Abstract

This paper presents the quantitative research results of the barrier improvement measures of preparedness to respond to natural disasters. The survey was conducted in 2015 in 19 local communities in Serbia. On that occasion, using a testing strategy for households and multistage random sampling of 2,500 persons were interviewed. Survey results show that 20.5% of respondents thought that his first responders already help him, such measures are not necessary; 31.7% of respondents thinks that himself or his household is not vulnerable from the consequences; 20.9% of respondents said that there is no time for that; 23.1% of respondents think that it is taking these measures very expensive; 19.4% think that it is not capable of such a thing; 22.8% declare that there is no support from the local community; 27% points out that it can not prevent the effects do not in any way. The results of inferential statistics, the influence of sex, parenting, employment, disability, previous experience and military obligations variety show results in terms of their statistical association with barriers readiness. The significance of the research is reflected in the improvement of theoretical and empirical stock of knowledge about the factors responsible for the low level of citizens’ readiness to respond to natural disasters. The research results can be used as a starting point in designing a model to improve the readiness of citizens to respond to natural disasters. Keywords: security, natural disasters, barriers, response, sex, parenting, employment, disability, previous experience, military service.

Conclusions

In the quantitative research on obstacles to improving citizens’ preparedness for responding to natural disasters, several key findings were made. A significant portion of respondents, 20.5%, believe that emergency rescue services will help them anyway, so they do not see the need for such measures. Additionally, 31.7% do not consider themselves or their households to be at risk from the consequences of floods, while 20.9% state they do not have time to prepare. Furthermore, 23.1% of respondents believe that taking such measures is very expensive, 19.4% feel they are not capable of such actions, and 22.8% state they do not have community support. Notably, 27% believe they cannot prevent the consequences in any way. The study also found statistically significant correlations between several factors and these obstacles. For instance, citizens with previous experience slightly more often believe that emergency rescue services will help them, thus seeing no need for personal measures. Parents and those with previous experience are less likely to consider themselves or their households at risk. Women are more likely than men to state they do not have time for preparedness measures, and those who have served military service are less likely to cite this reason. Unemployed citizens and those with previous experience are more likely to believe that preparedness measures are very expensive. No statistically significant correlation was found between the belief that measures will not affect household safety and any variables. However, those who have not served military service more often feel incapable of taking such measures compared to those who have served. Parents, employed citizens, and those who have served military service are less likely to state they lack community support compared to non-parents, the unemployed, and those who have not served. Lastly, citizens who are not disabled and have not served military service more often believe they cannot prevent the consequences in any way compared to those who are disabled and have served. These findings highlight the need for continued research to examine the various factors influencing preparedness for natural disasters in more detail. Such research will significantly contribute to creating conditions for improving citizens’ preparedness for effective response.

How to cite

Reference –  Cvetković, V. (2017). Prepreke unapređenju spremnosti građana za reagovanje u prirodnim katastrofama. Vojno delo, 69(2), 132-150