Metrika

  • citati u SCIndeksu: 0
  • citati u CrossRef-u:0
  • citati u Google Scholaru:[]
  • posete u poslednjih 30 dana:12
  • preuzimanja u poslednjih 30 dana:7

Sadržaj

članak: 1 od 1  
Back povratak na rezultate
2021, vol. 55, br. 4, str. 1610-1647
Komunikacija o rizicima od katastrofa - stavovi građana Srbije
aUniverzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet bezbednosti
bMinistarstvo unutrašnjih poslova Republike Srbije, Beograd
cKriminalističko-policijski univerzitet, Beograd

e-adresavmc@fb.bg.ac.rs, marko6r@yahoo.com, srdjan.milasinovic@kpu.edu.rs
Projekat:
DAREnet - DAnube river region Resillience Exchange network (EU-H2020 - 740750)

Sažetak
Predmet istraživanja predstavlja ispitivanje stavova građana o različitim činiocima uticaja na sprovođenje efikasne komunikacije o rizicima od katastrofa u Republici Srbiji. Cilj istraživanja predstavlja naučna deskripcija prediktora uspešne komunikacije o rizicima od katastrofa. Korišćenjem onlajn anketnog upitnika, a po principu snežne grudve, sprovedeno je anketiranje 243 ispitanika tokom jula 2021. godine. Rezultati višestruke linearne regresione analize korišćene da se proceni eksplikativna moć šest izabranih varijabli (pol, godine, obrazovanje, bračni status, zaposlenost i visina prihoda) na percepciju komunikacije o rizicima od katastrofa pokazuju da su najznačajniji prediktori informisanosti o rizicima nivo prihoda i pol ispitanika. Dobijeni rezultati su od višestrukog naučnog i praktičnog značaja za unapređenje integrisane komunikacije o rizicima od katastrofa kroz proces poboljšanog razumevanja demografske i socio-ekonomske perspektive komunikacije.

Introduction

Insufficiency of the very risk assessment of different disasters for the development of a coherent risk management policy has put forward the current nature of the question of risk communication in disaster studies (Bradley et al., 2014; Chakma et al., 2020; Hussaini, 2020; Mano & Rapaport, 2019; Vibhas et al., 2019). Risk communication is a process of transmitting the results of different stages of risk analysis and risk management to stakeholders (Rowan, 1991). Apart from making citizens aware of risks of the occurrence of natural and technical-technological disasters, risk communication is also aimed at including stakeholders in the process of identifying possible solutions (Field, Barros, Stocker, & Dahe, 2012; Janković, 2021; Jha, 2020; Olawuni, Olowoporoku, & Daramola, 2020; Xuesong & Kapucu, 2019). Therefore, disaster risk communication is an act of transmitting information between stakeholders about the level of a potential risk, importance and potential consequences of such risk, as well as decisions and actions to be taken in order to control it (Hendtlass, 2008). It is a permanent process of creating and exchanging information between groups, institutions and individuals for the purpose of preparing, risk reduction, responding to dangers and threats (Sellnow & Seeger, 2021). Starting from different definitions of disaster risk communication, we can emphasize that it implies an integrated and multidimensional process of gathering, analyzing and transferring information about various aspects (preparedness, alleviation, response and recovery) of risks of natural and anthropogenic disasters; it also includes clearly determined senders (relevant authorities, subjects and institutions in charge of disaster risk reduction), messages (clear, short, unambiguous, scientifically founded and verifiable) and recipients (citizens).

The function of disaster risk communication refers to raising awareness, educating the population, encouraging people to act, reaching agreements, maintaining trust in communicators (Bier, 2001), distributing information during a disaster, as well as providing assistance in the subsequent recovery and learning from a situation (Bradley et al., 2014; Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2017). The key elements of the process of disaster risk communication are senders, i.e. the source (e.g. risk managers who send warnings), messages (e.g. the warning content. information in the form of a text, speech, sound, image etc.), channels (television, telephone, warning siren), recipients and effects, i.e. changes in the recipients' behaviour as a consequence of the communication process (Altheide, 1995; Couldry & Hepp, 2018; Hansson et al., 2020). However, even the most advanced early warning systems and prediction models will fail if information is not communicated in a timely manner, clearly and so as to enable the end user to consider options and adequate action (Fakhruddin, Clark, Robinson, & Hieber-Girardet, 2020). In the event of the absence of vital information and/or existence of partial, unforeseen or incomplete information, such as "black swans", the difficulties in communicating risk events are particularly pronounced (Wardman & Mythen, 2016).

In the past, risk communication was a one-way transmission of information from authorities to the public and did not constitute an interactive information flow (Glik, 2007). Nevertheless, the two-way approach (that also includes traditional perspectives of "experts" and "laymen") is more suitable because it involves experts who work with the public throughout the process of risk communication (Morgan, Fischhoff, Bostrom, & Atman, 2002). In that manner risk communication began a new stage that dedicates great attention to the social context in which it occurs and the response of the public to disaster risk information. In line with that, a large number of recent studies (Lachlan, Spence, Lin, Najarian, & Del Greco, 2016; McIntyre, Lachlan, & Spence, 2012; Nelson, Spence, & Lachlan, 2009; Spence et al., 2005) have documented the inclusion of people in various forms of communication during all stages of disasters and risk events for the purpose of learning from them, reducing insecurity and gaining the sense of personal control over the situation. The necessity of risk communication is reflected in the saving of lives, search and rescue operations and efforts directed at disaster risk reduction (Mileti, Fitzpatrick, & Farhar, 1992). The literature emphasizes the priorities of risk communication (Persensky et al., 2004): provision of information, familiarization with the stakeholders' concerns, building of trust and credibility etc.

Literature overview

Taking into account that the acceptance of risk information at the local level is crucial for successful risk management, the prerequisite for effective risk communication is good understanding of the factors affecting people's perception about information and their decision about adopting decision-makers' recommendations (Cvetković et al., 2021; Cvetković, Roder, Tarolli, & Dragićević, 2018; Cvetković, Tanasić, Ocal, Nikolić, & Dragašević, 2021; Ocal et al., 2020). In a broader sense, there are four dominant interlinked variables that affect people's response to risk communication: environmental signs, social context, warning components (source, channel and message) and recipients' characteristics (Perry & Lindell, 2006), i.e. complex interaction between the above-listed components. Among different demographic (Savage, 1993), socio-economic (Perić & Cvetković, 2019), cultural (Gierlach, Belsher, & Beutler, 2010) and psychological factors affecting the risk perception (Alcántara-Ayala & Moreno, 2016), certain papers (Visschers et al., 2012) emphasize the role of the affect and, accordingly, indicate the importance of research into the manner in which risk communication can cause an affect or more specific emotions.

In the process of searching for information from traditional and social media, it has been established that information inundation and the humour shown discourage the use of both media, while credibility encourages the use of traditional media (Austin, Fisher Liu, & Jin, 2012). Moreover, the above-mentioned authors have established that information about the gravity of disasters and efficiency of intervention-rescue services (police, fire-fighter/rescue units, civil protection etc.) increases the frequency of message transmission to others (Austin, Fisher Liu, & Jin, 2012; cf. Vos et al., 2018). Some of the vital components of the of risk communication process are trust and credibility (Peters et al., 1997). The government and industry often lack the public trust, while other sources, such as consumer organizations, media, doctors and friends, are largely trusted (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996; Cvetković, 2021; Cvetković, Adem, & Aleksandar, 2019; Cvetković & Grbić, 2021; Cvetković & Jovanović, 2020; Cvetković, Nikolić, Nenadić, Ocal, & Zečević, 2020). The greatest preparedness of individuals to follow recommended measures has been observed in the event when such information is received from their own social sphere (social media and direct contact with friends and the family) (Sansom et al., 2021).

The efficiency of the message about risks depends on the people's trust in communication sources, but on the other hand, their trust is affected by the perception of knowledge, professionalism and credibility, capacity for providing adequate help, responsibility, honesty, care, as well as the perception of the corruption level within the authorities (Eiser, Donovan, & Sparks, 2015; Harvey & Twyman, 2007; Kääriäinen, 2007; McLean & Ewart, 2015). In that context, two key components of trust stand out: trust in motives and trust in competence (Twyman, Harvey, & Harries, 2008). These two components together determine the level of cooperation between the recipient and the source of information (Harvey & Twyman, 2007), which subsequently forms their motivation for action (National Research, 1989). Furthermore, the citizens' trust is also affected by the perception of discrimination against minority groups and greater trust in local than government sources during disasters (Appleby-Arnold et al., 2019; Van Craen & Skogan, 2015; Wray & Jupka, 2004; Wray, Rivers, Jupka, & Clements, 2006).

The outstanding relevant characteristics of recipients regarding the perception of risks and response are previous experience, personal and demographic characteristics, existing beliefs (Brynielsson et al., 2018), i.e. cognitive partiality, such as unrealistic optimism, and ideological orientation (Breakwell, 2000).. Apart from observing a higher risk, there is also an evident tendency of individuals towards optimistic prejudice or illusions about invulnerability, or the belief that disasters are more likely to happen to someone else than to them (Gurmankin, Baron, & Armstrong, 2004; McComas, 2006; Salmon, Park, & Wrigley, 2003). Starting from the importance of personal experience with disasters for preparedness behaviours, Siegrist and associates (Siegrist & Gutscher, 2008) used the face-to-face interview to compare people who have experienced floods with those without such experience, despite living in the flood-threatened regions. On that occasion they noticed an important factor of underestimating the negative effect related to disasters among the respondents with no experience of floods, which further points to negative aspects of risk communication regarding the risk focused exclusively on technical aspects.

It should be kept in mind that, when wanting information about risk, the public prefers a clear message about risks and related uncertainties, including the nature and scope of disagreements between different experts (Frewer, 2004; Cvetković et al., 2019; Mitrović, 2019; Otašević et al., 2014; Magdalenić, 2010). Moreover, the result of honesty about uncertainties is most commonly the creation of trust (Svendsen, Yamaguchi, Tsuda, Guimaraes, & Tondel, 2016). As for communicating risks marked by scientific uncertainty, two experimental studies (Rabinovich & Morton, 2012) have found important interaction between the beliefs about science and communicated uncertainty regarding the preparedness for acting in line with the message. Frequent exposure to disasters when it comes to migrants, ethnic minorities and people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities is often related to various cultural barriers and limited knowledge of the prevalent language, which reduces their possibilities of interpreting and responding to warnings, particularly having in mind the inundation of risk communication with the conflicting jargon and the presence of panic, which further compound the implementation of effective communication (Johansson, 2017; Ogie, Rho, Clarke, & Moore; Shepherd & van Vuuren, 2014). That is why on the occasion of collecting information about risk minorities will most commonly rely on their relatives and social media (Morrow, 1999).

In line with the current nature of scientific research into disaster risk communication, the subject of the research is examining the citizens' attitudes to various factors (demographic and socio-economic) affecting the implementation of effective disaster risk communication in the Republic of Serbia.

Research methodology

The aim of the scientific research is the scientific explanation of predictors (gender, age, education, marital status, employment, income) of effective disaster risk communication in the process of decision-making and communication (Chart 1).

Графикон 1. Истраживачки дизајн /
Chart 1: Research design

This paper starts from the general hypothesis that there are effects of different demographic and socio-economic factors on the communication process about natural and anthropogenic disaster risks.

Sample and method of data collection

Non-random sampling by the snowball principle and on the basis of other conveniences in order to avoid contact with people due to the epidemiological situation caused by COVID-19, an online questionnaire was created and posted on all relevant social media and websites. Out of 410 citizens who agreed to participate, 350 downloaded the survey questionnaire, while 60 of the refused (the total rate of answers was 85.36%). Out of the total number of the respondents who downloaded the survey questionnaire, 243 of them answered all the questions in the questionnaire, while 107 respondents did not give their answers (the completion rate of the survey questionnaire was 69.42%). Table 1 shows socio-economic characteristics of the respondents included in the sample.

Табела 1: Социо-економске карактеристике испитаника обухваћених узорком/
Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents included in the sample

Варијабла / Variable Категорија / Category N %
Пол / Gender Мушки / Male 114 53.09
Женски / Female 129 46.91
Године старости / Age Млађи / Younger (18–30) 110 45.27
Средовечни / Middle-aged (31–60) 98 40.33
Старији / Older ( >61) 35 14.40
Ниво образовања / Education degree Средње / Secondary 110 45.27
Факултетско / University 100 41.15
Мастер и докторат / Master and doctorate 33 13.58
Брачни статус / Marital status Није у вези / Single 36 14.8
У вези / In a relationship 79 32.5
Верен/а / Engaged 30 12.3
Ожењен/удата / Married 94 38.7
Разведен/а / Divorced 4 1.6
Статус запослености / Employment status Запослен / Employed 203 83.5
Незапослен / Unemployed 40 16.5
Висина прихода / Income level Нижи приходи / Lower 142 58.44
Виши приходи / Higher 101 41.56
УКУПНО / TOTAL 243 100

Out of the total number of the respondents, women (53.09%) were slightly less present in comparison to men (46.91%). Speaking of the respondents' age, most of them were younger (45.27%) up to the age of 30, while the smallest number was of the older population representatives over the age of 61 (14.40%). The respondents with the completed secondary school (45.27%) were most present in the sample, while the smallest number was of the respondents with the completed postgraduate studies (13.58%). According to the marital status, there was the largest number of the respondents who were married (38.7%), while there was the smallest number of the respondents who were divorced (1.6%). In addition, the sample included the largest number of the respondents who were employed (83.5%), as well as those with the income level lower than RSD 30,000 (58.44%), having in mind the average national and monthly net earnings and the minimum wage (http://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G2018/PdfE/G20181260.pdf).

Research instrument

After the systematic analysis of a larger number of scientific papers dealing with the problem of disaster risk communication (Bouckenooghe, Devos, & Van den Broeck, 2009; Whitmarsh, 2009a; Whitmarsh, 2009b; Williams et al., 2006), instruments were identified that served for conceiving the survey questions. The survey questionnaire contains two sets of questions (see the appendix-survey questionnaire): a) questions about the respondents' demographic and socio-economic profile; b) direct and indirect questions about disaster risk communication. Before the beginning of this research, a pilot study was conducted with the sample of 42 respondents by the snowball principle. Taking into account the established deficiencies of the survey questionnaire, these results were not considered in the production of the final statistical analyses. Such preliminary study ensured the improvement of the design, the quality of questions, and the accuracy of the scales in the survey questionnaire itself.

Data processing

In the Statistical Product and Service Solutions programme (SPSS), all data obtained by survey examination were organized and classified. Thanks to the descriptive statistical analyses, the distributions of the answers to the posed questions were determined. For examining the effect of the selected variables on the attitudes to disaster risk communication, the multiple linear regression analysis was used for assessing the explanatory power of five selected variables on the perception of the effect of disaster risk communication. For the purpose of this analysis, the initial values of each of the selected independent variables were allotted new codes, or numerical codes: men, younger people, with a secondary school degree, married, employed, with lower income (those with less than RSD 30,000 are coded as 1; all others are coded as 0. For the purpose of detailed analyses, T-test and Pearson's correlation were used. The assumptions on which the analyses are based, the assumption of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homogeneity of variance were not disturbed (Tabachnick, Fidell, & Ullman, 2007). Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.79 and it can be said that the internal consistency of Likert scale was satisfactory.

Research results

Predictors of disaster risk communication

The results of the multiple linear regression analysis used to assess the explanatory power of six selected variables (gender, age, education, marital status, employment and income level) on the perception of disaster risk communication show that the most important risk awareness predictor is income level (β = 0.181), explained by 3.02% variance, followed by gender (β = 0.139, 1.93%). Other variables had no statistically significant contribution to the model. This model (R2 = 0.080, Adj. R2 = 0.057, F = 3.43, t = 15.92, p = 0.000) that includes all the observed independent variables explains only 5.7% of the risk awareness of disaster risks. Further analyses show that the most important predictor of the quality of risk communication is the employment status (β = 0.222) that accounts for 2.04% variance, followed by income level (β = 0.213, 4.16%) and age (β = 0.150, 1.82%). The above-mentioned model (R2 = 0.106, Adj. R2 = 0.084, F = 4.67, t = 13.05, p = 0.000) that includes all observed independent variables accounts for 8.4% variance of the quality of disaster risk communication (Table 2 and Chart 2).

Табела 2. Резултати вишеструке линеарне регресионе анализе фактора утицаја на комуникацију ризика од катастрофа /
Table 2. Results of the multiple linear regression analysis of the factors affecting disaster risk communicatio

Предикторска варијабла / Predictor variable Информисаност о ризицима / Risk awareness Квалитет комуникације / Quality of communication Поверење у пошиљаоце / Trust in senders Начин реаговања на информације / Manner of responding to information
B SE β B SE β B SE β B SE β
Пол / Gender 0.288 0.134 0.139* 0.259 0.155 0.106 ‒0.780 0.143 ‒0.315** 0.306 0.126 0.149*
Године / Age 0.166 0.144 0.080 0.367 0.167 0.150* ‒0.419 0.153 ‒0.169* 0.660 0.135 0.321**
Образовање / Education 0.165 0.184 0.058 0.203 0.214 0.061 0.272 0.197 0.080 0.333 0.173 0.119
Брачни статус / Marital status ‒0.320 0.203 ‒0.155 ‒0.426 0.236 ‒0.175 ‒0.166 0.217 ‒0.067 ‒0.379 0.191 ‒0.185*
Запосленост / Employment 0.381 0.212 0.174 0.574 0.247 0.222* 0.372 0.227 0.142 0.905 0.199 0.416**
Приходи / Income 0.838 0.301 0.181* 1.163 0.350 0.213** 2.397 0.322 0.431** 0.529 0.283 0.115
Adjusted R2 0.05 0.08 0.26 0.15

* pp ≤ 0.05; ** pp ≤ 0.01; B: нестандардизовани (B) коефицијенти / non-standardized (B) coefficients;
SE: стандардна грешка / standard error; β: стандардизовани (β) коефицијент / standardized (β) coefficient

Графикон 2. Предиктори комуникације о ризицима од катастрофа /
Chart 2. Predictors of disaster risk communication

In comparison to trust in the senders of disaster risk information, the results show that the most important predictor of such trust is the employment status (β = 0.416) that accounts for 17.13% variance, followed by gender (β = -0.315, 9.24%) and age (β = -0.169, 2.31%). This model (R2 = 0.284, Adj. R2 = 0.265, F = 15.27, t = 17.02, p = 0.000) that includes all the observed independent variables accounts for 26.5% of the variance of trust in information senders. Moreover, it has been established that the most important predictor of the way of responding to disaster risk information is the employment status (β = 0.416) that accounts for 7.18 variance, followed by age (β = 0.321, 6.35%) and, finally, the marital status (β = -0.185).

Табела 3. Резултати Пирсонове корелационе анализе посматраних варијабли и комуникације о ризицима од катастрофа /
Table 3. Results of Pearson‘s correlation analysis of the analyzed variables and disaster risk communication

Информисаност о ризицима / Risk awareness Квалитет комуникације / Quality of communication Поверење у пошиљаоце / Trust in senders Начин реаговања на информације/ Manner of responding to information
Варијабле / Variables Sig. r Sig. r Sig. r Sig. r
Године / Age 0.146 0.094 0.001** ‒0.219 0.076 0.115 0.001** ‒0.208
Образовање / Education 0.382 0.056 0.447 0.049 0.033* 0.139 0.241 0.075
Брачни статус / Marital status 0.186 ‒0.085 0.428 0.052 0.148 ‒0.093 0.835 0.013
Запосленост / Employment 0.924 0.006 0.852 0.012 0.197 0.084 0.012* 0.160
Приходи / Income 0.001** 0.207 0.000** 0.248 0.000** 0.395 0.012* 0.161

* p = 0.05; ** pp ≤ 0.01

This model (R2 = 0.177, Adj. R2 = 0.157, F = 8.48, t = 12.70, p = 0.000) that includes all the observed independent variables accounts for 17.7% of the variance of the manner of response to disaster risk information (Table 3 and Chart 1).

Results of the descriptive statistical analyses and the relation between the selected variables and disaster risk communication

The research results show that the level of citizens‘ awareness of disaster risks is at a lower level (x̅ = 3.09, sd = 1.01) and only 25.8% respondents point out that they are adequately aware of disaster risks. When asked “How would you like to be informed during disasters?”, the answer was given by more than 98% respondents and on that occasion it was established that the largest number of the respondents would like to be informed by: 1) the Internet (x̅ = 4.00, sd = 1.12); 2) announcements by public authorities (x̅ = 3.81, sd = 1.23); 3) television (x̅ = 3.56, sd = 1.31); 4) social media (x̅ = 3.53, sd = 1.32); 4) warning sirens for alerting citizens (x̅ = 3.49, sd = 1.21); 5) radio (x̅ = 3.21, sd = 1.36); 6) mobile telephone (x̅ = 2.74, sd = 1.39); 7) personally (door-to-door) (x̅ = 2.53, sd = 1.38); 8) stationary telephone (x̅ = 1.67, sd = 1.09) (Chart 3).

Графикон 3. Дистрибуција одговора на Ликертовој скали о преферираним начинима комуникације о ризицима од катастрофа /
Chart 3. Distribution of the answers on Likert scale on the preferred ways of communication about disaster risk communication

Therefore, citizens would mostly want to be informed by the Internet, and least by the stationary telephone. In addition, the research results show that 65.4% respondents exchange information about disaster risks with their acquaintances and that 23.5% of them think that the useful information is about what they need to do in order to protect themselves, while 7.4% of them point out that it is necessary to provide information about the cause and manner of occurrence of the disaster they are threatened by. When asked "What are the purposes of your use of social media during and after a disaster??", more than half of the respondents (53.9%) answered that they did it for educational purposes about disaster causes and consequences; 23.9% respondents pointed out that they used social media for the purposes of discussing the current situation; 1.6% respondents stressed that they did not use social media during and after disasters, while other respondents did not answer this question. Speaking of the assessment of the quality of the issued warnings to citizens in the previous disasters, the following has been established: a) timeliness of issued warnings (x̅ = 3.20, sd = 1.30); b) clarity of communicated messages (x̅ = 3.27, sd = 1.29); c) familiarity with action procedures after receiving messages (x̅ = 3.15, sd = 1.34); d) trust in forwarded messages (x̅ = 2.85, sd = 1.25); e) manner of issuing warnings (x̅ = 2.99, sd = 1.29); f) possibility of receiving warnings (x̅ = 3.19, sd = 1.32) (Chart 4).

Графикон 4. Дистрибуција ставова испитаника о квалитету комуникације о ризицима од катастрофа /
Chart 4. Distribution of the respondents‘ attitudes to the quality of disaster risk communication

Judging by the obtained results, the respondents mostly emphasize timeliness of issued warnings, while, on the other hand, they point to lower trust in forwarded messages, which may pose a serious problem in the disaster management process.

As for the assessment of the respondents' abilities for timely and adequate response after the issued warning, it has been established that the highest values refer to the sense of personal control over the situation (x̅ = 3.10, sd = 1.15); the by the ability for self-protection (x̅ = 2.88, sd = 1.19); the ability for evacuation (x̅ = 2.90, sd = 1.23); and possession of necessary resources (x̅ = 2.49, sd = 1.06) (Chart 5).

Графикон 5. Дистрибуција ставова испитаника о могућностима реаговања на издата упозорења о ризицима од катастрофа /
Chart 5. Distribution of the respondents‘ attitudes to the possibilities of responding to issued warnings about disaster risks

In the paper we further examined the level of citizens' trust in different subjects that informed them about certain aspects of disaster risks in the past. On this occasion, we established that the greatest level of trust was in information forwarded by relevant professional services and organizations (73.7%), then by public authorities (3.7%), politicians (2.1%) and, in the end, by the president (1.7%) and the government (1.5%) (Chart 6).

Графикон 6. Дистрибуција ставова испитаника о поверењу у пошиљаоце информација за време катастрофа /
Chart 6. Distribution of the respondents‘ attitudes to the trust in information senders during disasters

It is certainly important to emphasize that 13.6% citizens do not trust either of the listed subjects, which might cause serious problems in the process of accepting and acting in line with specific instructions of relevant authorities.

When asked to grade on Likert scale from 1 (absolutely low) to 5 (absolute high) their trust in relevant authorities regarding measures and activities undertaken to protect the population from natural and anthropogenic disasters”, most respondents (35.8%) pointed out that they had no trust to a certain extent, while 30.5% of them pointed out that they had absolutely no trust. Therefore, about 66.3% respondents have no trust in relevant authorities undertaking adequate measures and activities in order to protect them from disasters.It is important to emphasize that only 4.9% respondents said that they had absolute trust in relevant authorities. As for the restricted receipt of relevant information about disaster risks, it has been established that the highest values were recorded regarding the following attitudes: I am exposed to false or contradictory information (x̅ = 1.70, sd = 1.26); I have no access to the channel through which information is distributed (x̅ = 1.81, sd = 1.20); I have no radio or Internet access (x̅ = 1.65, sd = 1.08); I have no resources for buying adequate devices (x̅ = 1.77, sd = 1.14); I have no skills or habits for such use (x̅ = 1.78, sd = 1.23). When it comes to understanding forwarded information about disaster risks, the highest values were recorded regarding the reason of the lack of knowledge about the meaning of the warning signals (x̅ = 2.23, sd = 1.15); moreover, information is too complex (x̅ = 2.04,sd = 1.10); limited mental capacity (x̅ = 1.85, sd = 1.19); and, in the end, limited language skills (x̅ = 1.83, sd = 1.15) (Chart 7).

Графикон 7. Дистрибуција ставова испитаника о баријерама комуникације о ризицима од катастрофа /
Chart 7. Distribution of the respondents‘ attitudes to the barriers of disaster risk communication

The results of Pearson‘s correlation show that there is a statistically significant relation between age and the quality of disaster risk communication (r = ‒0.219, pp ≤ 0.001 – small correlation) and the manner of response after receiving information (r = ‒0.208, pp ≤ 0.001 – small correlation). The results show that age accounts for 4.78% of the variance of the quality of disaster risk communication and 4.32% of the manner of response after receiving risk information. The negative relation shows that the older a person is, the lower grades he/she will give to the quality of communication and the manner of response.

Further analyses determined the existence of a statistically significant correlation (r = ‒0.139, pp ≤ 0.05 – small correlation) between the respondents‘ education and the degree of expressed trust in senders of disaster risk information. The respondents‘ education accounts for 1.93% variance of trust in senders. On the other hand, a statistically significant correlation has been established between the employment status and the assessment of the manner of response after the provision of disaster risk information (r = 0.160, pp ≤ 0.05 – small correlation). About 2.56% of the variance of the manner of response could be explained by the employment status. In addition, a statistically significant correlation was established between the income level and the following variables: risk awareness (r = 0.207, p ≤ 0.01 – small correlation), the quality of communication (r = 0.248, pp ≤ 0.00 – small correlation), trust in senders (r = 0.395, pp ≤ 0.00 – small correlation), and the manner of response (r = 0.161, pp ≤ 0.05 – small correlation). Further analyses show that income accounts for 4.28% of risk awareness variance, followed by 6.15% of the variance of the communication quality assessment, 15.6% of the variance of trust in senders, and 2.59%of the variance of the manner of response (Table 3).

T-test results show that there is a statistically significant difference between men and women regarding the following variables: risk awareness (p = 0.02); trust in senders (p = 0.00); manner of response (p = 0.07); television (p = 0.0); radio (p = 0.02); official announcements of public authorities (p = 0.00); mobile telephones (p = 0.03); (p = 0.02); familiarity with action procedures (p = 0.02); trust in forwarded messages (p = 0.00). Further analyses show that women have more trust than men in senders of disaster risk information (x̅ = 3.00/2.35); women would like to get informed through television (x̅ = 4.13/3.35), radio (x̅ = 3.48/3.03), official announcements of public authorities (x̅ = 3.20/2.90) and mobile telephones (x̅ = 2.99/2.58).

Табела 4. Резултати Т-теста између пола и одабраних варијабли комуникације о ризицима од катастрофа /
Table 4. T-test results between gender and selected variables of disaster risk communication

Варијабле / Variables Пол / Gender
F t df Sig.
(2-Tailed)
Мушки / Male X
(sd)
Женски / FemaleX
(sd)
Lower Upper
Информисаност о ризицима / Risk awareness 0.026 2.25 241 0.02* 3.20 (1.01) 2.90 (0.97) 0.03 0.55
Квалитет комуникације / Quality of communication 11.43 1.61 219 0.10 3.01 (1.14) 2.98 (1.13) ‒0.05 0.53
Поверење у пошиљаоце / Trust in senders 61.30 ‒4.54 235 0.00** 2.35 (1.31) 3.00 (0.88) ‒0.92 ‒0.36
Начин реаговања / Manner of response 4.63 1.77 215 0.07* 2.85 (1.04) 2.63 (0.91) ‒0.03 0.48
Телевизија / Television 5.26 ‒4.87 220 0.00** 3.35 (1.33) 4.13 (1.11) ‒1.08 ‒0.46
Радио / Radio 2.92 ‒2.53 241 0.01* 3.03 (1.38) 3.48 (1.34) ‒0.80 ‒0.10
Интернет / Internet 3.18 ‒0.42 241 0.67 3.98 (1.05) 4.04 (1.23) ‒0.35 ‒0.22
Друштвене мреже / Social media 1.24 ‒1.19 241 0.23 3.45 (1.35) 3.66 (1.27) ‒0.55 0.13
Саопштења државних органа / Announcements of public authorities 6.67 ‒3.81 217 0.00** 3.59 (1.27) 4.17 (1.09) ‒0.88 ‒0.28
Фиксним телефоном / Stationary telephone 6.45 ‒1.14 160 0.25 1.60 (0.97) 1.77 (1.25) ‒0.48 0.10
Мобилним телефоном / Mobile telephone 4.26 ‒2.16 173 0.03* 2.58 (1.29) 2.99 (1.50) ‒0.78 ‒0.03
Сирене / Warning sirens 0.09 ‒1.46 241 0.14 3.40 (1.23) 3.63 (1.17) ‒0.54 0.08
Лично / In person 0.01 ‒1.36 241 0.17 2.44 (1.34) 2.69 (1.42) ‒0.60 0.11
Благовременост издатих упозорења / Timeleness of issued warnings 0.98 1.55 241 0.12 3.30 (1.30) 3.03 (1.30) ‒0.07 0.60
Разумљивост саопштених порука / Clarity of communicated messages 0.978 0.08 241 0.92 3.27 (1.32) 3.26 (1.25) ‒032 0.35
Познавање процедура поступања / Familiarity with the action procedure 12.60 2.23 215 0.02* 3.29 (1.39) 2.91 (1.21) 0.04 0.71
Поверење у прослеђене поруке / Trust in forwarded messages 1.07 3.31 241 0.00** 3.05 (1.27) 2.52 (1.13) 0.21 0.85
Начин издавања упозорења / Manner of issuing warnings 9.09 0.76 216 0.44 3.04 (1.36) 2.91 (1.17) ‒0.20 0.45
Могућност пријема упозорења / Possibility of receiving warnings 2.84 0.75 241 0.45 3.21 (1.35) 3.08 (1.28) ‒0.21 0.47
Вештине за самозаштиту / Self-protection skills 0.32 1.38 241 0.16 2.96 (1.17) 2.74 (1.22) ‒0.09 0.52
Могућност евакуације / Evacuation possibilities 7.89 ‒0.62 222 0.53 2.86 (1.31) 2.96 (1.08) ‒0.40 0.20
Недостатак знања / Lack of knowledge 0.23 0.12 241 0.90 2.23 (1.19) 2.22 (1.10) ‒0.28 0.31

* pp ≤ 0.05; ** pp ≤ 0.01.

On the other hand, men are more aware of risks in comparison to women: they are aware of risks (x̅ = 3.20/2.90); they point out that they know how to respond (x̅ = 2.85/2.63); they are familiar with response procedures (x̅ = 3.29/2.91); they have trust in trust forwarded messages (x̅ = 3.05/2.52) (Table 4).

Discussion

The paper examines the citizens' attitudes to various factors (psychological, sociological, and political) affecting the implementation of effective disaster risk communication in the Republic of Serbia. In the wealth of data, it has been established that there is a lower level of citizens' disaster risk awareness; the level of trust is the highest regarding the information communicated by relevant professional services; citizens would like most to be informed through the Internet, and the least by stationary telephone; they have less trust in communicated messages and as the most serious deficiency they point out the lack of knowledge about the meaning of warning signals etc.

The respondents' positive perception has been identified concerning the use of television, radio and official announcements of public authorities during disasters. The results of the study conducted by Austin and associates (Austin et al., 2012) indicate that the participants primarily searched for information about why and how the disaster occurred; the about responsibility, while the information about the steps of the response to be taken was searched only when the participants were highly involved in the event. In contrast, the respondents in this study searched for and found useful all relevant information about disasters, such as the cause and manner of their occurrence, responsibility for events and response steps to be taken.

Speaking of the attitude towards the use of mobile applications for disaster risk communication, which are present all over the world and whose efficiency has proved to be good in practice, the respondents had, in most cases, an exceptionally positive attitude, i.e. they absolutely supported the use of mobile applications for disaster risk communication. Considering the same matter, Chan and associates (Chan, Huang, Mark, & Guo, 2017) established that age and education level were vital socio-demographic variables related to the current use and future preferences of Smartphone technology. Among those who did not use mobile applications for risk communication, 61.3% were thinking of transferring to a Smartphone application. Accordingly, a conclusion can be drawn about the important role of these applications, but also about the importance of information being adjusted to socio-demographic characteristics of its users.

The research results show that men evaluate the level of their risk awareness of natural and anthropogenic disasters to a greater extent than women. Gender differences in the above-mentioned context were identified in other studies as well. For example, Wester-Herber and associates (Wester-Herber & Warg, 2002) pointed to regional differences that might have an important effect on efforts in disaster risk communication. In line with the results of this study, men report a higher degree of knowledge and information about the activities that contain risks of technological disasters (Wester-Herber & Warg, 2002). However, Bord and associates (Bord & O'Connor, 1997) found that women showed a substantially higher level of concern over different environmental risks, while Brink and associates (Brink & Wamsler, 2019) presented conclusions about women's greater readiness and motivation to be included ion adaptations and/or answers to different messages of natural disaster risks.

The obtained results indicate that there is no positive correlation between age and the assessment of the respondents' awareness. These results are contrary to the results of other empirical studies in which age is identified as an important predictor of the observed knowledge and the level of risk awareness of disaster risks (Zhou, Li, & Zhao, 2003). As for age, Feldman and associates (Feldman et al., 2016) establish that age is the most important predictor in the manner of informing about disaster risks. Namely, their analysis identifies age as the key characteristic in understanding the former need and the future desired use of the information about disaster risks.

The limitations of the conducted research are reflected in the follows: 1) insufficient presence of extremely young and old citizens in the sample; 2) no conducted qualitative research of risk communication with chosen experts and specially selected subjects; 3) impossibility of conducting field research (face-to-face).

Conclusion

Traditional sources of information through radio, television and print, have been long used for the purpose of warning the public about the pending dangers and proposing protection measures in order to reduce consequences to the minimum possible degree. However, these sources of information had a number of deficiencies: inability of direct transmission of information from the affected regions, interruption of communication between individuals and relevant services due to physical damage of the necessary critical infrastructure, inconsistency in reporting, sensationalization of stories by the media etc. The use of new technologies in reporting and warning has become of crucial importance in the field of disaster risk management.

In order to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the communication process, it is necessary to establish a service (unit) that would be in charge of monitoring the entire communication process (receipt, analysis, sending), from the first announcements to the end of the disaster. This unit and/or service would serve the aim of providing timely, true and objective information about events, as well as coordinating the communication among the members of the affected community and relevant services. This unit would be responsible for early warning, alerting and informing, for issuing evacuation orders and proposing protection measures via means of information, while during disasters it would receive direct information from the scene and manage protection and rescue units for the purpose of faster and more efficient response. Moreover, the role of this service would also be to stop the distribution of false information and undermining of the authorities.

The conducted research opens new research questions within which it is necessary to examine and study in detail various factors affecting the process of disaster risk communication and the implementation of different strategies and innovative solutions in this field. Having in mind increasing requests for dedicating attention to the social context and/or perception, attitudes and beliefs of the population that affect their interpretation, receipt and response to warning messages, the implications of this research are of extremely great importance for decision-makers in the Republic of Serbia.

Dodatak

Funding

The research leading to this publication has received funding from the European Union‘s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Grant Agreement 740750 – DAREnet”.

Appendix / Прилог

Анкетни упитник о комуникацији ризика од катастрофа
Survey questionnaire about disaster risk communication

1. Заокружите који сте пол? а) мушки; б) женски / Circle gender a) male; b) female

2. Колико година имате? (напишите број) / How old are you? (number)

3. Ваше образовање је (заокружите одговор): а) основно; б) средње; в) више; г) високо; д) мастер; ђ) докторат / Your education level (circle the answer): a) primary; b) secondary; c) higher; d) high; e) master f) doctorate

4. Који општи просек сте остварили током средњег образовања? а) довољан; б) добар; в) врло добар; г) одличан; д) друго / What was your GPA during secondary school? a) passing; b) good; c) very good; d) excellent; e) other

5. Какав је Ваш брачни статус? а) нисам у вези; б) у вези; в) верен/верена; г) ожењен/удата; д) разведен/разведена; ђ) удовац/удовица / What is your marital status? a) single; b) in a relationship, c) engaged; d) married; e) divorced, f) widower/widow

6. Да ли имате децу? а) да; б) не / Have you got children? a) yes; b) no

7. Да ли сте запослени? а) да; б) не / Are you employed? a) yes; b) no

8. Колики су ваши просечни месечни приходи? а) до 30.000; б) до 50.000; в) преко 75.000 / What are your average monthly earnings? a) up to RSD 30,000; b) up toRSD 50,000; c) more than 75,000

9. Колико времена у просеку на дневном нивоу проводите на друштвеним мрежама? a) до 1 сата; б) до 3 сата; в) до 5 сати; г) преко 6 сати; д) друго / other

10. Колико времена у просеку дневно проводите уз телевизију, радио или друге традиционалне медије? a) до 1 сата; б) до 3 сата; в) до 5 сати; г) преко 6 сати; д) друго How much time do you spend on average every day on television, radio or other traditional media a) up to 1 hour; b) up to 3 hours, c) up to 5 hours; d) more than 6 hours; e) other

11. Да ли размењујете информације о различитим аспектима ризика од катастрофа са познаницима? а) да; б) не / Do you exchange information about various aspects of disaster risks with your acquaintances? a) yes; b) no

12. На који начин размењујете информације о ризицима од катастрофа са познаницима?

a) интернет; б) друштвене мреже; в) преко фиксног телефона; г) преко мобилног телефона; д) не размењујем информације о ризицима од катастрофа; ђ) друго / How do you exchange information about disaster risks? a) Internet; b) social media; c) stationary telephone; d) mobile telephone; e) I don‘t exchange information about disaster risks, f) other

13. Да ли имате позитиван став према науци и технологији? а) да; б) не / Have you got a positive attitude to science and technology? a) yes; b) no

14. Да ли сте Ви или неко од Ваших познаника доживели катастрофу? а) да; б) не / Have you or any of your acquaintances experienced a disaster? a) yes; b) no

15. На који начин сте дознали за катастрофу? а) путем личне комуникације од уста до уста; б) путем ТВ вести; в) лично искуство; г) путем друштвених медија; д) путем текстуалних порука; ђ) е-пошта; е) радио; ж) блогови; з) новински часописи; и) нисам имао/ла искуство са катастрофом; ј) друго / How did you learn about the disaster? a) personal communication by word of mouth; b) TV news; c) personal experience; d) social media; e) text messages; f) e-mail; g) radio; h) blogs; i) newspaper articles; j) I have never experienced a disaster; k) other

16. Да ли сте упознати са начином информисања становништва о различитим аспектима у ванредним ситуацијама? а) да; б) не / Are you familiar with the method of informing citizens about various aspects in emergencies? a) yes; b) no

17. Према Вашем мишљењу, ко треба да шаље поруке упозорења на опасне догађаје? а) политичари; б) државни органи; в) надлежне службе; г) председник; д) Влада РС; ђ) друго / In your opinion, who should send messages warning about dangerous events? a) politicians; b) public authorities; c) relevant services; d) president; e) Government of the RS; f) other

18. Које информације о катастрофама сматрате корисним? а) информације о узроку и начину настанка катастрофе; б) информације о одговорности за догађај; в) информације о корацима одговора које је потребно предузети; д) све од наведеног; ђ) друго / What disaster information do you find userful? a) information about the cause and manner of the disaster occurrence; b) information about the responsibility for the event; c) information about the steps of the response to be taken; d) all of the above; e) other

19. Из којих извора добијате информације које сматрате корисним? а) јавни састанци о катастрофама; б) писана документација о ризицима од катастрофа; в) различите веб локације; г) медији; д) друго / What sources of information do you find useful? a) public meetings about disasters; b) written documentation about disaster risks; c) different websites; d) media; e) other

20. У које сврхе употребљавате друштвене мреже током и након катастрофа? а) образовне сврхе; б) примање личних препорука; в) укључивање у дискусије о актуелној теми; г) друго / What are the purposes of your use of social media during and after a disaster? a) educational purposes; b) receiving personal recommendations; c) getting involved in debates on the current topic; d) other

21. Током катастрофа, коме највише верујете? а) политичари; б) државни органи; в) надлежне службе; г) председник; д) Влада РС; ђ) друго / During a disaster, who do you trust most? a) politicians; b) public authorities; c) relevant services; d) president; e) Government of the RS; f) other

22. Коме највише не верујете током катастрофа? а) политичари; б) државни органи; в) надлежне службе; г) председник; д) Влада РС; ђ) друго / Who do you distrust most during a disaster? a) politicians; b) public authorities; c) relevant services; d) president; e) Government of the RS; f) other

23. Након читања одређеног сценарија катастрофе и процене о недовољности информација, из којих извора бисте тражили додатне информације? а) из традиционалних новинских медија (нпр. новине, ТВ вести итд.); б) из видео записа на мрежи (нпр. YouTube видео снимака); в) на Facebook-у од ажурирања пријатеља или фан страница; г) са Твитера; д) са туђих блогова; ђ) разговором са људима које познајем (нпр. лицем у лице, смс-ом, телефоном, е-поштом итд.); е) друго / After reading a disaster scenario and the assessment of information insufficiency, what sources would you search for further information? a) traditional news media (e.g. newspapers, TV news etc.); b) video records on the Internet (e.g. YouTube video clips); c) on Facebook, from updated friends or fan pages, d) Twitter, e) other people‘s blogs, f) talking to people I know (e.g. face-to-face, SMS, by telephone, by e-mail etc.); g) other

24. Како на скали од 1 до 5 (1 – веома неинформисан; 5 – веома информисан) оцењујете ниво Ваше информисаности о ризицима од природних и техничко-технолошких катастрофа? / On the scale from 1 to 5 (1 – rather unaware; 5 – quite aware), how do you evaluate the level of your risk awareness of natural and technical-technological disasters?

1 2 3 4 5

25. На који начин бисте желели да будуте информисани за време катастрофа? Оцените ваше ставове на Ликертовој скали од 1 (у апсолутној мери не желим на тај начин) до 5 (у апсолутној мери желим да будем информисан/а на тај начин) / How would you like to be informed during disasters? Grade your attitudes on Likert scale from 1 (I absolutely don‘t want that manner) to 5 (I absolutely want to be informed in that manner)

Телевизија / Television 1 2 3 4 5

Радио / Radio 1 2 3 4 5

Интернет / Internet 1 2 3 4 5

Друштвене мреже / Social media 1 2 3 4 5

Званична саопштења државних органа / Official announcements of public authorities 1 2 3 4 5

Преко фиксног телефона / Stationary telephone 1 2 3 4 5

Преко мобилног телефона / Mobile telephone 1 2 3 4 5

Преко сирена које се јавно оглашавају у локалној самоуправи / Warning sirens publicly heard in local self-government 1 2 3 4 5

Лично од стране задужених лица (од врата до врата) / Personally by responsible persons (door to door) 1 2 3 4 5

26. На скали од 1 до 5 оцените различите аспекте вашег информисања о катастрофама? / On the scale from 1 to 5 grade various aspects of your disaster awareness?

Благовременост издатих упозорења / Timeliness of issued warnings 1 2 3 4 5

Разумљивост саопштених порука / Clarity of communicated messages 1 2 3 4 5

Упознатост са процедурама поступања након добијених порука / Familiarity with the action procedure after receiving messages 1 2 3 4 5

Поверење у прослеђене поруке / Trust in forwarded messages 1 2 3 4 5

Начин издавања упозорења / Manner of issuing warnings 1 2 3 4 5

Могућност пријема упозорења / Possibility of receiving warnings 1 2 3 4 5

27. Које медије сматрате веродостојнијим у погледу информација о ризицима од катастрофа? / What media do you find credible regarding disaster risk information?

Штампане новине / Printed newspapers 1 2 3 4 5

Телевизија / Television 1 2 3 4 5

Радио / Radio 1 2 3 4 5

Електронски медији / Electronic media 1 2 3 4 5

Друштвене мреже / Social media 1 2 3 4 5

Обраћања политичара / Politicians‘ addresses 1 2 3 4 5

Обраћања стручњака / Experts‘ addresses 1 2 3 4 5

28. Оцените од 1 до 5 (1 – врло ниско поверење; 5 – врло високо поверење) своје поверење у власти за радње које предузимају ради заштите становништва од ризика за сваку од следећих ставки / Rate on the scale from 1 to 5 (1 – rather low trust; 5 – extremely high trust) your trust in the authorities undertaking measures for the protection of population from risks in each of the following items

Радиоактивни отпад / Radioactive waste 1 2 3 4 5

Зрачење мобилних телефона / Mobile telephone radiation 1 2 3 4 5

Терористички напад са радиоактивним извором / Terrorist attack with a radioactive source 1 2 3 4 5

Природне катастрофе (поплаве, земљотреси, пожари…) / Natural disasters (flood, earthquake, fire) 1 2 3 4 5

29. Оцените од 1 до 5 (1 – врло ниске способности; 5 – врло високе способности) своје реаговање на поруке упозорења током ванредних ситуација за сваку од следећих ставки / On the scale from 1 to 5 (1 – rather low abilities; 5 – extremely high abilities) grade your response to warning messages during disasters for each of the following items

Поседовање вештина за самозаштиту / Possession of self-protection skills 1 2 3 4 5

Поседовање ресурса за залихе / Possession of supply resources 1 2 3 4 5

Могућности евакуације / Possibilities of evacuation 1 2 3 4 5

Поседовање мера припремљености / Possession of measures of preparedness 1 2 3 4 5

Поверење према изворима информација о катастрофама / Trust in sources of disaster information 1 2 3 4 5

Осећај личне контроле над ситуацијом / Feeling of personal control over a situation 1 2 3 4 5 Претходна искуства / Previous experiences 1 2 3 4 5

30. Оцените од 1 до 5 (1 – одсуство било каквих потешкоћа; 5 – значајне потешкоће) своје разумевање (способност адекватног тумачења) порука / On the scale from 1 to 5 (1 – absence of any difficulties; 5 – substantial difficulties) grade your understanding (ability of adequate interpretation) of messages

Ограничене језичке вештине / Limited language skills 1 2 3 4 5

Ограничени ментални капацитет / Limited mental capacity 1 2 3 4 5

Недостатак знања (нпр. о значењу упозоравајућих сигнала) / Lack of knowledge (e.g. about the meaning of warning signals) 1 2 3 4 5

Информације се пружају само на једном језику / Information being provided in only one language 1 2 3 4 5

Информације су превише сложене, збуњујуће, нису прилагођене потребама одређене публике / Information is too complex, confusing, unadjusted to the needs of a certain audience 1 2 3 4 5

Изложеност лажним или контрадикторним информацијама / Exposure to false or contradictory information 1 2 3 4 5

31. Оцените свој капацитет слања и примања порука / Grade your capacity for sending and receiving messages
Немам приступ због функционалних оштећења (нпр. лош слух или вид) / I have no access due to functional damage (e.g. poor hearing or eyesight)
1 2 3 4 5

Немам ресурса за куповину уређаја или канала / I have no resources for buying devices or channels
1 2 3 4 5

Немам вештина или навика за коришћење извора / I have no skills or habits in relation to the use of sources
1 2 3 4 5

Лоша или покварена комуникациона инфраструктура (нпр. нема радио пријема или приступа интернету) / Poor or damaged communication infrastructure (e.g. no radio receipt or Internet access)
1 2 3 4 5

Информације се дистрибуирају путем канала којима немам приступ или их обично не користим
1 2 3 4 5

Information is distributed through channels to which I have no access or I usually don‘t use them
Изложеност лажним или контрадикторним информацијама / Exposure to false or contradictory information
1 2 3 4 5

32. На скали од 1 (у апсолутној мери непотребна) до 5 (у апсолутној мери потребна) оценити да ли Вам је потребна подршка/помоћ током одговора на хитна упозорења у случају катастрофе / On the scale from 1 (absolutely unnecessary) to 5 (absolutely necessary) grade whether you need support/help in responding to urgent warnings in the event of a disaster?
1 2 3 4 5

33. На скали од 1 (у апсолутној мери није потребно) до 5 (у апсолутној мери потребно) оцените Ваш став према употреби мобилних апликација за комуникацију ризика о катастрофама / On the scale from 1 (absolutely unnecessary) to 5 (absolutely necessary) grade your attitude to the use of mobile applications for disaster risk communication
1 2 3 4 5

References

Alcántara-Ayala, I., & Moreno, A.R. (2016). Landslide risk perception and communication for disaster risk management in mountain areas of developing countries: a Mexican foretaste. J Mt Sci, 13(12), 2079-2093. [Crossref]
Altheide, D.L. (1995). An ecology of communication: Cultural formats of control. Transaction Publishers.
Appleby-Arnold, S., Brockdorff, N., Fallou, L., & Bossu, R. (2019). Truth, trust, and civic duty: Cultural factors in citizens' perceptions of mobile phone apps and social media in disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 27(4), 293-305. [Crossref]
Austin, L., Fisher Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2012). How audiences seek out crisis information: Exploring the social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 188-207. [Crossref]
Bier, V.M. (2001). On the state of the art: risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 71(2), 139-150. [Crossref]
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change questionnaire-climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument. J Psychol, 143(6), 559-599. [Crossref]
Bradley, D.T., McFarland, M., & Clarke, M. (2014). The effectiveness of disaster risk communication: A systematic review of intervention studies. PLoS Curr, 6. [Crossref]
Breakwell, G.M. (2000). Risk communication: Factors affecting impact. Br Med Bull, 56(1), 110-120. [Crossref]
Brynielsson, J., Granåsen, M., Lindquist, S., Narganes Quijano,, M., Nilsson, S., & Trnka, J. (2018). Informing crisis alerts using social media: Best practices and proof of concept. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1), 28-40. [Crossref]
Chakma, U.K., Hossain, A., Islam, K., & Hasnat, G.T. (2020). Water crisis and adaptation strategies by tribal community: A case study in Baghaichari Upazila of Rangamati District in Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 37-46. [Crossref]
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2018). The mediated construction of reality. John Wiley & Sons.
Cvetković, V., Öcal, A., & Ivanov, A. (2019). Young adults' fear of disasters: A case study of residents from Turkey, Serbia and Macedonia. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 35, 101095. [Crossref]
Cvetković, V., Roder, G., Öcal, A., Tarolli, P., & Dragićević, S. (2018). The Role of Gender in Preparedness and Response Behaviors towards Flood Risk in Serbia. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 15(12), 2761. [Crossref]
Cvetković, V., Öcal, A., Lyamzina, Y., Noji, E., Nikolić, N., & Milošević, G. (2021). Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits. Energies (Basel), 14(9), 2464. [Crossref]
Cvetković, V., Tanasić, J., Ocal, A., Nikolić, N., & Dragašević, A. (2021). Capacity Development of Local Self-Governments for Disaster Risk Management. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18(19). [Crossref]
Cvetković, V., Nikolić, N., Nenadić, R.U., Öcal, A., & Zečević, M. (2020). Preparedness and Preventive Behaviors for a Pandemic Disaster Caused by COVID-19 in Serbia. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 17(11), 4124. [Crossref]
Cvetković, V., & Jovanović, M. (2020). Examination of the factors that influence public perception of mythically-based human behavior in disaster conditions. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog drustva, 100(2), 161-179. [Crossref]
Cvetković, V., & Grbić, L. (2021). Public perception of climate change and its impact on natural disasters. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, SASA, 71(1), 43-58. [Crossref]
Cvetković, V.M., Tomašević, K.S., & Milašinović, S.M. (2019). Security risks of climate change: Case study of Belgrade. Sociološki pregled, 53(2), 596-626. [Crossref]
Cvetković, V. (2021). Innovative solutions for disaster early warning and alert systems: a literary review. In: Paper presented at the XI International scientific conference Archibald Reiss days, November 9-10, 2021. Belgrade: University of Criminal Investigation and Police Studies.
Eiser, J.R., Donovan, A., & Sparks, R.S.J. (2015). Risk perceptions and trust following the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic volcanic ash crises. Risk Anal, 35(2), 332-343. [Crossref]
Fakhruddin, B., Clark, H., Robinson, L., & Hieber-Girardet, L. (2020). Should I stay or should I go now?: Why risk communication is the critical component in disaster risk reduction. Progress in Disaster Science, 8, 100139. [Crossref]
Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., & Dahe, Q. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.
Frewer, L. (2004). The public and effective risk communication. Toxicol Lett, 149(1-3), 391-397. [Crossref]
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What Determines Trust in Information About Food-Related Risks?: Underlying Psychological Constructs. Risk Anal, 16(4), 473-486. [Crossref]
Gierlach, E., Belsher, B.E., & Beutler, L.E. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in risk perceptions of disasters. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(10), 1539-1549. [Crossref]
Glik, D.C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annu Rev Public Health, 28(1), 33-54. [Crossref]
Gurmankin, A.D., Baron, J., & Armstrong, K. (2004). Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: Exploring the gap. Risk Anal, 24(5), 1337-1347. [Crossref]
Hansson, S., Orru, K., Siibak, A., Bäck, A., Krüger, M., Gabel, F., & Morsut, C. (2020). Communication-related vulnerability to disasters: A heuristic framework. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 51, 101931. [Crossref]
Harvey, N., & Twyman, M. (2007). Two-route models of trust in sources of risk communication. London: University College London.
Hendtlass, C. (2008). Risk Communication Workshop Handbook. New Zealand Centre for Advanced Engineering.
Hussaini, A. (2020). Environmental planning for disaster risk reduction at Kaduna International Airport, Kaduna Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(1). [Crossref]
Janković, B. (2021). The role of the police in disasters caused by pandemic infectious diseases. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 3(1), 41-50. [Crossref]
Jha, D. (2020). Indicator based assessment of integrated flood vulnerability index for Brunei Darussalam. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 47-70. [Crossref]
Johansson, M. (2017). Experience of data collection in support of the assessment of global progress in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: A Swedish pilot study. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 24, 144-150. [Crossref]
Kääriäinen, J.T. (2007). Trust in the police in 16 European countries: A multilevel analysis. Eur J Criminol, 4(4), 409-435.
Lachlan, K.A., Spence, P.R., Lin, X., Najarian, K., & Del Greco, M. (2016). Social media and crisis management: CERC, search strategies, and Twitter content. Comput Human Behav, 54, 647-652. [Crossref]
Magdalenić, Z. (2010). Toward a sociological understanding of the sustainable development. Sociološki pregled, 44(2), 309-324. [Crossref]
Mano, R., & Rapaport, C. (2019). Earthquake Preparedness: A Social Media Fit Perspective to Accessing and Disseminating Earthquake Information. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 19-31. [Crossref]
McComas, K.A. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. J Health Commun, 11(1), 75-91. [Crossref]
McIntyre, J.J., Lachlan, K., & Spence, P.R. (2012). Attending to the future: The role of learning in emergency response. Journal of Emergency Management, 10(1), 41.
Mileti, D.S., Fitzpatrick, C., & Farhar, B.C. (1992). Fostering public preparations for natural hazards: Lessons from the Parkfield earthquake prediction. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. Environment, 34(3), 16-39.
Mitrović, V.L. (2020). Double effects of the pandemic (corona). Sociološki pregled, 54(3), 609-626.
Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C.J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council. (1989). Improving risk communication. Retrieved from .
Nelson, L.D., Spence, P.R., & Lachlan, K.A. (2009). Learning from the media in the aftermath of a crisis: Findings from the Minneapolis Bridge collapse. Electronic News, 3(4), 176-192. [Crossref]
Ocal, A., Cvetković, V., Baytiyeh, H., Tedim, F., & Zečević, M. (2020). Public reactions to the disaster COVID-19: A comparative study in Italy, Lebanon, Portugal, and Serbia. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 11(1), 1864-1885.
Ogie, R., Rho, J.C., Clarke, R.J., & Moore, A. (2018). Disaster Risk Communication in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities: The Role of Technology. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol, 2(19), 1256. [Crossref]
Olawuni, P., Olowoporoku, O., & Daramola, O. (2020). Determinants of Residents' Participation in Disaster Risk Management in Lagos Metropolis Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 1-18. [Crossref]
Otašević, B., Trbojević, J., & Mitrović, D. (2014). Motivation for helping behavior after the floods in 2014: The role of personality and national identity. Sociološki pregled, 48(4), 485-505. [Crossref]
Perić, J., & Cvetković, V.M. (2019). Demographic, socio-economic and psychological perspective of risk perception from disasters caused by floods: Case study Belgrade. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 31-45. [Crossref]
Perry, R.W., & Lindell, M. (1989). Communicating threat information for volcano hazards: Bad Tidings Communications and Catastrophe. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Persensky, J., Browde, S., Szabo, A., Peterson, L., Specht, E., & Wight, E. (2004). Effective risk communication: The nuclear regulatory commission's guidelines for external risk communication. Washington, DC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T.A. (2012). Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication. Risk Anal, 32(6), 992-1002. [Crossref]
Rowan, K.E. (1991). Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19(4), 300-329. [Crossref]
Salmon, C.T., Park, H.S., & Wrigley, B.J. (2003). Optimistic Bias and Perceptions of Bioterrorism in Michigan Corporate Spokespersons, Fall 2001. J Health Commun, 8(S1), 130-143. [Crossref]
Sansom, G.T., Aarvig, K., Sansom, L., Thompson, C., Fawkes, L., & Katare, A. (2021). Understanding risk communication and willingness to follow emergency recommendations following anthropogenic disasters. Environ Justice, 14(2), 159-167. [Crossref]
Savage, I. (1993). Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Anal, 13(4), 413-420. [Crossref]
Sellnow, T.L., & Seeger, M.W. (2021). Theorizing crisis communication. Wiley & Sons.
Shepherd, J., & van Vuuren, K. (2014). The Brisbane flood: CALD gatekeepers' risk communication role. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(4).
Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2008). Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation behaviour: People cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood. Risk Anal, 28(3), 771-778. [Crossref]
Spence, P.R., Lachlan, K.A., & Griffin, D.R. (2007). Crisis communication, race, and natural disasters. J Black Stud, 37(4), 539-554. [Crossref]
Svendsen, E.R., Yamaguchi, I., Tsuda, T., Guimaraes, J.R.D., & Tondel, M. (2016). Risk communication strategies: Lessons learned from previous disasters with a focus on the Fukushima radiation accident. Current Environmental Health Reports, 3(4), 348-359. [Crossref]
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., & Ullman, J.B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Twyman, M., Harvey, N., & Harries, C. (2008). Trust in motives, trust in competence: Separate factors determining the effectiveness of risk communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 111.
Ulmer, R.R., Sellnow, T.L., & Seeger, M.W. (2017). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Sage Publications.
Van Craen, M., & Skogan, W.G. (2015). Differences and similarities in the explanation of ethnic minority groups' trust in the police. Eur J Criminol, 12(3), 300-323. [Crossref]
Vibhas, S., Bismark, A.G., Ruiyi, Z., Anwaar, M.A., & Rajib, S. (2019). Understanding the barriers restraining effective operation of flood early warning systems. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 1-19.
Visschers, V.H.M., Wiedemann, P.M., Gutscher, H., Kurzenhäuser, S., Seidl, R., Jardine, C.G., & Timmermans, D.R.M. (2012). Affect-inducing risk communication: Current knowledge and future directions. J Risk Res, 15(3), 257-271. [Crossref]
Vos, S.C., Sutton, J., Yu, Y., Renshaw, S.L., Olson, M.K., Gibson, C.B., & Butts, C.T. (2018). Retweeting risk communication: The role of threat and efficacy. Risk Anal, 38(12), 2580-2598. [Crossref]
Wardman, J.K., & Mythen, G. (2016). Risk communication: Against the Gods or against all odds?: Problems and prospects of accounting for Black Swans. J Risk Res, 19(10), 1220-1230.
Whitmarsh, L. (2009a). Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. J Environ Psychol, 29(1), 13-23. [Crossref]
Whitmarsh, L. (2009b). What's in a name?: Commonalities and differences in public understanding of 'climate change' and 'global warming. Public Underst Sci, 18(4), 401-420.
Williams, G.C., Lynch, M.F., McGregor, H.A., Ryan, R.M., Sharp, D., & Deci, E.L. (2006). Validation of the 'Important Other' Climate Questionnaire: Assessing Autonomy Support for Health-Related Change. Fam Syst Health, 24(2), 179. [Crossref]
Wray, R., & Jupka, K. (2004). What does the public want to know in the event of a terrorist attack using plague? Biosecur Bioterror, 2(3), 208-215.
Wray, R., Rivers, J., Jupka, K., & Clements, B. (2006). Public perceptions about trust in emergency risk communication: Qualitative research findings. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters, 24(1), 45.
Xuesong, G., & Kapucu, N. (2019). Examining Stakeholder Participation in Social Stability Risk Assessment for Mega Projects using Network Analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), 1-31.
Reference
Alcántara-Ayala, I., Moreno, A.R. (2016) Landslide risk perception and communication for disaster risk management in mountain areas of developing countries: a Mexican foretaste. Journal of Mountain Science, 13(12): 2079-2093
Altheide, D.L. (1995) An ecology of communication: Cultural formats of control. Transaction Publishers
Appleby-Arnold, S., Brockdorff, N., Fallou, L., Bossu, R. (2019) Truth, trust, and civic duty: Cultural factors in citizens' perceptions of mobile phone apps and social media in disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 27(4): 293-305
Austin, L., Fisher, L.B., Jin, Y. (2012) How audiences seek out crisis information: Exploring the social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2): 188-207
Bier, V.M. (2001) On the state of the art: risk communication to the public. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 71(2): 139-150
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., van den Broeck, H. (2009) Organizational change questionnaire-climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument. Journal of Psychology, 143(6): 559-599
Bradley, D.T., Mcfarland, M., Clarke, M. (2014) The effectiveness of disaster risk communication: A systematic review of intervention studies. PLoS Currents, 6
Breakwell, G.M. (2000) Risk communication: Factors affecting impact. British Medical Bulletin, 56(1): 110-120
Brynielsson, J., Granåsen, M., Lindquist, S., Narganes, Q.M., Nilsson, S., Trnka, J. (2018) Informing crisis alerts using social media: Best practices and proof of concept. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1): 28-40
Chakma, U.B., Hossain, A., Islam, K., Hasnat, T.T., Kabir, Md. H. (2020) Water crisis and adaptation strategies by tribal community: A case study in Baghaichari Upazila of Rangamati District in Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2): 37-46
Couldry, N., Hepp, A. (2018) The mediated construction of reality. John Wiley & Sons
Cvetković, V. (2021) Innovative solutions for disaster early warning and alert systems: a literary review. u: Paper presented at the XI International scientific conference Archibald Reiss days, November 9-10, 2021, Belgrade: University of Criminal Investigation and Police Studies
Cvetković, V., Grbić, L. (2021) Public perception of climate change and its impact on natural disasters. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, SASA, 71(1): 43-58
Cvetković, V., Jovanović, M. (2020) Examination of the factors that influence public perception of mythically-based human behavior in disaster conditions. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog drustva, 100(2): 161-179
Cvetković, V., Roder, G., Öcal, A., Tarolli, P., Dragićević, S. (2018) The Role of Gender in Preparedness and Response Behaviors towards Flood Risk in Serbia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12): 2761
Cvetković, V.M., Tanasić, J., Ocal, A., Nikolić, N., Dragašević, A. (2021) Capacity Development of Local Self-Governments for Disaster Risk Management. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19): 10406
Cvetković, V.M., Nikolić, N., Nenadić, R.U., Öcal, A., Zečević, M. (2020) Preparedness and Preventive Behaviors for a Pandemic Disaster Caused by COVID-19 in Serbia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11): 4124
Cvetković, V.M., Öcal, A., Ivanov, A. (2019) Young adults' fear of disasters: A case study of residents from Turkey, Serbia and Macedonia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 35: 101095
Cvetković, V.M., Öcal, A., Lyamzina, Y., Noji, E., Nikolić, N., Milošević, G. (2021) Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits. Energies, 14(9): 2464
Cvetković, V.M., Tomašević, K.S., Milašinović, S.M. (2019) Security risks of climate change: Case study of Belgrade. Sociološki pregled, vol. 53, br. 2, str. 596-626
Eiser, J. R., Donovan, A., Sparks, R.S.J. (2015) Risk perceptions and trust following the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic volcanic ash crises. Risk Analysis, 35(2): 332-343
Fakhruddin, B., Clark, H., Robinson, L., Hieber-Girardet, L. (2020) Should I stay or should I go now?: Why risk communication is the critical component in disaster risk reduction. Progress in Disaster Science, 8: 100139
Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Dahe, Q. (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press
Frewer, L. (2004) The public and effective risk communication. Toxicology Letters, 149(1-3): 391-397
Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., Shepherd, R. (1996) What Determines Trust in Information About Food-Related Risks?: Underlying Psychological Constructs. Risk Analysis, 16(4): 473-486
Gierlach, E., Belsher, B.E., Beutler, L.E. (2010) Cross-cultural differences in risk perceptions of disasters. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(10): 1539-1549
Glik, D.C. (2007) Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health, 28(1): 33-54
Gurmankin, A.D., Baron, J., Armstrong, K. (2004) Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: Exploring the gap. Risk Analysis, 24(5): 1337-1347
Hansson, S., Orru, K., Siibak, A., Bäck, A., Krüger, M., Gabel, F., Morsut, C. (2020) Communication-related vulnerability to disasters: A heuristic framework. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51: 101931
Harvey, N., Twyman, M. (2007) Two-route models of trust in sources of risk communication. London: University College London
Hendtlass, C. (2008) Risk Communication Workshop Handbook. New Zealand Centre for Advanced Engineering
Hussaini, A. (2020) Environmental planning for disaster risk reduction at Kaduna International Airport, Kaduna Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(1), 35-49
Janković, B. (2021) The role of the police in disasters caused by pandemic infectious diseases. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 3(1): 41-50
Jha, D. (2020) Indicator based assessment of integrated flood vulnerability index for Brunei Darussalam. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2): 47-70
Johansson, M. (2017) Experience of data collection in support of the assessment of global progress in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: A Swedish pilot study. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 24: 144-150
Kääriäinen, J.T. (2007) Trust in the police in 16 European countries: A multilevel analysis. European journal of criminology, 4(4): 409-435
Lachlan, K.A., Spence, P.R., Lin, X., Najarian, K., Del, G.M. (2016) Social media and crisis management: CERC, search strategies, and Twitter content. Computers in Human Behavior, 54: 647-652
Magdalenić, Z. (2010) Toward a sociological understanding of the sustainable development. Sociološki pregled, vol. 44, br. 2, str. 309-324
Mano, R., A. Kirshcenbaum,, Rapaport, C. (2019) Earthquake Preparedness: A Social Media Fit Perspective to Accessing and Disseminating Earthquake Information. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2): 19-31
Mccomas, K.A. (2006) Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996-2005. Journal of Health Communication, 11(1): 75-91
Mcintyre, J.J., Lachlan, K., Spence, P.R. (2012) Attending to the future: The role of learning in emergency response. Journal of Emergency Management, 10(1): 41
Mileti, D.S., Fitzpatrick, C., Farhar, B.C. (1992) Fostering public preparations for natural hazards: Lessons from the Parkfield earthquake prediction. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 34(3): 16-39
Mitrović, V.L. (2020) Double effects of the pandemic (corona). Sociološki pregled, vol. 54, br. 3, str. 609-626
Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Atman, C.J. (2002) Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge University Press
National Research Council (1989) Improving risk communication
Nelson, L.D., Spence, P.R., Lachlan, K.A. (2009) Learning from the media in the aftermath of a crisis: Findings from the Minneapolis Bridge collapse. Electronic News, 3(4): 176-192
Ocal, A., Cvetković, V., Baytiyeh, H., Tedim, F., Zečević, M. (2020) Public reactions to the disaster COVID-19: A comparative study in Italy, Lebanon, Portugal, and Serbia. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 11(1): 1864-1885
Ogie, R., Rho, J.C., Clarke, R.J., Moore, A. (2018) Disaster Risk Communication in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities: The Role of Technology. Proceedings, 2(19): 1256
Olawuni, P., Olowoporoku, O., Daramola, O. (2020) Determinants of Residents' Participation in Disaster Risk Management in Lagos Metropolis Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2): 1-18
Otašević, B., Trbojević, J., Mitrović, D. (2014) Motivation for helping behavior after the floods in 2014: The role of personality and national identity. Sociološki pregled, vol. 48, br. 4, str. 485-505
Perić, J., Cvetković, V.M. (2019) Demographic, socio-economic and psychological perspective of risk perception from disasters caused by floods: Case study Belgrade. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2): 31-45
Perry, R.W., Lindell, M. (1989) Communicating threat information for volcano hazards: Bad Tidings Communications and Catastrophe. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 62
Persensky, J., Browde, S., Szabo, A., Peterson, L., Specht, E., Wight, E. (2004) Effective risk communication: The nuclear regulatory commission's guidelines for external risk communication. Washington, DC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Rabinovich, A., Morton, T.A. (2012) Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(6): 992-1002
Rowan, K.E. (1991) Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication about risks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19(4): 300-329
Salmon, C.T., Park, H.S., Wrigley, B.J. (2003) Optimistic Bias and Perceptions of Bioterrorism in Michigan Corporate Spokespersons, Fall 2001. Journal of Health Communication, 8(S1): 130-143
Sansom, G.T., Aarvig, K., Sansom, L.T., Thompson, C., Fawkes, L., Katare, A. (2021) Understanding risk communication and willingness to follow emergency recommendations following anthropogenic disasters. Environmental Justice, 14(2): 159-167
Savage, I. (1993) Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13(4): 413-420
Sellnow, T.L., Seeger, M.W. (2021) Theorizing crisis communication. Wiley & Sons
Shepherd, J., van Vuuren, K. (2014) The Brisbane flood: CALD gatekeepers' risk communication role. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(4)
Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H. (2008) Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation behaviour: People cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(3): 771-778
Spence, P.R., Lachlan, K.A., Griffin, D.R. (2007) Crisis communication, race, and natural disasters. Journal of Black Studies, 37(4): 539-554
Svendsen, E.R., Yamaguchi, I., Tsuda, T., Guimaraes, J.R.D., Tondel, M. (2016) Risk communication strategies: Lessons learned from previous disasters with a focus on the Fukushima radiation accident. Current Environmental Health Reports, 3(4): 348-359
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., Ullman, J.B. (2007) Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson, 5
Twyman, M., Harvey, N., Harries, C. (2008) Trust in motives, trust in competence: Separate factors determining the effectiveness of risk communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1): 111
Ulmer, R.R., Sellnow, T.L., Seeger, M.W. (2017) Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Sage Publications
van Craen, M., Skogan, W.G. (2015) Differences and similarities in the explanation of ethnic minority groups' trust in the police. European Journal of Criminology, 12(3): 300-323
Vibhas, S., Bismark, A.G., Ruiyi, Z., Anwaar, M.A., Rajib, S. (2019) Understanding the barriers restraining effective operation of flood early warning systems. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2): 1-19
Visschers, V.H.M., Wiedemann, P.M., Gutscher, H., Kurzenhäuser, S., Seidl, R., Jardine, C.G., Timmermans, D.R.M. (2012) Affect-inducing risk communication: Current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3): 257-271
Vos, S.C., Sutton, J., Yu, Y., Renshaw, S.L., Olson, M.K., Gibson, C. B., Butts, C.T. (2018) Retweeting risk communication: The role of threat and efficacy. Risk Analysis, 38(12): 2580-2598
Wardman, J.K., Mythen, G. (2016) Risk communication: Against the Gods or against all odds?: Problems and prospects of accounting for Black Swans. Journal of Risk Research, 19(10): 1220-1230
Whitmarsh, L. (2009) Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1): 13-23
Whitmarsh, L. (2009) What's in a name?: Commonalities and differences in public understanding of 'climate change' and 'global warming. Public understanding of science, 18(4): 401-420
Williams, G.C., Lynch, M.F., Mcgregor, H.A., Ryan, R.M., Sharp, D., Deci, E.L. (2006) Validation of the 'Important Other' Climate Questionnaire: Assessing Autonomy Support for Health-Related Change. Families, Systems, & Health, 24(2): 179-194
Wray, R., Jupka, K. (2004) What does the public want to know in the event of a terrorist attack using plague?:. Biosecurity and bioterrorism: Biodefense strategy, practice, and science, 2(3): 208-215
Wray, R., Rivers, J., Jupka, K., Clements, B. (2006) Public perceptions about trust in emergency risk communication: Qualitative research findings. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 24(1): 45
Xuesong, G., Kapucu, N. (2019) Examining Stakeholder Participation in Social Stability Risk Assessment for Mega Projects using Network Analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1): 1-31
 

O članku

jezik rada: srpski, engleski
vrsta rada: neklasifikovan
DOI: 10.5937/socpreg55-34018
primljen: 18.09.2021.
revidiran: 01.12.2021.
prihvaćen: 08.12.2021.
objavljen u SCIndeksu: 21.01.2022.
Creative Commons License 4.0

Povezani članci

Nema povezanih članaka