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.

Research Article

Vladimir M. Cvetković*, Goran Grozdanić, Miško Milanović, Slobodan Marković, and Tin Lukić

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

https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2022-0729

received May 13, 2024; accepted October 15, 2024

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 resili- ence 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 vulner- able cities: Nikšić, Podgorica, Bar, Kotor, Cetinje, Budva, Herceg Novi, and Berane. Participants, chosen for their first-hand experience with significant earthquake impacts, provided valu- able perspectives on various aspects of resilience, from local



* Corresponding author: Vladimir M. Cvetković, Department of Disaster Management and Environmental Security, Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, Gospodara Vučića 50, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia; Safety and Disaster Studies, Department of Environmental and Energy Process Engineering, Montanuniversität of Leoben, Franz Josef- Straße 18, 8700, Leoben, Austria; Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11040 Belgrade, Serbia, e-mail: vmc@fb.bg.ac.rs, vladimir.cvetkovic@unileoben.ac.at Goran Grozdanić: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Montenegro, Danila Bojovića bb., 81400, Nikšić, Montenegro,

e-mail: gorangr@ucg.ac.me

Miško Milanović: Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade, Studentski Trg 3/III, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia,

e-mail: misko.milanovic@gef.bg.ac.rs

Slobodan Marković: Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia,

e-mail: slobodan.markovic@dgt.uns.ac.rs

Tin Lukić: Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia, e-mail: tin.lukic@dgt.uns.ac.rs

government response to individual preparedness. This research revealed significant disparities in resilience across commu- nities: 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 ser- vices, 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 aware- ness initiatives. These findings underscore the urgent need for community-specific preparedness programs and enhance- ments in both structural resilience and public education to bolster community readiness effectively. Also, findings high- light 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, commu- nity-focused preparedness training, and stronger public awareness initiatives. Furthermore, the study calls for enhanced local government capabilities to sustain proac- tive response measures, including rapid mobilization of emergency resources and regular disaster simulations, to build long-term resilience across communities.

Keywords: disaster, seismic hazard, seismic resilience, Montenegro, qualitative analysis, local preparedness, response mechan- isms, vulnerability assessment, public awareness

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

    

   Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

   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 pre- paredness, 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 earth- quake 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 man- agement, 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 prepared- ness, and adaptive capacity in the face of seismic hazards [11]. Research in this area highlights the necessity of asses- sing 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 cri- teria like robustness, rapidity, redundancy, and resource- fulness [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 involve- ment in earthquake preparedness [15]. Moreover, research in Iran emphasizes the urgent need to boost seismic resi- lience at educational establishments, prioritizing retrofit- ting 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 rein- forced concrete along the Montenegrin coast, critical factors

   include inter-storey drift (relative horizontal movement or dis- placement 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 struc- tural 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 compar- isons with local and EC8 standards [22]. The structural integrity of heritage masonry buildings is undermined by poor crafts- manship and the absence of routine maintenance, heigh- tening 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 rela- tion 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 effec- tiveness of the existing response mechanisms. We inter- viewed 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 ques- tions, 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 cap- ture individual experiences as well as residents’ various

   responses towards community resilience. In addition to cap- turing 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 commu- nities 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 comprehen- sive 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. ‌Literature review

      A thorough exploration of community resilience in earth- quake scenarios, as found in scholarly literature, highlights various critical aspects. Researchers emphasize the crucial role of structural components – including buildings, hospi- tals, 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 par- ticipation to enhance adaptive behaviours, underscored by risk awareness, education, disaster mitigation, and collabora- tive efforts between residents, government agencies, and other stakeholders [28]. Community resilience is about over- coming shared challenges and trauma, relying on social net- works, technological innovations, and strong infrastructural support [29]. Studies in this area often examine how commu- nities 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 vulner- ability assessments to better inform structural resilience stra- tegies [7].

      Also, research into earthquake resilience covers a broad spectrum of topics, including structural design prin- ciples, community preparedness, the resilience of health- care 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 shortcom- ings 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 com- munities 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. Recog- nizing and integrating cultural values into preparedness efforts helps build trust and fosters greater acceptance of recom- mended safety practices by tailoring response and prepared- ness strategies that align with local beliefs and customs, thus enhancing community buy-in [37].

      Furthermore, studies on earthquake preparedness, par- ticularly among residents in rural areas affected by events like the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China, have been extensive [38–40]. These studies have pinpointed key factors that influence how individuals prepare for such disasters, including access to independent information about earth- quakes, 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 sce- narios, illustrating how knowledge can mitigate fear and facilitate action [4,9,12,35,40–51]. Findings indicate that indi- viduals who possess a comprehensive understanding of dis- aster management are more likely to act decisively, such as evacuating promptly or quickly resuming their usual activ- ities post-disaster, compared to those with limited knowl- edge, who may delay action while waiting for further instructions [4,9,12,35,40–53].

      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 [54–56]. These methods are very important for earthquake-vulnerable areas because they help in reducing earthquake damage and promote sus- tainability. By implementing building codes that mandate seismic retrofitting and resilience measures, these govern- ance frameworks ensure that communities are protected in the long term [57]. At the core of these strategies are preven- tive 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 incorpor- ating 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 prac- tices 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 resi- lience. This technique is particularly useful in modern con- texts 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 strate- gies are specifically tailored to address the unique environ- mental and societal challenges, ensuring effective and custo- mized resilience measures [67].

      Recent studies have highlighted the significance of interdisciplinary approaches in enhancing earthquake resi- lience, 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 phy- sical infrastructure efforts. For instance, research demon- strates 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 pro- cess 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 cur- rent 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 dis- asters, 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 con- ducted with citizens hailing from the localities most vul- nerable 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 pre- sented 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 earth- quakes? 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 earth- quake disasters, what is your general assessment of their knowledge about earthquakes? Kindly elaborate on your opinion.

       

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

   4. Concerning citizens’ preparedness for earthquake dis- asters, 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 gen- eral perspective on the effectiveness of oral or written disaster preparedness plans? Please provide a detailed explanation.
   6. In terms of citizens’ readiness for earthquake disas- ters, what is your general perspective on their engage- ment in activities such as evacuation drills? Please elaborate on your viewpoint.
   7. How do you evaluate and what factors, in your opi- nion, influence citizens’ motivation to undertake spe- cific resilience measures in response to earthquake disasters? Kindly provide a detailed explanation.
   8. What, in your opinion, are the primary obstacles pre- venting 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-govern- ments 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 earth- quakes as disasters, particularly in terms of knowl- edge, 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-govern- ments 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 pre- ventive measures in responding to earthquake disas- ters, and what factors do you believe influence this awareness? Please provide a detailed explanation.

   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 pro- vided with detailed explanations regarding the objectives of the conversation, ensuring a clear understanding of the dis- cussion’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.

   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 com- pared to relying solely on note-taking. In addition, partici- pants’ consent for audio recording was sought, and their anonymity was guaranteed to foster an environment con- ducive to open and honest dialogue.

   1. ‌Study area

      Montenegro’s topography presents a labyrinth of complex- ities 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 show- cases 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].

      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 cala- mities 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

       

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

      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, sepa- rated 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 pic- ture of geological splendour. Finally, the Durmitor tectonic unit,

      nestled in Montenegro’s northeastern reaches, represents a bas- tion 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 dyna- mism [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 empha- sized: 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–Danilov- grad 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 tec- tonic 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 contri- bute 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 inde- terminate 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 mag- nitude 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 con- vulsions not only assailed the coastline but also reverber- ated 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 meti- culously 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 estab- lishment of the Seismological Observatory in Titograd, now enshrined as Podgorica. This institution, born in the crucible of necessity, evolved into the Republic Seismological Institute fol- lowing 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. ‌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 pro- geny or paternity claims surfaced then sending them back to their “absent husbands,” while the final fourth of inter- viewed people admitted that they had contemplated sui- cide following the financial disaster which malediction apparently afflicted true partners in this case as well – even though these lucky couples leveraged multiple ten- ders! 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 indepen- dently selected school should understand that the geogra- phical distribution of the limited urban and rural schools

      ‌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	500€	Budva	52	Part-time	Single
      			worker
      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

      ‌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

      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

      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.

      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

      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

         Education, preparedness, training

         Coordination, governance, preparedness

         Local governance, education, resilience

         Preventive measures, organization, preparedness

         Preparedness, resilience, knowledge

         62.5

         50

         37.5

         75

         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

      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

      Solidarity, preparedness, 50

      institutions

      Organized readiness, training, 61

      preparation

       

      from Montenegro’s natural disaster exposure horizon is potentially affecting students’ views about resilience. Together, these differences in demographic and socioeco- nomic composition make our sample more heterogeneous than the overall Australian population which will provide for a richer analysis of the factors affecting disaster resili- ence across different sub-populations (Table 1).

      Incorporating demographic data enriches this analysis by revealing how factors like age, education, and employ- ment 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.

   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 care- fully 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 qua- litative findings enrich the analysis by spotlighting specific community needs and identifying areas where resilience stra- tegies 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 col- lected data, streamlining the qualitative review of inter- view 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 qua- litative content analysis. These approaches brought unique perspectives to the data, shedding light on the intricate challenges and dynamics involved in cultural heritage pro- tection. 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 pro- vide 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 trans- lating and improving the clarity and quality of the English language in this manuscript.

       

      ‌Figure 4: Word cloud analysis of key themes in defining citizen resilience to earthquake-induced disasters.

      ‌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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      Media coverage, educational gaps, 45 communication

      Historical awareness, citizen 40

      education, hazard awareness

      Swift response, low awareness, 50

      basic directives

      Self-reliance, regional assistance, 30

      low preparedness

      Information dissemination, 55

      awareness, low resilience

      Citizen roles, satisfactory resilience, 25

      improvement

      Institutional competition, social 35

      disconnect, low empathy

      Absence of resilience building, 20

      preparation, implementation

       

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 fac- tors influencing their preparedness levels.
   3. Institutional engagement and response preparedness – Reviews the role of local authorities and public percep- tions 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 aware- ness and preparedness for seismic events, with urban areas generally having more resources and better access to infor- mation 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.

   1. ‌Citizen resilience and preparedness for earthquake disasters

      A frequency analysis of key terms in respondents’ discus- sions on earthquake resilience reveals central themes, blending both qualitative insights and quantitative indica- tors on priorities emphasized by participants. High-fre- quency 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 aware- ness 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, demon- strating a strong consensus on education and hands-on pre- paration as pillars of resilience.

       

      ‌Figure 5: Word cloud analysis of key themes in assessment of citizen resilience in coping with earthquake disasters.

      ‌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

      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

      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.

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      Lack of personnel, limited 30

      resources, disinterest

      Ignorance, societal indifference, 40

      corruption

      Lack of knowledge, negligence, 35

      unawareness

      Financial constraints, lack of 25

      personnel, disinterest

      Ignorance, misunderstanding, 20

      competing priorities

      Negligence, societal responsibility, 15

      state obligation

      Lack of awareness, disinterest, 10

      resilience measures

      Vulnerability, complacency, 5

      preparedness complexity

       

      Additional terms, including “adequate,” “institutions,” and “coordination” (appearing three times each), empha- size the need for structured collaboration among citizens, institutions, and government bodies. These responses sug- gest 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 earth- quake risks effectively.

      The analysis indicates that a layered approach – prior- itizing education, practical training, and institutional coor- dination – is essential for enhancing earthquake resilience at the community level. Quantitative data, with 62.5% of the participants focusing on education and training as foun- dational, support this approach to foster self-reliance in dis- aster 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 institu- tional networks in preparing communities to better with- stand earthquake impacts (Table 2 and Figure 4).

      Upon examining the answers given, we note that the main two sections mentioned were the absence of an educa- tion system and public awareness of earthquake hazards. Most responses identify the unpreparedness of society, inade- quate 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 soli- darity 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).

      Examining obstacles to implementing a specific resili- ence action following an earthquake, it is realized that individuals and society more broadly experience a diver- sity of barriers to be better prepared for these disasters. Barriers most frequently mentioned are a lack of informa- tion 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,

       

      ‌Figure 6: Word cloud analysis of key themes in primary obstacles to implementing resilience measures in response to earthquake.

      ‌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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      Personnel shortage, political focus, 30

      insufficient capacity

      Minimal preparedness, 25

      documentation gaps, earthquake resilience

      Lack of data, local authority inactivity, 20

      high seismic risk

      Lack of information, hope from past 15

      lessons, construction concerns

      Uncertain plans, absence of major 10

      earthquakes, local preparedness

      Ignorance, institutional inaction, 5

      limited service knowledge

      Low governmental focus, reliance on 35

      external aid, expert shortage

      Local government disinterest, denial 40

      of risk, passive society

       

      negligence (by individual and collective citizens), and disin- terest. 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 strate- gies for seismic resilience are numerous and intertwined, necessitating a comprehensive strategy to combat this issue (Table 4 and Figure 6).

       

      ‌Figure 7: Word cloud analysis of key themes in the assessment of local self-governments’ resilience in responding to earthquake disasters.

      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 earth- quakes, 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).

   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 popu- lace’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 initia- tives targeting all age groups to diverse communication strategies, such as school curricula enhancements, work- shops, training sessions, broadcasts, and community out- reach programs.

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

      The quantification of the frequency of occurrence of certain themes in respondents’ answers to questions reveals the following results: (a) Lack of education about earth- quakes: 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 pre- sent in all responses, emphasizing the need for better distribution of educational programs about earthquakes. Keywords in this context include “scientific-educational broadcasts,” “educational

      ‌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

      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

      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

      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

      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

          

      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

         Low awareness, education gaps, public 35

         knowledge

         Information dissemination, social media, 30

         curriculum integration

         Basic knowledge, instinctual responses, 45

         limited campaign exposure

         Global issue, decline in empathy, routine 40

         alienation

         Rudimentary understanding, lack of 30

         depth, professional knowledge

         Deficient response capacity, lack of 50

         communication channels, preparedness awareness

         (Continued)

         Table 6: Continued

          

          

         Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)

      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

          

      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

      Self-initiative needed, knowledge deficit, 25 historical reminder

      Risk perception, low preparedness, 20

      misconception of safety

      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 earth- quakes. 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 prepared- ness. Keywords related to this theme include “continuous edu- cation” 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 educa- tion 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 par- ticipants. For example, the theme “Lack of education about earthquakes” may be identified in 100% of the responses, and the theme “Citizens’ unpreparedness” may be

       

      ‌Figure 8: Word cloud analysis of key themes in assessment of citizens’ knowledge about earthquakes and resilience.

      ‌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

      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

      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

      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

      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”

      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

      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

         Weak resilience, non-compliant 40

         construction, lack of equipment

         Low awareness, underestimated risk, 35

         lack of fear

         Undesirable resilience, inadequate 30

         education, information gap

         Absence of educational programs, 25

         knowledge deficit, reaction preparedness

         Reflexive action, evacuation planning, 20

         dependence on higher forces

         Poor knowledge, ignorance, lack of 15

         awareness

         Lack of discussion, media depiction, 10

         reactive conversations

      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.

      ‌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	Permanent staff, integrated service,	30
      	service to equip citizens for the response. The service could also	citizen equipment
      	be integrated within existing services, such as the Fire Brigade
      2	I think the most crucial part is covered through these issues	Community resilience, local focus,	25
      	when it comes to the resilience of the local community	comprehensive coverage
      3	I would not have anything to add, except that I’m glad someone	Addressing hazards, awareness,	20
      	has decided to address this problem, not only for earthquake	multi-hazard preparation
      	hazards but also for other natural hazards threatening our
      	society
      4	I would not have anything to add, except that I expect serious	Serious topics, implementation, issue	15
      	topics to be initiated and implemented on this issue	prioritization
      5	I have nothing to add	No suggestions, agreement with	10
      		current points
      6	So, my opinion is that we can accelerate citizens’ awareness of	Citizen awareness, media role, school	35
      	responding to earthquake hazards. If we have media providing	education
      	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
      7	Nothing to add without repeating myself	No suggestions, avoiding	5
      		redundancy
      8	An appeal to pay more attention to this and similar issues at	Increased attention, state and local	40
      	both the state and local levels. For citizens themselves to receive	focus, threat awareness
      	adequate information and become aware of the threats that
      	await us

       

      ‌Figure 10: Word cloud analysis of key themes in the assessment of citizens’ awareness and influencing factors regarding preventive measures for earthquake disasters.

      identified in 25%. Detection limits of these can be useful for better analysis and planning of earthquake hazard infor- mation campaigns (Table 6 and Figure 8).

      In the analysis of attitudes regarding improving citi- zens’ 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 knowl- edge 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 poten- tial catastrophes. Additional measures include mandatory educa- tional 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).

      Part of the analysis on the perception regarding earth- quake resilience in Montenegro through responses from

      participants provided diversity in attitudes and recom- mendations 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 sys- tematically integrated into education from a young age. They also recommend mobilization and awareness-raising activ- ities through the media, campaigns, and institutional infor- mation diffusion. This is complemented by a call for state and local institutions to be strongly active in coordinating or sup- porting 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 enhan- cing citizens’ earthquake resilience in Montenegro (Table 8 and Figure 10).

   3. ‌Institutional engagement and response preparedness

      Analysis of respondents’ attitudes regarding households’ resilience to earthquakes in terms of verbal/written protec- tion and rescue plans reveals the following: (a) lack of awareness: the majority of respondents emphasize insuffi– cient awareness among citizens about household protec- tion 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

      ‌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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

          

      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

         Poor resilience, lack of awareness, 35

         communication gap

         Printed brochures, verbal plans, 30

         media awareness

         Government plan, limited public 25

         reach, lack of action

         Insufficient information, citizen 40

         detachment, perceived insignificance

         Informal communication, lack of 20

         educational conversations

         Alienation, minimal communication, 15

         absence of plans

         Education deficit, instinctive reactions, 10

         household plans

         No household plans, limited 5

         awareness, evacuation posters

         (Continued)

         Table 9: Continued

          

         Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)

          

         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”

          

         responses; (b) lack of practical steps: respondents point out a lack of concrete and practical steps in implementing pro- tection 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 communica- tion 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 protec- tion 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 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 earth- quake, where widespread and immediate damage could make resupply almost impossible. Key thematic areas – such as stockpile levels, perceptions of earthquake risks, daily

          

         ‌Figure 11: Word cloud analysis of key themes in the evaluation of citizens’ stockpiling of food and water supplies for earthquake preparedness.

         ‌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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         Stockpiles, pandemic comparison, 45

         institutional learning

         Low stockpile levels, earthquake risk 40

         perception, daily priorities

         Urban vs rural stockpiling, 35

         accessibility, disaster preparedness

         Fast-paced lifestyle, short-term 30

         supplies, lack of stockpiles

         Alarming situation, food 25

         preservation, natural disaster fear

         Living hand to mouth, lack of 20

         preparedness, limited stockpiles

         Complacency, earthquake prone 15

         area, pandemic reflection

         Pandemic insight, institutional 10

         responsibility, poor preparations

          

          

         ‌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.

         priorities, and lessons learned from institutions – help orga- nize the primary factors that shape preparedness. For instance, Participant 1 mentions how the pandemic served as a valu- able 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).

         In the analysis of respondents’ attitudes towards citi- zens’ resilience to respond to disasters caused by earth- quakes 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 ser- vices 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 con- ducting 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 aware- ness 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 earth- quakes (Table 11 and Figure 13).

         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,

         ‌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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         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

         Civil protection, historical context, 40

         citizen skills

         Lack of evacuation drills, household 35

         preparedness

         Implementation gap, absence of 30

         training, awareness

         Need for exercises, lack of visibility, 25

         citizen awareness

         Civil protection history, protection, and 20

         rescue service

         Institutional commitment, 15

         preparedness activities, citizen engagement

         Diminished opportunities, institutional 10

         exercises, public facilities

         Military service discontinuation, 5

         preparedness gap, civil protection

          

          

         ‌Figure 13: Word cloud analysis of key themes in the evaluation of citizens’ engagement in evacuation drills for earthquake preparedness.

         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).

   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 res- cuers 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 gen- eral awareness about the risks, education on precautions

      and measures, and also the possibility to obtain expert advice are very important for resilience measures. In addi- tion to the basic results presented, it is important to note a negative attitude towards the existing education and pre- paredness 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 respon- dents 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 consid- ered the most effective motivator, other factors such as dedication, solidarity, and responsibility towards the com- munity can also contribute to increasing citizens’ resilience to earthquakes (Table 13 and Figure 15).

      As we can derive from the respondents’ answers, opi- nions differ on how to improve citizens’ resilience to earth- quakes 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

      ‌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

      2. My opinion is that citizen awareness is low, except for potential individuals whose profession is closely related to these natural phenomena

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

          

      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

         Citizen disinterest, lack of activities, 30 volunteer involvement

         Low awareness, professional 25

         knowledge, limited interest

         Awareness factors, education 20

         programs, citizen interest

         Interest and willingness, knowledge 15

         expansion, training opportunities

         Poor information, media involvement, 10

         social media awareness

         Information quantity, citizen interest, 5

         knowledge gap

         State responsibility, educational 35

         institutions, preventive measures

         Low awareness, state neglect, focus 40

         on entertainment

         teaching earthquake courses at all school levels and using social networks as information channels, especially for younger population. The importance of distributing earth- quake response information brochures is also highlighted. Second is the need to stress more on food stockpile readiness, both at the state level, through local administra- tions, and by individuals. This also includes transparent information to citizens about the state of stockpiles and potential opportunities. Other suggestions include incorpor- ating 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 impor- tance 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,

          

         ‌Figure 14: Word cloud analysis of key themes in strategies to enhance citizens’ resilience in responding to earthquakes by local self-governments.

         and stockpile preparation will ensure greater citizen resili- ence to earthquakes (Table 14 and Figure 16).

4. ‌Discussion and recommendation

   The results of this extensive qualitative analysis highlight the intricacies and obstacles to enhancing seismic resili- ence 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 cur- rent 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 [53,76–78]. Moreover, edu- cation and awareness are crucial steps to prepare the public for actions during and after a disaster caused by the earth- quake [79].

   Reducing impacts from these widespread and common disasters requires that individuals be ready to react effec- tively 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 citi- zens. 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 institu- tions 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 col- laboration [84]. As a result, strengthening communication networks is critical for delivering timely information and ensuring coordinated disaster responses [75,85–87].

   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 knowl- edge. Therefore, the study emphasizes that a proactive community is necessary to support earthquake resilience, catering to different motivation types [89]. In addition, var- ious challenges to the proper implementation of resilience measures, such as informational, resource-based, political barriers, and coordination failures, hamper the effective- ness 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

   ‌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

   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

   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

   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

   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

   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

   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

   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

   Educational broadcasts, 30

   motivation, information dissemination

   Youth education, workshops, long- 35 lasting impact

   Awareness, forums with rescuers, 25

   experience sharing

   Fear, lack of awareness, risk 20

   education

   Negative attitudes, instinctive 15

   reactions, system improvement

   Varying motivations, demographic 10

   factors, risk perception

   Education, solidarity, community 5

   responsibility

   Youth engagement, workshops, 5

   household knowledge sharing

    

   foster a proactive community environment that supports earthquake resilience efforts [89]. In addition, several bar- riers 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 recommen- dations 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, collabora- tion, policy activation, and evaluation. The Education and Training initiative aims to tackle the lack of preparedness through general awareness programs and curricular embed- ding in schools, such as comprehensive educational pro- grams 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 capa- city in practical field readiness and a culture of commu- nity resilience. Workshops and seminars serve as an advanced step to encourage citizen engagement; primarily addressing low interest among citizens with regards to dis- aster preparedness, offering tangible knowledge while pro- viding incentives for participation.

   Comparing earthquake resilience strategies across dif- ferent regions sheds light on both shared goals and unique approaches to earthquake preparedness. In Montenegro, like many earthquake-prone areas, community engage- ment 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 experi- ences with earthquakes have shaped more robust prepa- redness efforts [3,17,53]. In Indonesia and Italy’s Apennines, communities facing frequent seismic events have institutiona- lized 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 find- ings highlight a crucial point: while structural resilience and government support are priorities in some regions, Montene- gro’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 Monte- negro with a stronger, more adaptive approach to resilience.

    

   ‌Figure 15: Word cloud analysis of key themes in the evaluation of factors influencing citizens’ motivation for resilience measures in earthquake disasters.

   ‌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

   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

   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

   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

   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.

   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

       

   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.

      School education, social media, youth 40 awareness

      Brochures, earthquake preparation, 35 public knowledge

      Stockpiles, transparency, knowledge 30 programs

      Training, volunteer involvement, 25

      earthquake seminars

      School education, preventive 20

      measures, household preparedness

      Real danger awareness, community 15

      preparation, citizen skills

      Comprehensive education, 10

      institutional training, response teams

      (Continued)

      Table 14: Continued

       

       

      Participant ID Key response segments Key thematic terms Frequency of theme (%)

   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, 5

   institutional strengthening

    

    

   ‌Figure 16: Word cloud analysis of key themes in strategies to enhance citizens’ resilience in responding to earthquake disasters.

   The recommendations also bolster Collaboration and Communication through improved coordination with resi- dents, local institutions, and government actors; commu- nication plans in the quake aftermath seek to minimize information deficits. Measures include strengthening account- ability for resource allocation in Policy and Resource Mobilization, as well as enhancing institutional capaci- ties. 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 sustain- ability. The Evaluation and Monitoring category also includes ways to get regular feedback from stakeholders, monitor sys- tematically, 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 reposi- tory of data with deeper insights into Montenegro’s resili- ence to earthquake-related disasters. The study reveals substantial variability in seismic resilience across commu- nities, with some areas displaying strong preparedness measures, like early-warning systems and accessible shel- ters, while others exhibit significant weaknesses in public awareness and institutional readiness. The findings under- score the critical need for community-specific resilience programs to address these disparities and enhance prepa- redness 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

34  Vladimir M. Cvetković et al.

 

‌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	Utilize detailed metrics to assess	Moderate	Moderate	Educational institutions, local
	all ages, embedding earthquake preparedness in	educational effectiveness across age			government, social media
	school curricula, and leveraging social networks for	groups			influencers
	information dissemination
	Introduce earthquake-related topics in school	Evaluate curriculum effectiveness and	Moderate	Low	School boards, education
	curricula with regular evacuation drills and	student preparedness regularly			departments, emergency
	emergency response exercises to instil	through drills			response teams
	preparedness in students
	Provide earthquake safety training for households,	Encourage household-level resilience	Low	Low	Local councils, disaster
	offering practical opportunities to boost protection	with distributed guidelines and tools			management agencies,
	and preparedness	for earthquake preparedness			households
	Raise public awareness through targeted	Ensure targeted campaigns are	High	High	Local media, municipal
	campaigns and hold mass evacuation drills to	tailored to specific community needs			authorities, community
	ensure citizens are familiar with evacuation	for accessibility			organizations
	procedures
	Organize workshops and seminars to involve	Offer participation incentives to	Moderate	Moderate	Community centres, NGOs, local
	citizens in disaster preparedness and response	increase community engagement			educators
	activities
Collaboration and	Foster collaboration among residents, local	Establish clear communication	Low	Low	Residents, local councils, disaster
communication	institutions, and government bodies to align	channels for coordination after			response teams
	resilience efforts toward earthquake preparedness	earthquakes
	Use public outreach and educational campaigns to	Maintain consistent public outreach,	Moderate	Moderate	Public relations teams, local
	raise awareness and establish formal	using multiple platforms to enhance			media, emergency responders
	communication channels for coordinated	awareness
	responses post-earthquake
	Promote unity and collective action by fostering	Include rural and urban stakeholders	Low	Low	Local governments, community
	collaboration between local governments and	in collaboration efforts			leaders, residents
	community stakeholders
Policy and resource	Adopt policies to address information gaps,	Set clear objectives for resource	High	High	Policy makers, disaster recovery
mobilization	resource constraints, and political neglect with a	distribution and political accountability			agencies, resource management
	focus on rebuilding and future earthquake				units
	response efforts
	Enhance education and awareness campaigns, and	Utilize civil society networks for	High	Moderate	Educational NGOs, local
	strengthen institutional capacity through civil	ongoing resilience efforts			institutions, civil society
	society involvement to address coordination
	challenges
					(Continued)

 

Table 15: Continued
Thematic heading	Recommendation	Specific actions	Implementation	Financial	Stakeholders
			difficulty	resources
				required
	Improve frameworks enabling local governments	Define measurable goals for local	Moderate	High	Municipal governments, resilience
	to execute earthquake resilience activities	resilience activities			planners, local organizations
	effectively
	Tailor solutions for local areas, quantify resources	Adapt solutions to unique community	High	High	Local authorities, resource
	for at-risk regions, and address resilience	needs and vulnerabilities			management teams, affected
	disparities				communities
	Build cultural sensitivity into educational outreach	Promote educational approaches that	Moderate	Moderate	Cultural leaders, educational
	to foster community ownership of preparedness	reflect cultural values for broader			institutions, community members
	messages rooted in local knowledge	community impact
	Include earthquake resilience considerations in	Incorporate hazard resilience into	High	High	Construction companies, urban
	planning of new developments to ensure they	building codes and standards			planners, regulatory bodies
	withstand natural hazards
	Integrate resilience into multilevel planning	Integrate resilience considerations into	Moderate	High	Regional planning boards,
	processes for sustainable, long-term solutions	sustainable design for new			sustainability councils, local
		developments			government
	Convene multi-sector collaboration to integrate	Encourage cross-sector cooperation for	High	High	Governmental bodies, private
	resilience into policy frameworks and mobilize	policy development and resource			sector, funding agencies
	financial resources for improvements	mobilization
Evaluation and	Develop monitoring and feedback mechanisms to	Establish metrics to track and report on	Moderate	Moderate	Data analysts, resilience
monitoring	assess the impact of resilience interventions and	resilience outcomes			coordinators, government officials
	identify areas for improvement
	Engage stakeholders in periodic evaluations and	Involve key stakeholders in evaluations	Moderate	Moderate	Local governments, resilience task
	update strategies as part of an adaptive learning	to adapt and enhance strategies			forces, community groups
	approach
	Use KPIs to assess resilience improvements and	Use KPIs for regular resilience	High	High	Policy analysts, resilience
	adjust programs as needed	measurement and reporting			evaluators, data scientists
	Conduct regular evaluations with specific metrics to	Create clear evaluation protocols for	Moderate	High	Evaluation teams, government
	track resilience progress and areas for refinement	continuous resilience program			representatives, disaster
		refinement			management experts

 

Understanding seismic hazard resilience in Montenegro  35

 

have not directly faced the consequences of such events. For these reasons, they largely emphasize the necessity of improving resilience strategies and implementing preven- tive measures at both national and local levels. On the other hand, the obtained results also point to the low effec- tiveness 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 commu- nity’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 pre- paredness content into school curricula, have been high- lighted 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 prepa- redness, and consequently its resilience, through educational programs and plans to mitigate the effects of future earth- quakes. 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 dis- asters 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 recommenda- tions 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 commit- ment, 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, par- ticularly 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 stake- holders are essential. Integrating these recommendations presents challenges, such as securing financial resources and public buy-in. However, solutions including public–pri- vate 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 quantita- tive 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 com- parison 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 stu- dies in the field of disaster risk management. In addition, the study contributes to the broader field of disaster (risk) man- agement 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 path- ways 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 popula- tion resilience to earthquakes. This study highlights gaps, particularly in understanding how local community charac- teristics 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 effective- ness of policy interventions in fostering a culture of prepa- redness. Such research could deepen understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to sustainable resilience. The variability in preparedness across different localities sug- gests 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 resili- ence 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.

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).

Author contributions: V.M.C. conceived the original idea for this study and developed the study design and ques- tionnaire. Also, V.M.C. and G.G. contributed to the dissemi- nation 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.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data availability statement: Data are contained within the article.

Institutional review board statement: The study was con- ducted 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).

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.‌

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.

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.

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

5. ‌Pamungkas TD, Aliyan SA, Nurfalah I, Ningrum E, Maryani E. Preparedness of the community in facing disasters like earth- quakes (Case: Cisarua, Indonesia). Jàmbá-J Disaster Risk Stud. 2023;15:1438.

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.

7. ‌Esquivel SAC. Seismic resilience of communities: building clusters Doctoral dissertation. Northeastern University; 2022. p. 1–187.

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.

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. ‌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.

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.

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.

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.

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.‌

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.

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.

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.

18. ‌Tesfamariam S, Saatcioglu M. Risk-based seismic evaluation of reinforced concrete buildings. Earthq Spectra. 2008;24:795–821.

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.

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.

21. ‌Pejovic J, Serdar N. Seismic loss assessment of RC high-rise build- ings designed according to Eurocode 8. Earthq Eng Eng Vib. 2023;22:807–24.

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 regu- lations. Appl Mech Mater. 2014;633:1069–76.

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

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.

25. ‌Yin C, Kassem MM, Mohamed Nazri F. Comprehensive review of community seismic resilience: concept, frameworks, and case stu- dies. Adv Civ Eng. 2022;2022:7668214.

26. ‌Castillo JGS, Bruneau M, Elhami-Khorasani N. Seismic resilience of building inventory towards resilient cities. Resilient Cities Struct. 2022;1:1–12.

27. ‌Liel AB, Deierlein GG. Cost-benefit evaluation of seismic risk miti- gation alternatives for older concrete frame buildings. Earthq Spectra. 2013;29:1391–411.

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.

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.

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.

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.

32. ‌Anwar GA, Dong Y, Zhai C. Performance-based probabilistic fra- mework for seismic risk, resilience, and sustainability assessment of reinforced concrete structures. Adv Struct Eng. 2020;23:1454–72.‌

33. ‌Zhang R. Research review on earthquake resilient structures. highlights in science. Eng Technol. 2023;52:274–96.

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.

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.

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.

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.

38. Ao Y, Zhang H, Yang L, Wang Y, Martek I, Wang G. Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake prepa- redness of rural residents. Nat Hazards. 2021;107:1287–310.

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.

40. Wu J, Yang X, Deng X, Xu D. Does disaster knowledge affect resi- dents’ choice of disaster avoidance behavior in different time periods? Evidence from china’s earthquake-hit areas. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022;67:102690.

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

42. Hariyanto T, Abubakar Y, Zainun I. The impact of disaster knowl- edge and attitudes on community preparedness in facing earth- quakes. KnE Soc Sci. 2022;7:77–88.

43. Karjack S, Brudzinski MR, Shipley TF. Assessment of the general public’s understanding of rapidly produced earthquake informa- tion products ShakeMap and PAGER. Seismol Soc Am. 2022;93:2891–905.

44. Najafi M, Khankeh HR, Elmi H, Pourvakhshoori N. Behavioral, nor- mative and control beliefs about earthquake preparedness: A deductive content analysis study. PLoS Curr. 2018;10:28.

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.

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.

47. Rikhari R. Making buildings earthquake resistant is good eco- nomics. Sci Rep. 2015;52(7):23–7.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

54. ‌Albrito P. Making cities resilient: Increasing resilience to disasters at the local level. J Bus Continuity Emerg Plan. 2012;5:291–7.

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.

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.

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.

58. ‌Klyachko M, Dzogaz V. Preventive seismic strengthening and urban resilience. 1st Croatian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Zagreb, Croatia; 2021. p. 22–4.

59. ‌Osman T. A framework for cities and environmental resilience assessment of local governments. Cities. 2021;118:103372.

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.

61. ‌Sullivan-Taylor B, Gunnell S, Becker J, Johnston D. Improving resi- lience: 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.

62. ‌Miles S. Comparison of jurisdictional seismic resilience planning initiatives. PLOS Curr Disasters. 2018.

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.

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: innova- tion, theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 2021.

    ‌p. 1313–8.

65. ‌Ren H, Rong C, Tian Q, Zhang W, Shao D. Evaluation model for seismic resilience of urban building groups. Buildings. 2023;13:2502.

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.

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.

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.‌

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.

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.

71. ‌Radojičić B. Geografija Crne Gore: Dukljanska akademija nauka i umjetnosti. Montenegro: Podgorica; 2008.

72. Radojičić B. Geografija Crne Gore. Prirodna osnova. Knjiga I. DANU:

    ‌Podgorica; 2008. p. 129–60.

73. ‌Nikolić G, Vujović F, Grozdanić G, Valjarević A. Geomorphological characteristics of montenegro. Speleology of Montenegro. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 67–78.

74. ‌Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis: basics and techniques]. Landsberg: Beltz; 2010.

75. ‌Karasözen E, Buyukakpinar P, Ertuncay D, Havazlı E, Oral E. A call from early‑career Turkish scientists: seismic resilience is only fea- sible with “earthquake culture”. Seismica. 2023;2. doi: 10.26443/ seismica.v2i3.1012.

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.

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.

78. ‌Hosseini M, Izadkhah YO. Earthquake disaster risk management planning in schools. Disaster Prev Manag. 2006;15:649–1.

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.

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.

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 multidisci- plinary scientific geoconference SGEM 2013; Albena, Bulgaria, 2013.

    ‌p. 513–20.

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.

83. ‌Lampropoulos A. Towards urban and structural resilience in earthquake engineering. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Taylor & Francis; 2022. p. 273.

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.

85. Beatty TK, Shimshack JP, Volpe RJ. Disaster preparedness and dis- aster response: Evidence from sales of emergency supplies before and after hurricanes. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ. 2019;6:633–8.

86. Ray B. Response of a resilient community to natural disasters: The Gorkha Earthquake in Nepal, 2015. Prof Geogr. 2017;69:1–11.

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.‌

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.

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.

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

91. Ryan B, Johnston KA, Taylor M, McAndrew R. Community engage- ment for disaster preparedness: A systematic literature review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020;49:101655.

92. ‌Adhikari B, Mishra SR, Raut S. Rebuilding earthquake struck Nepal through community engagement. Front public health. 2016;4:121.‌

93. ‌Udo VE, Jansson PM. Bridging the gaps for global sustainable development: A quantitative analysis. J Environ Manag. 2009;90:3700–7.

94. ‌Ainuddin S, Routray JK. Earthquake hazards and community resi- lience in Baluchistan. Nat Hazards. 2012;63:909–37.

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.

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

97. Amri A, Bird DK, Ronan K, Haynes K, Towers B. Disaster risk reduction education in Indonesia: challenges and recommenda- tions for scaling up. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 2017;17:595–612.