Abstract
Community disaster resilience is increasingly guiding risk-reduction investments, but in many Southeast European settings, comparable subnational data remain scarce. This study assesses perceived community disaster resilience across Serbia by combining BRIC–DROP dimensions into a single index and analyzing differences across hazard types and sociodemographic factors. A cross-sectional household survey was conducted using multistage random sampling and the “next birthday” method for respondent selection. The final sample included 1200 adults from 22 local government units across four regions: Belgrade, Vojvodina, Šumadija & Western Serbia, and Southern & Eastern Serbia. Participants evaluated preventive measures and societal resilience for ten hazard types and considered five social dimensions: social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity/diversity, and social beliefs. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses (including Pearson correlations, t-tests, and ANOVA), and multiple linear regression identified key predictors of preventive behavior and perceived resilience. Composite scores highlighted spatial resilience differences. Overall perceptions were generally low, mostly falling below the midpoint of the scale. Furthermore, the highest ratings for implemented preventive measures were recorded for pandemics/epidemics, storms/hail, and floods, whereas the lowest were observed for environmental pollution and droughts. Perceived resilience was highest for snowstorms, storms/hail, and pandemics/epidemics, and lowest for environmental pollution and droughts. Also, respondents reported relatively strong family ties and favorable perceptions of communication and access to basic supplies, but weak institutional capacity, particularly in budget allocation, early warning and public notification, rapid decision-making, and evacuation and shelter readiness. Regression results were statistically significant but explained only a small portion of the variance. Age and public-sector employment positively predicted perceived resilience; fear, income, and, to a lesser extent, education were negatively associated. These findings highlight the structural and psychosocial factors that shape perceptions of resilience. The BRIC–DROP composite indicates generally low perceived preparedness and resilience, especially in risk communication, evacuation and shelter readiness, and financing—the key bottlenecks in strengthening local resilience. The results recommend combining institutional reform with targeted risk communication to reduce fear and build trust, especially focusing on hazard areas with the lowest confidence, such as environmental pollution and drought.
Conclusions
This study advances the assessment of community disaster resilience in Serbia by integrating BRIC–DROP-aligned dimensions into a composite index and examining the relationships between sociodemographic and psychosocial factors, perceived resilience, and preventive actions. In addition to providing a structured measurement approach, the analysis yields an interpretable, hazard-sensitive profile that identifies areas where citizens perceive resilience as strongest and highlights systemic weaknesses, thereby supporting evidence-based prioritization at the local level. The findings demonstrate that perceptions of resilience extend beyond basic demographics and are embedded within broader social-resilience dimensions, such as institutional arrangements, social connectedness, functional mechanisms, equity-related accessibility, and shared beliefs. Specific areas for enhancing governance and community systems are identified. From a policy perspective, the results suggest that strengthening community disaster resilience requires more than technical capacity improvements. Increased institutional transparency is necessary, including clearer communication of responsibilities, resources, and preparedness measures to foster public trust. Furthermore, emotional normalization should be recognized as a critical element of disaster risk reduction. Fear must be acknowledged as a legitimate public response and addressed through timely information, community engagement, and effective risk communication. Rather than indicating a uniform level of local resilience, the findings reveal a differentiated resilience landscape in which social support, institutional trust, and hazard-specific perceptions collectively shape community assessments of disaster coping capacity. These results emphasize the importance of context-sensitive and trust-oriented approaches to disaster risk reduction in Serbia.
The results highlight a persistent difference in how people perceive their own coping abilities compared to the preparedness of formal institutions. While support from close personal relationships helps provide stability, confidence in institutions, especially those requiring ongoing funding, coordination, and swift decision-making, remains relatively low. This suggests that building resilience shouldn’t rely solely on social bonds as a substitute for governance. Instead, efforts should harness community strengths while addressing institutional challenges that limit effective prevention, preparedness, and response. Importantly, the analysis confirms that how people see resilience is affected by structural factors as well as feelings of fear and trust. This underscores the need for resilience policies to combine technical solutions with social approaches—enhancing systems (such as planning, warning, evacuation, and service continuity) while also improving communication to reduce uncertainty, promote realistic risk understanding, and build trust through transparency and proven results.
Additionally, the impact of socioeconomic differences highlights the need for equitable resilience governance, ensuring resources for preparedness, protective services, and recovery are accessible to lower-capacity households and communities. In practice, the composite index provides a reproducible baseline for tracking resilience over time and for identifying critical areas for targeted investment and policy reform. It can serve as a decision-support tool that links resilience profiles to specific interventions (e.g., risk communication, early warning updates, evacuation plans, and budget alignment), thereby bridging measurement and practical action. Although the findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s methodological limitations, the results provide a useful basis for understanding how citizens perceive local disaster resilience in Serbia and for identifying practical priorities for institutional strengthening, trust-building, and inclusive preparedness planning.
The proposed BRIC–DROP-based composite index serves as a diagnostic, prioritization, and monitoring tool for decision makers in local disaster risk management. Specifically, it enables local governments to identify which resilience dimensions, including institutional preparedness, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity, or social beliefs, are perceived as weakest within a community, thereby informing intervention prioritization. The index facilitates the allocation of limited resources to targeted measures such as enhancing early warning systems, strengthening evacuation planning, expanding support for vulnerable groups, increasing public communication, or reinforcing local cooperation networks. Additionally, it can be applied longitudinally to assess whether reforms, training programs, or investments result in measurable improvements in perceived resilience over time.
How to cite
Cvetković, V. M., Milenković, D., Bašić, J., Lukić, T., & Renner, R. (2026). Predictive Model of Community Disaster Resilience Across Serbia: A BRIC–DROP Composite Index and Spatial Patterns. Safety, 12(3), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety12030059
