilience and emergency plans by mapping risk and preparedness at the neighborhood scale. GeoHazards. 2021;2:120–36.10.3390/geohazards2020007Search in Google Scholar

[16] Guri M, Duro E. Disaster risk reduction in the municipality of lezhë. seismic risk as part of a multi-risk analysis. Croatia: The Westin Zagreb; 2023.10.5592/CO/2CroCEE.2023.39Search in Google Scholar

[17] Grozdanić G, Cvetković V, Lukić T, Ivanov A. Sustainable earthquake preparedness: a cross-cultural comparative analysis in Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Sustainability. 2024;16:3138.10.3390/su16083138Search in Google Scholar

[18] Tesfamariam S, Saatcioglu M. Risk-based seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra. 2008;24:795–821.10.1193/1.2952767Search in Google Scholar

[19] Tomanović D, Marković L, Gadžić N, Rajković I, Aleksić J, Tomanović T. Seismic evaluation and methods of rehabilitation of old masonry buildings in the Bay of Kotor (Montenegro). Appl Sci. 2021;11:3544.10.3390/app11083544Search in Google Scholar

[20] Popović N, Pejović J. Seismic performance evaluation of existing rc high-rise building in Montenegro. Proceedings of the 2nd Croatian Conference on Earthquake Engineering – 2CroCEE Zagreb, Croatia, 2023.10.5592/CO/2CroCEE.2023.13Search in Google Scholar

[21] Pejovic J, Serdar N. Seismic loss assessment of RC high-rise buildings designed according to Eurocode 8. Earthq Eng Eng Vib. 2023;22:807–24.10.1007/s11803-023-2199-3Search in Google Scholar

[22] Mrdak I, Rakočević M, Žugić L, Usmanov R, Murgul V, Vatin N. Analysis of the influence of dynamic properties of structures on seismic response according to Montenegrin and European regulations. Appl Mech Mater. 2014;633:1069–76.10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.633-634.1069Search in Google Scholar

[23] Yousfi N, Mounir AB, Boukri M, Guessoum N, Bensaibi M. Seismic resilience assessment of buildings: case study of Blida city; 2022. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2137910/v1.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Lu Y, Xu J. Comparative study on the key issues of postearthquake recovery and reconstruction planning: Lessons from the United States, Japan, Iran, and China. Nat Hazards Rev. 2015;16:04014033.10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000172Search in Google Scholar

[25] Yin C, Kassem MM, Mohamed Nazri F. Comprehensive review of community seismic resilience: concept, frameworks, and case studies. Adv Civ Eng. 2022;2022:7668214.10.1155/2022/7668214Search in Google Scholar

[26] Castillo JGS, Bruneau M, Elhami-Khorasani N. Seismic resilience of building inventory towards resilient cities. Resilient Cities Struct. 2022;1:1–12.10.1016/j.rcns.2022.03.002Search in Google Scholar

[27] Liel AB, Deierlein GG. Cost-benefit evaluation of seismic risk mitigation alternatives for older concrete frame buildings. Earthq Spectra. 2013;29:1391–411.10.1193/030911EQS040MSearch in Google Scholar

[28] Lin B-C, Lee C-H. Conducting an adaptive evaluation framework of importance and performance for community-based earthquake disaster management. Nat Hazards. 2023;115:1255–74.10.1007/s11069-022-05594-3Search in Google Scholar

[29] Sousa ELD, Gaído SB, Sousa RAD, Cardoso OD, Matos EM, Menezes JM, et al. Perfil de internações e óbitos hospitalares por síndrome respiratória aguda grave causada por COVID-19 no Piauí: estudo descritivo, 2020-2021. Epidemiol e Serviços de Saúde. 2022;31:e2021836.10.1590/s1679-49742022000100009Search in Google Scholar

[30] Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O’Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM, et al. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq spectra. 2003;19:733–52.10.1193/1.1623497Search in Google Scholar

[31] Sharpe AM, Halkias D, Vaccarino F, Hunter SM. Post-earthquake community capacity and vulnerability reduction at the small-scale local level: collective narratives from Greece, Japan, and New Zealand. Int J Teach Case Stud. 2017;8:116–32.10.1504/IJTCS.2017.10007734Search in Google Scholar

[32] Anwar GA, Dong Y, Zhai C. Performance-based probabilistic framework for seismic risk, resilience, and sustainability assessment of reinforced concrete structures. Adv Struct Eng. 2020;23:1454–72.10.1177/1369433219895363Search in Google Scholar

[33] Zhang R. Research review on earthquake resilient structures. highlights in science. Eng Technol. 2023;52:274–96.10.54097/hset.v52i.9186Search in Google Scholar

[34] Liang B, Tao Q, Gao W, Ren Q, Yao X. Integrated the medical procedure analyze seismic resilience of healthcare system: a critical review from the resilience of healthcare system vs. medical demand perspective. Adv Civ Eng. 2023;2023:4468383.10.1155/2023/4468383Search in Google Scholar

[35] Rani G, Arun PA, Muktar U, Abraham NA, Ansari S. Review of earthquake resilience and safety in building construction. Advances in Construction Safety: Proceedings of HSFEA 2020; 2022. p. 265–77.10.1007/978-981-19-4001-9_23Search in Google Scholar

[36] Burnette CE, Sanders S, Butcher HK, Rand JT. A toolkit for ethical and culturally sensitive research: An application with indigenous communities. Ethics Soc Welf. 2014;8:364–82.10.1080/17496535.2014.885987Search in Google Scholar

[37] Clauss-Ehlers CS. Sociocultural factors, resilience, and coping: Support for a culturally sensitive measure of resilience. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2008;29:197–212.10.1016/j.appdev.2008.02.004Search in Google Scholar

[38] Ao Y, Zhang H, Yang L, Wang Y, Martek I, Wang G. Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents. Nat Hazards. 2021;107:1287–310.10.1007/s11069-021-04632-wSearch in Google Scholar

[39] Rezabeigi Davarani E, Nekoei-Moghadam M, Khanjani N, Iranpour A, Chashmyazdan M, Farahmandnia H. Factors related to earthquake preparedness of households based on social-cognitive theory constructs: A systematic review. Front Public Health. 2023;11:987418.10.3389/fpubh.2023.987418Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[40] Wu J, Yang X, Deng X, Xu D. Does disaster knowledge affect residents’ choice of disaster avoidance behavior in different time periods? Evidence from china’s earthquake-hit areas. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022;67:102690.10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102690Search in Google Scholar

[41] Yayla U, ŞAhİNÖZ T. Preparedness for earthquake: knowledge and behavior. J Int Health Sci Manag. 2020;6:46–59.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Hariyanto T, Abubakar Y, Zainun I. The impact of disaster knowledge and attitudes on community preparedness in facing earthquakes. KnE Soc Sci. 2022;7:77–88.10.18502/kss.v7i16.12154Search in Google Scholar

[43] Karjack S, Brudzinski MR, Shipley TF. Assessment of the general public’s understanding of rapidly produced earthquake information products ShakeMap and PAGER. Seismol Soc Am. 2022;93:2891–905.10.1785/0220210318Search in Google Scholar

[44] Najafi M, Khankeh HR, Elmi H, Pourvakhshoori N. Behavioral, normative and control beliefs about earthquake preparedness: A deductive content analysis study. PLoS Curr. 2018;10:28.10.1371/currents.dis.20fbad29d53fb164ac2699dc2736d804Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[45] Shenhar G, Radomislensky I, Rozenfeld M, Peleg K. The impact of a national earthquake campaign on public preparedness: 2011 campaign in Israel as a case study. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9:138–44.10.1017/dmp.2014.58Search in Google ScholarPubMed

[46] Agarwalla R, Pathak R, Siddiqui A, Panda M, Gupta E, Islam F. A community-based intervention study to assess the effectiveness of awareness imparted on earthquake preparedness among the residents of South Delhi. India Indian J Community Med. 2020;45:375–8.10.4103/ijcm.IJCM_404_19Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[47] Rikhari R. Making buildings earthquake resistant is good economics. Sci Rep. 2015;52(7):23–7.Search in Google Scholar

[48] Devi AW, Sharma D Awareness on earthquake preparedness: A key to safe life. Int J Nurs Res Pract. 2015;2(2):1–6.Search in Google Scholar

[49] Johnston D, Becker J, Paton D. Multi-agency community engagement during disaster recovery: Lessons from two New Zealand earthquake events. Disaster Prev Manag. 2012;21:252–68.10.1108/09653561211220034Search in Google Scholar

[50] Becker JS, Paton D, Johnston DM, Ronan KR. A model of household preparedness for earthquakes: how individuals make meaning of earthquake information and how this influences preparedness. Nat Hazards. 2012;64:107–37.10.1007/s11069-012-0238-xSearch in Google Scholar

[51] Iuchi K, Esnard A-M. Earthquake impact mitigation in poor urban areas: The case of Metropolitan Manila. Disaster Prev Manag: An Int J. 2008;17:454–69.10.1108/09653560810901700Search in Google Scholar

[52] Cvetković VM, Planić J. Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management. Int J Disaster Risk Manag. 2022;4(1):69–88.10.18485/ijdrm.2022.4.1.5Search in Google Scholar

[53] Cvetković V, Dragićević S, Petrović M, Mijaković S, Jakovljević V, Gačić J. Knowledge and perception of secondary school students in Belgrade about earthquakes as natural disasters. Pol J Environ Stud. 2015;24:1553–61.10.15244/pjoes/39702Search in Google Scholar

[54] Albrito P. Making cities resilient: Increasing resilience to disasters at the local level. J Bus Continuity Emerg Plan. 2012;5:291–7.10.69554/ANPT2076Search in Google Scholar

[55] Ferreira TM, Maio R, Vicente R, Costa A. Earthquake risk mitigation: the impact of seismic retrofitting strategies on urban resilience. Int J Strategic Prop Manag. 2016;20:291–304.10.3846/1648715X.2016.1187682Search in Google Scholar

[56] Thornley L, Ball J, Signal L, Lawson-Te Aho K, Rawson E. Building community resilience: learning from the Canterbury earthquakes. Kotuitui: N Zealand J Soc Sci Online. 2015;10:23–35.10.1080/1177083X.2014.934846Search in Google Scholar

[57] Zhang Y, Fung JF, Johnson KJ, Sattar S. Review of seismic risk mitigation policies in earthquake-prone countries: lessons for earthquake resilience in the United States. J Earthq Eng. 2022;26:6208–35.10.1080/13632469.2021.1911889Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[58] Klyachko M, Dzogaz V. Preventive seismic strengthening and urban resilience. 1st Croatian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Zagreb, Croatia; 2021. p. 22–4.10.5592/CO/1CroCEE.2021.118Search in Google Scholar

[59] Osman T. A framework for cities and environmental resilience assessment of local governments. Cities. 2021;118:103372.10.1016/j.cities.2021.103372Search in Google Scholar

[60] Vallance S. An evaluation of the Waimakariri district council’s integrated and community-based recovery framework following the Canterbury earthquakes: Implications for urban resilience. Urban Policy Res. 2015;33:433–51.10.1080/08111146.2014.980401Search in Google Scholar

[61] Sullivan-Taylor B, Gunnell S, Becker J, Johnston D. Improving resilience: A longitudinal analysis of land-use policy and planning for earthquakes in Aotearoa New Zealand, 2000-16. Aust J Emerg Manag. 2022;37:45–55.10.47389/37.3.45Search in Google Scholar

[62] Miles S. Comparison of jurisdictional seismic resilience planning initiatives. PLOS Curr Disasters. 2018.10.1371/currents.dis.42c24f29588cb4f887af021449949801Search in Google Scholar

[63] Roohi M, Ghasemi S, Sediek O, Jeon H, van de Lindt JW, Shields M, et al. Multi-disciplinary seismic resilience modeling for developing mitigation policies and recovery planning. Resilient Cities Struct. 2024;3:66–84.10.1016/j.rcns.2024.07.003Search in Google Scholar

[64] You T, Wang W, Chen Y. Linking community resilience goals to seismic performance of individual buildings based on a post-earthquake recovery model. Life-cycle civil engineering: innovation, theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 2021. p. 1313–8.10.1201/9780429343292-174Search in Google Scholar

[65] Ren H, Rong C, Tian Q, Zhang W, Shao D. Evaluation model for seismic resilience of urban building groups. Buildings. 2023;13:2502.10.3390/buildings13102502Search in Google Scholar

[66] Moradi S, Khan MM, Hossain NUI, Shamsuddoha M, Gorod A. Modeling and assessing seismic resilience leveraging systems dynamic approach: A case study of society 5.0. Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot. 2023;43:100639.10.1016/j.ijcip.2023.100639Search in Google Scholar

[67] Didier M, Baumberger S, Tobler R, Esposito S, Ghosh S, Stojadinovic B. Seismic resilience of water distribution and cellular communication systems after the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. J Struct Eng. 2018;144:04018043.10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0002007Search in Google Scholar

[68] Kendra J, Nigg J. Engineering and the social sciences: historical evolution of interdisciplinary approaches to hazard and disaster. Eng Stud. 2014;6:134–58.10.1080/19378629.2014.978335Search in Google Scholar

[69] Chen Y, Zhang J, Tadikamalla PR, Zhou L. The mechanism of social organization participation in natural hazards emergency relief: A case study based on the social network analysis. Int J Environ Res public Health. 2019;16:4110.10.3390/ijerph16214110Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[70] Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:127–50.10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6Search in Google ScholarPubMed

[71] Radojičić B. Geografija Crne Gore: Dukljanska akademija nauka i umjetnosti. Montenegro: Podgorica; 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[72] Radojičić B. Geografija Crne Gore. Prirodna osnova. Knjiga I. DANU: Podgorica; 2008. p. 129–60.Search in Google Scholar

[73] Nikolić G, Vujović F, Grozdanić G, Valjarević A. Geomorphological characteristics of montenegro. Speleology of Montenegro. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 67–78.10.1007/978-3-031-49375-1_5Search in Google Scholar

[74] Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis: basics and techniques]. Landsberg: Beltz; 2010.10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_42Search in Google Scholar

[75] Karasözen E, Buyukakpinar P, Ertuncay D, Havazlı E, Oral E. A call from early‑career Turkish scientists: seismic resilience is only feasible with “earthquake culture”. Seismica. 2023;2. 10.26443/seismica.v2i3.1012.Search in Google Scholar

[76] Baytiyeh H. How can school education impact earthquake risk reduction in Lebanon? Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern. Issues. 2014;7:120–32.10.1108/EBS-12-2013-0051Search in Google Scholar

[77] Öcal A, Topkaya Y. Earthquake preparedness in schools in seismic hazard regions in the South-East of Turkey. Disaster Prev Manag. 2011;20:334–48.10.1108/09653561111141754Search in Google Scholar

[78] Hosseini M, Izadkhah YO. Earthquake disaster risk management planning in schools. Disaster Prev Manag. 2006;15:649–1.10.1108/09653560610686595Search in Google Scholar

[79] Rautela P, Pande RK. Implications of ignoring the old disaster management plans: Lessons learnt from the Amparav tragedy of 23 September 2004 in the Nainital district of Uttaranchal (India). Disaster Prev Manag. 2005;14:388–94.10.1108/09653560510605045Search in Google Scholar

[80] De Pascale F, Bernardo M, Muto F, Di Matteo D, Dattilo V. Resilience and seismic risk perception at school: a geoethical experiment in Aiello Calabro, southern Italy. Nat Hazards. 2017;86:569–86.10.1007/s11069-016-2696-zSearch in Google Scholar

[81] Zaharia B, Tataru D, Grecu B, Ionescu C, Speranta T, Bican-Brisan N, et al. Romanian Educational Seismic network: educational tool for increasing awarness of seismic risk. 13th International multidisciplinary scientific geoconference SGEM 2013; Albena, Bulgaria, 2013. p. 513–20.10.5593/SGEM2013/BE5.V2/S22.022Search in Google Scholar

[82] Eisenman DP, Cordasco KM, Asch S, Golden JF, Glik D. Disaster planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:S109–5.10.2105/AJPH.2005.084335Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[83] Lampropoulos A. Towards urban and structural resilience in earthquake engineering. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis; 2022. p. 273.10.1080/10168664.2022.2087359Search in Google Scholar

[84] Kurnio H, Fekete A, Naz F, Norf C, Jüpner R. Resilience learning and indigenous knowledge of earthquake risk in Indonesia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021;62:102423.10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102423Search in Google Scholar

[85] Beatty TK, Shimshack JP, Volpe RJ. Disaster preparedness and disaster response: Evidence from sales of emergency supplies before and after hurricanes. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ. 2019;6:633–8.10.1086/703379Search in Google Scholar

[86] Ray B. Response of a resilient community to natural disasters: The Gorkha Earthquake in Nepal, 2015. Prof Geogr. 2017;69:1–11.10.1080/00330124.2017.1298452Search in Google Scholar

[87] Salmon P, Stanton N, Jenkins D, Walker G. Coordination during multi-agency emergency response: issues and solutions. Disaster Prev Manag. 2011;20:140–58.10.1108/09653561111126085Search in Google Scholar

[88] Tena-Colunga A, Hernández-Ramírez H, Godínez-Domínguez EA, Pérez-Rocha LE. Mexico City during and after the September 19, 2017 earthquake: Assessment of seismic resilience and ongoing recovery process. J Civ Struct Health Monit. 2021;11:1275–99.10.1007/s13349-021-00511-xSearch in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[89] Reyes J. Towards an operationalization of resilience in education systems: identifying, protecting and using assets in education communities. SABER Brief Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group; 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[90] Fitzgerald M. In the field: Seismic solutions can enhance resilience, Says Bruneau. Vol. 31, ASCE News. Reston, VA, USA; p. 5.Search in Google Scholar

[91] Ryan B, Johnston KA, Taylor M, McAndrew R. Community engagement for disaster preparedness: A systematic literature review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020;49:101655.10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101655Search in Google Scholar

[92] Adhikari B, Mishra SR, Raut S. Rebuilding earthquake struck Nepal through community engagement. Front public health. 2016;4:121.10.3389/fpubh.2016.00121Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central

[93] Udo VE, Jansson PM. Bridging the gaps for global sustainable development: A quantitative analysis. J Environ Manag. 2009;90:3700–7.10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.020Search in Google ScholarPubMed

[94] Ainuddin S, Routray JK. Earthquake hazards and community resilience in Baluchistan. Nat Hazards. 2012;63:909–37.10.1007/s11069-012-0201-xSearch in Google Scholar

[95] Dewi MAA, Rohman MA, Santoso EB. Social resilience assessment in reducing potential risk of earthquake in Surabaya. IPTEK Journal of Proceedings Series; 2021. p. 255–63.10.12962/j23546026.y2020i3.11220Search in Google Scholar

[96] De Priester L. An approach to the profile of disaster risk of Indonesia. Emerg Disaster Rep. 2016;3(2):5–66.Search in Google Scholar

[97] Amri A, Bird DK, Ronan K, Haynes K, Towers B. Disaster risk reduction education in Indonesia: challenges and recommendations for scaling up. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 2017;17:595–612.10.5194/nhess-17-595-2017Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-05-13
Revised: 2024-10-15
Accepted: 2024-10-15
Published Online: 2024-11-09

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Leave a Reply

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