Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management

Abstract

This paper presents quantitative research results regarding the influence of demographic factors on the earthquake risk perception of the citizens of Belgrade. This research aims to determine how much the citizens of Belgrade are aware of the risk and prepared to react in the event of an earthquake. The relationship between gender, age, level of education, and facility ownership with risk perception was examined. T-test, One-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to examine the relationship between the variables and the earthquake risk perception. The survey was conducted using a questionnaire that was given and then collected online among 235 Belgrade respondents during September 2020. The questions were divided into three categories. The first part of the questionnaire was consisted of general questions about the demographic characteristics of the respondents, then the questions that would determine the level of awareness of the respondents about earthquakes, and finally, the questions for determining the respondents' preparedness. The results of the research show that women have a higher perception of risk. It has been proven that the youngest respondents from the age category of 18-30 have the lowest risk perception. The influence of education level in no case showed a statistically significant correlation with risk perception. People’s behaviour in minimizing danger stems from their perception of risk, probability of danger, efficiency, cost of personal precautions, and perception of potential consequences. Misperception of risk can lead to more significant consequences and losses. It is the perception of risk that shapes individuals' behavior before and during danger. Therefore, it is justified and necessary to study the perception of risk and the factors that shape individuals' risk perception.

When reviewing current domestic and foreign literature, different results were observed. Some studies confirmed the influence of certain factors, while other research identified different factors affecting risk perception. It is concluded that various factors can shape the perception of risk, primarily demographic, socio-economic, and psychological factors. This research aimed to examine the perception of risk among citizens of Belgrade from natural disasters caused by earthquakes and the impact of demographic factors on risk perception. Earthquakes occur frequently, but in most cases, they are of low intensity. However, more destructive ones are possible, which can cause significant consequences and high mortality. In 2010, an earthquake in Kraljevo, Serbia, took two lives and caused significant material damage.
The results of the research show that women have a higher perception of risk. It has been proven that the youngest respondents, aged 18-30, have the lowest risk perception. The influence of education levels showed no statistically significant correlation with risk perception. The association of gender with preparedness was confirmed; men were better prepared than women, while no statistically significant association was found between respondents' age and level of education. Given the relatively high percentage of respondents unsure whether their city is at risk from earthquakes and the low levels of respondents' preparedness, it is clear that insufficient attention is paid to educating and informing citizens about natural disasters caused by earthquakes. It is necessary to follow the examples of developed countries that have incorporated disaster education into the education system, such as Japan (Shaw et al., 2004).

The results obtained in this research can serve as guidelines and recommendations for authorities and institutions, which can use them in their educational programs to improve the perception of the risk of natural disasters among citizens. By implementing educational and preventive activities, the consequences of natural disasters can be significantly reduced.

Earthquakes occur over a brief period. Practical efforts to adapt to and cope with earthquakes rely essentially on the extent to which the required knowledge, resources, and competencies are organized in advance and whether they are used quickly and efficiently if the need arises. Understanding how the public perceives earthquake risk is an essential first step in assessing a community’s seismic vulnerability. This information can be crucial for professionals and policymakers to design mitigation strategies, prepare evacuation guidelines, and implement an effective disaster response. The results of this research provide insight into the attitudes and preparedness of the citizens of Belgrade, and given that risk perception plays a crucial role in taking preventive measures, it is imperative to conduct regular risk perception surveys. Few papers in the domestic literature deal with this topic, and given the seriousness of the consequences that earthquakes can cause, it is necessary to conduct regular research to monitor changes in the perception of risks that may occur in the future. Further research into the factors influencing risk perception could recommend effective measures that align with changes in the social environment. Future research should cover a larger part of the territory of the Republic of Serbia and a greater number of respondents.

Full text

Research article
EARTHQUAKE RISK PERCEPTION
IN BELGRADE: IMPLICATIONS FOR
DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT
Vladimir M. Cvetković, 1,2,3,*, Jelena Planić2,3
1 Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, Gospodara Vučića 50,
11040 Belgrade, Serbia
2 International Institute for Disaster Research, Dimitrija Tucovića 121,
11056 Belgrade, Serbia;
3 Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management,
Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11056 Belgrade, Serbia.
Correspondence: vmc@fb.bg.ac.rs
Received: 20 February 2022; Revised: 30 March; Accepted: 15 May 2022;
Published: 30 June 2022
Abstract: This paper presents quantitative research results regarding the
inuence of demographic factors on the earthquake risk perception of
the citizens of Belgrade. This research aims to determine how much the
citizens of Belgrade are aware of the risk and prepared to react in the
event of an earthquake. The relationship between gender, age, level of
education, and facility ownership with risk perception was examined.
T-test, One-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation coecient were used
to examine the relationship between the variables and the earthquake
risk perception. The survey was conducted using a questionnaire that
was given and then collected online among 235 Belgrade respondents
during September 2020. The questions were divided into three catego-
ries. The rst part of the questionnaire was consisted of general ques-
tions about the demographic characteristics of the respondents, then the
questions that would determine the level of awareness of the respond-
ents about earthquakes, and nally, the questions for determining the
respondents’ preparedness. The results of the research show that women
have a higher perception of risk. It has been proven that the youngest
respondents from the age category of 18-30 have the lowest risk percep-
tion. The inuence of education level in no case showed a statistically
signicant correlation with risk perception.
Keywords: disasters, earthquake, risk perception, management, prepar-
edness.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18485/ijdrm.2022.4.1.5

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Jelena Planić
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
70
Introduction
Given the catastrophic consequences of earthquakes, it is necessary to reduce
risks: avoid construction in seismically endangered areas, build seismically de-
signed facilities, design and implement an appropriate warning system that would
alert residents a few seconds before an earthquake occurs (Cvetković and Filipović,
2019). In addition to the signicant development of seismology, it is of great concern
that the place and beginning of the earthquake cannot be predicted yet, as well as
the consequences it can cause (Cvetković et al., 2014; Cvetković, 2020; Jakovljević,
Cvetković and Gačić, 2015). The essential characteristics of earthquakes as natural
hazards are (Cvetković, 2020): they usually appear suddenly and without warning;
there are scales for measuring earthquake intensity, but earthquakes cannot be pre-
dicted; areas prone to earthquakes are zoned; in addition to the intensity of earth-
quakes, the consequences of earthquakes also depend on the degree of resistance
of built structures and other objects in the environment; usually cause signicant
damage to critical infrastructure; cause other secondary hazards such as tsunamis,
nuclear disasters, res, explosions, and critical infrastructure bursts; the duration
of the tremor, local conditions and the degree of resilience aect the severity of the
earthquake consequences.
There are many ways to reduce the risks posed by earthquakes: land use plan-
ning to avoid earthquake-prone areas; engineering solutions (e.g., construction of
earthquake-resistant buildings; engineering soils for risk reduction); warning sys-
tems that give a few seconds of warning before the ground shakes; and earthquake
preparedness (Becker, Paton, Johnston, & Ronan, 2012). The use of an early warning
system cannot reduce the danger, but the adverse eects of an earthquake can be
reduced. Given that even in high-risk areas, an earthquake warning comes no more
than 10 seconds before an earthquake, all activities must be highly automated and
reliable. However, even a short warning period represents progress towards more
reliable measures and systems (Gasparini, Manfredi, & Zschau, 2011). It has been
shown that states that have implemented strict construction laws have suered less
from the earthquake, with the improvement of existing laws. An example of this
can be seen in the aftermath of two similar earthquakes in New Zealand and Haiti,
magnitude 7, which resulted in no deaths in New Zealand while there were 300,000
in Haiti (Shapira, Aharonson-Daniel, & Bar-Dayan, 2018).
The term “seismic risk” means the possibility of consequences after an earthquake
of a certain intensity in a particular area. For seismic risk studies, it is crucial to un-
derstand risk perception. Two theories explain risk perception: psychometric and
socio-cultural theory (Shrestha et al., 2018: 81). The psychometric theory represents
a theoretical framework that argues that individuals subjectively dene risk and
are inuenced by various psychological, social, institutional, and cultural factors
(Sjöberg, Moen, & Rundmo, 2004). Scientists who have practiced the psychometric
approach have created a methodology for creating quantitative approaches or cog-
nitive maps of risk perceptions. Slovic et al. (1985) analyzed nine risk characteristics:
a) whether people consciously agreed to the risk; b) whether the consequences of
the risk are seen immediately or later; c) how well the risk is known to those ex-
posed to it; d) how well the risk is known to science; e) how much can be controlled;
f) whether the risk is new; e) whether the risk can cause a disaster, killing many peo-
ple; h) whether it causes fear in people; h) how terrible consequences it can cause.
Together, these characteristics form two factors used to develop cognitive maps:

Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
71
fear and knowledge of risk (Griths, 2015). The goal of psychometric research is to
nd out why some people are more tolerant of dangers than others and why they
require more regulations and safety standards for certain dangers (Slovic, 1987). By
examining perceptions of dierent activities, dangers and technologies and using
these ndings, they predict how much people want to mitigate the consequences
of these dangers. The classication of risk characteristics shows why people react
strongly to some hazards and require reasonable regulations, while they are entire-
ly uninterested in some hazards (Henrich et al., 2018). The socio-cultural theory was
developed by anthropologists and sociologists and is based on the view that risk
perception is shaped following the cultural beliefs of a particular group (Shrestha et
al., 2018). There are a large number of foreign papers dealing with risk perception,
and they are mainly divided into two categories: 1) papers that examine subjectivity
in risk aitudes that show that people overestimate risks with low probability and
underestimate potential risks; and 2) papers that investigate which dierent factors
aect risk perception and how these factors could be classied (Sund, Svensson, &
Andersson, 2017). Risk perception depends on several factors such as gender, age,
education, place of residence, and previous experience with disasters, and by the
earthquake is meant the number of earthquakes experienced and losses suered
(Tian et al., 2014).
Risk perception refers to people’s beliefs, aitudes, assessments, and feelings
about the likelihood and consequences of events. Citizens perceive risks dierently,
and the very perception of risk inuences decision-making at the individual, or-
ganizational and municipal levels (Cvetković, 2017). Scientists believe that risk per-
ception can aect their level of preparedness, response, and disaster recovery (Ho,
Shaw, Lin, & Chiu, 2008; Bronfman et al., 2016; Qing, Guo, Deng, & Xu, 2021). With-
out a good understanding of how people perceive risk, risk reduction policies and
their implementation can be ineective. Risk perception surveys provide essential
insights into people’s willingness to take preventive action and serve as guidelines
for creating risk reduction policies (Fernandez, Tun, Okazaki, Zaw, & Kyaw, 2018).
In addition, disaster risk communication aects risk perception and aims to prevent
and mitigate disaster damage, prepare the population for disasters, disseminate
information during disasters, and assist in later recovery (Bradley, McFarland, &
Clarke, 2016). The way in which the authorities present the risk aects how people
will understand and react to the risk of natural disasters (Heilbrun, Wolbransky,
Shah, & Kelly, 2010).
Research shows that people take more preventive measures when they are told
that failure to take action will harm them (negative framework) than when they
are told that taking action leads to a safe outcome (positive framework) (Henrich,
McClur, & Crozier, 2015). Trust in government and experts is a factor that signif-
icantly aects the perception of risk and the preparedness measures that people
take before natural disasters occur. It has been shown that people can perceive risk
higher than if trust is low (Bronfman, Cisternas, López-Vázquez, & Cifuentes, 2016).
On the other hand, too much trust in the government and its measures can lead to
the population not taking any additional measures, even though they are aware of
the problems that can lead to natural disasters. In such cases, trust in government
is not an advantage in the ght against disasters. The nature of natural hazards is
such that it is impossible to prevent their consequences. Therefore, it is crucial to
take preventive measures to reduce the impact of natural disasters and their con-
sequences. Citizens living in high-risk areas and those who have suered severe

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Jelena Planić
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
72
psychological and material consequences are often more aware of the threats posed
by natural disasters. It happens that people who have avoided the harmful conse-
quences of disasters, even though they live in a region that is at high risk, develop
the condence that they can always cope with the dangers without taking measures
(Cvetković, 2016; Stojadinović, 2020; Gaćinović, 2020; Stajić, 2021; Jevtović, 2016;
Đurković, 2017).
1.1. Literary review
Risk perception is a critical factor in forming behavior paerns in case of risk
and is a prerequisite for making decisions regarding adopting preventive measures.
In order to develop adequate information and risk communication strategies, it is
necessary to know which factors inuence risk perception (Plapp & Werner, 2006).
Numerous studies have been conducted to examine which factors inuence the per-
ception of disaster risk (Armaş, 2006; Armaş et al., 2017; Shapira et al., 2018; Mızrak,
Özdemir, & Aslan, 2021). For example, a study conducted in Myanmar (Fernandez
et al., 2018) showed that females beer perceive risk than males. Also, the authors
found no connection between previous experience and risk perception, respond-
ents who had encountered an earthquake have less knowledge than those who do
not have such experience. However, those with experience expect more signicant
material consequences. Also, numerous studies have been conducted concerning
examining previous experience with natural disasters on risk perception (Plapp &
Werner, 2006; Kung & Chen, 2012; Knuth, Kehl, Hulse, & Schmidt, 2014; Sun & Xue,
2020). Shapira et al. (2018) research has shown that previous experience with disas-
ters leads to a beer perception of risk and willingness to take preventive measures.
The same results were obtained in a study in China (Xu et al., 2020). The research
results in Pakistan (Qureshi, Khan, Rana, Ali, & Rahman, 2021) found that seismic
risk perceptions dier signicantly with age, income, experience, and type of home
in which one lives. People who suered from earthquakes in the past had a higher
perception of risk, while people who built their houses from engineering materials
tended to have a lower perception of risk. Examining the risk population’s demo-
graphic characteristics (gender, age) is vital for any research. Numerous studies
have been conducted on the inuence of demographic factors on risk perception
(Armaş & Avram, 2008; Jones et al., 2013; Rahman, 2019; Cvetković and Filipović,
2019). The most common results obtained in research on demographic determinants
of risk perception are that women perceive risks more than men, while paerns are
not observed in other aspects of demographic factors (Sund et al., 2017).
Numerous studies have been conducted concerning the relationship between
gender and risk perception (Tian et al., 2014; Fernandez et al., 2018; Buylova et al.,
2019). In general, the results showed that women have a higher level of risk percep-
tion than men. In addition to biological and physical characteristics, dierences in
the perception of risk between the sexes are also inuenced by social and cultural
factors. This conclusion was reached in a study conducted by Tian et al. (2014) in
China, Fernandez et al. (2018) in Myanmar, and Bronfman et al. (2016) in Chile. Re-
search in Dhaka (Rahman, 2019) also conrmed that women beer perceive risk and
are beer prepared than male respondents. As many as 63% of women have a rst
aid kit, compared to 40% of male respondents. Men are expected to be involved in
the disaster recovery process. We also have an example of an earthquake risk per-

Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
73
ception survey in Taiwan (Kung & Chen, 2012) that showed that women are more
afraid of earthquakes and the consequences they can suer, while there were no
gender dierences in knowledge of mitigation measures. A study conducted in Tur-
key, where all respondents were female, showed a high perception of risk and fear
of earthquakes (Mızrak et al., 2021). The results indicate that it is necessary to pay
more aention to women in educational activities because women who are exposed
to dangers in everyday life become more vulnerable in disaster situations, and their
exposure to disasters increases signicantly. Poor women are more at risk of natural
disasters (Fothergill, 1996). Women’s vulnerability, especially in underdeveloped
countries, is aributed to gender inequality, and women tend to perceive the risk as
higher if it could harm their families. When a disaster occurs, the mortality rate is
higher among women than men in underdeveloped countries due to discrimination
and the traditional role of women as someone who takes care of children and fam-
ily. This was also conrmed in Bangladesh, a country where gender discrimination
is tolerated, and data shows that during the disasters in this country, most of the
casualties were women (Rahman, 2019). In developed countries, there are indica-
tions that higher mortality of women is in natural disasters caused by earthquakes,
while men are more likely to die in atmospheric disasters (Fothergill, 1996).
Numerous studies have also been conducted about the inuence of age on risk
perception (Ainuddin et al., 2014; Shapira et al., 2018; Rego et al., 2018, Cvetković
and Filipović, 2019; Qureshi et al., 2021). A survey was conducted in Bangladesh
in which citizens older than 15 were surveyed (Rahman, 2019). Thanks to eorts to
improve earthquake preparedness and knowledge among young people, by intro-
ducing lessons on improving earthquake preparedness in primary and secondary
schools, respondents aged 15-19 had beer knowledge than those aged 20-29. How-
ever, it is necessary to work on improving knowledge and preparedness in all age
categories. Research conducted in Mexico and Ecuador aimed to determine how
residents of cities where natural disasters have occurred perceive risk and their esti-
mates for future events (Jones et al., 2013). The results showed that younger people
think that it is very likely to experience a disaster again. Although younger people
are not signicantly more concerned than older people living in the cities where
the disaster occurred, their past experiences have taught younger urban residents
that dangerous events are possible. They, therefore, do not rule out the possibility
that they may recur. In addition, a study conducted in Bucharest (Armaş, 2006)
showed that perceptions of earthquake risk change with age. The most signicant
percentage of people who admied to being very afraid of earthquakes were in the
age group of over 66, which can be explained by the fact that older people are more
vulnerable than younger ones, while those in the age group 15-25 showed disin-
terest and the lowest risk perception. The same results were obtained in a study in
Pakistan (Ainuddin et al., 2014), whose large part of the territory is situated in the
seismic belt of the Himalayas. Older people simply need more time to recover from
disasters, both physically and nancially.
Research in Taiwan has shown that education plays a role in the perception of
risk control. People with more years of education had a higher level of control, re-
gardless of the type of disaster. Highly educated people can more easily access and
understand new information. As a result, they may feel a greater degree of control
over the disaster (Ho et al., 2008). The research on the perception of earthquake risk
conducted by Cvetković & Filipović (2019) in Serbia showed that those with the
lowest level of education show a higher probability of earthquakes than those with

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Jelena Planić
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
74
the highest level of education. It can be explained by the fact that highly educated
respondents know that Serbia is not in a region that is prone to frequent and intense
earthquakes, and respondents with a lower level of education probably associate
their views with earthquakes that occur in the area. The results of a study conduct-
ed by Rahman (2019) showed that respondents with lower education are less pre-
pared than highly educated respondents. When it comes to risk perception of high
school students, research has been conducted in Serbia (Cvetković & Stanišić, 2015;
Cvetković et al., 2015), Mexico (Santos-Reyes et al., 2017), and Turkey and Lebanon
(Baytiyeh & Ocal, 2016). The research concluded that although students generally
know about natural disasters, especially those with excellent grades, they need to
improve education programs on natural disasters. Schools play a crucial role in
educating students, parents, and teachers about natural disasters. Natural disaster
programs have been included in schools in Japan for decades (Shaw et al., 2004).
The two components of these programs are: to provide students with knowledge
about natural disasters caused by earthquakes, their causes, and consequences, and
to provide practical exercises on how to react in the event of an earthquake. It is
necessary to follow the examples of developed countries to create thriving school
programs on disasters.
Slovic (1992) analyzed the early results of psychometric studies, and one of the
most exciting ndings was that people wanted to answer questionnaires that last-
ed for several hours, giving hundreds of answers. Techniques of the psychometric
approach proved to be good in detecting similarities and dierences in respondents
’risk perceptions. There were dierences in the understanding of the concept of risk
between experts and non-experts, and there was a tendency for respondents to assess
the existing risks as very high. Research has shown that risk tolerance is aected by
the number of dead and injured, destroyed property as well as whether they con-
sciously agreed to the risk or not (Slovic, 1987). People have more tolerance for con-
sciously taken risks because they can benet. Since Slovic, in his research (Slovic et al.,
1985; 1887; 1992) omied natural disasters, the research conducted by Henrich et al.
(2018) aimed to expand psychometric analysis of risk characteristics, including earth-
quakes. They assessed risk assessments of 6 hazards: living in an earthquake-prone
zone, smoking, consuming alcohol, ying an airplane, driving motor vehicles, and
nuclear energy. All these dangers except earthquakes were on the list of dangers rec-
ognized by Slovic (1987). The second goal of the research was to determine which risk
characteristics are related to risk tolerance. To this end, they used three risk tolerance
measures: increased government funding, beer regulation, and a willingness to pay
taxes. The results showed that earthquake respondents wanted more government re-
sources to be allocated to mitigate the consequences and reduce risks, while for other
hazards, they felt beer regulations were needed. Ohtomo, Kimura, & Hirata (2020),
researched the Kumamoto earthquake in 2016 to determine which factors, and to what
extent, aect risk perception. The results showed that the perception of severity in-
creases with experience with earthquakes, the perception of earthquakes depends on
demographic factors and how much people are aware of the dangers of earthquakes,
and the perception of uncertainty is formed by intuition. Relevant research was con-
ducted in Bangladesh, Dhaka (Rahman, 2019) to examine the perception of seismic
risks of Dhaka residents and determine the level of knowledge and preparedness of
respondents depending on demographic factors: gender, age, level of education. The
obtained results show that women perceive risks beer and are beer prepared than
male respondents, younger ones have more knowledge than older ones and less edu-
cated people are less prepared than more educated people.

Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
75
Since China is making its rst earthquake insurance program, Tian et al. (2014)
examined population risk perceptions in the regions covered by the program to
provide data to help implement the program. They focused on the impact of previ-
ous experience with earthquakes and the respondents’ type of house. Their results
showed that those who suered the terrible consequences of the earthquake have
a higher risk perception and that securing a home is directly related to risk per-
ception. Cvetković and Stanišić (2015), examined the relationship of demographic
and social factors with knowledge and perception of natural disasters. They found
that female respondents had a beer knowledge of disasters while, on the other
hand, gender had no impact when it came to disaster response. Students with beer
grades had more knowledge, so success in school is directly related to knowledge
and procedures for dealing with natural disasters. Baytiyeh and Ocal, 2016, in a
comparative study, examined earthquake risk perceptions of high school students
in Lebanon and Turkey. They examined three factors: the perception of probability
and consequence, the role of education, and fatalistic beliefs. Both groups showed
a fondness for fatalistic beliefs. Although students in Turkey had more knowledge
and awareness of disasters, education in both schools was not satisfactory.
Bronfman et al. (2016) found in their research conducted in Chile that citizens
are most concerned about earthquakes, tsunamis, and forest res, as well as that
older person and the lower socio-economic class beer perceive the risk of natural
disasters and have more condence in institutions. Han, Lu, Hörhager, & Yan (2017)
investigated the impact of trust in government on the level of preparedness of indi-
viduals in China and their perception of earthquake risk. All respondents survived
the 2010 Yushu earthquake. The results showed that more trust in institutions leads
to reduced risk perception. These ndings can be explained by the fact that the gov-
ernment successfully fought the Yushu earthquake and thus increased the trust and
support of the citizens. Armaş, Cretu, & Ionescu (2017) examined the impact of psy-
chological determinants: stress, locus of control, and self-ecacy on risk perception
of human behavior in a potential earthquake in Bucharest. Socio-demographic char-
acteristics make a dierence, so women older than 50 and those with lower incomes
are more susceptible to stress. In Serbia, Cvetković and Filipović (2019) researched
earthquake risk perception and the connection with demographic, social, and psy-
chological factors. Older, less educated widows/widowers, those who live in rented
facilities, the unemployed, and those with incomes over 76,000 dinars have a high
level of risk perception. In these categories, it is easier to inuence the adoption of
preventive measures.
Guided by the results of previous research, the paper presents a description
of existing scientic knowledge on risk perception of natural disasters caused by
earthquakes, which provided a basis for researching demographic factors that af-
fect the perception of earthquake risk of citizens of the Serbian capital. However,
the domestic literature has not suciently dealt with this, neither the perception of
risk nor the factors that aect risk perception. The explicit goal of this research is to
explain and interpret how demographic factors (gender, age, education) aect the
perception of earthquake risk of the citizens of Belgrade.
Materials and Methods
The subject of the quantitative research is the examination of the inuence of de-
mographic factors on the perception of earthquake risk of the citizens of Belgrade,
with a review of their preparedness. Given that Serbia is in a seismically active area,

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Jelena Planić
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
76
this research aims to determine how much the citizens of Belgrade are aware of
the risk of earthquakes and how much they are prepared to react in the event of an
earthquake. The relationship between gender, age, level of education, and facility
ownership with risk perception was examined.
2.1. Basic Characteristics of Respondents
For the needs of this research, adult citizens of Belgrade were surveyed, and 235
answers were collected. Of the total number of respondents, there was a higher per-
centage of women (54.9%) than men (45.1%), while the most signicant percentage
(33.2%) of respondents are in the age group 31-45 years, a slightly lower percentage
are respondents from the group 18-30 years, while the lowest percentage (11.1%) of
respondents are from the age group of over 60 years. Respondents from the 46-60
age category make up 25.1% of the sample. Most respondents have completed high
school 34.5%, and the percentage of respondents who have completed postgraduate
studies, master’s and doctorate, is 30.2%. Respondents with higher education are
represented in the sample with 27.2%. The highest percentage of respondents is
married, 52.8%, followed by single respondents, 20.0%, and those in a relationship,
17.9%. In contrast, the most signicant percentage of respondents (50.2%) live in a
building owned by a family member, and the smallest number of respondents live
in a rented building (12.3%).
Table 1. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of respondents.
Variable Category (f) %
Gender Male 106 45.1
Female 129 54.9
Age
18-30 72 30.6
31-45 78 33.2
46-60 59 25.1
60+ 26 11.1
Marital status
Single 47 20
In a relationship 46 19.6
Married 124 52.8
Divorced or widow 14 6
Education
Elementary 2 0.9
Secondary Sch. (grade 8-9) 81 34.5
High school (grade 11-12) 17 7.2
Undergraduate 64 27.2
Master 32 13.6
Doctorate 39 16.6
Ownership of the facility
Personal property 88 37.4
Owned by a family member 118 50.2
Third-Party Ownership 29 12.3
TOTAL 235 100

Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
77
2.3. Questionnaire Design
The survey questionnaire for this research was created based on questionnaires
that have been used in previous research (Rego et al., 2018; Cvetković and Filipović,
2019; Cvetković et al., 2019; Buylova et al., 2020). The questions in the questionnaire
were answered by circling the oered answer, by grading on a scale from 1 to 5, or
by writing a short answer. The questions were divided into three categories. The
rst part of the questionnaire was consisted of general questions about the demo-
graphic characteristics of the respondents, then the questions that would determine
the level of awareness of the respondents about earthquakes, and nally, the ques-
tions for determining the respondents’ preparedness. Before starting the survey, an
analysis of domestic and foreign scientic research in which survey questionnaires
were used was performed to adapt and create the questionnaire necessary for the
needs of this research. Then a questionnaire was made, which was wrien in simple
language, without the use of professional terms. A pilot survey was conducted on
a section of the population to ensure that the questionnaire was clear and under-
standable to respondents.
2.4. Analyses
The data obtained in the survey were entered into the statistical program SPSS
(Statistical package for social sciences). After that, a data check was performed in
order to eliminate possible errors when entering the answer. The collected data
were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the frequency and percentage were
determined. In the next step, the obtained data were crossed, i.e., the demograph-
ic characteristics of the respondents with the perception of risk, e.g., the connec-
tion between the level of education of the respondents and the preparedness for
earthquakes. T-test and One-way ANOVA were used to examine the relationship
between the variables and the earthquake risk perception. For the age variable, the
relationship was analyzed with the Pearson correlation coecient. All tests were
two-tailed, with a signicance level of p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed
using SPSS Statistic 17.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, New York, United States).
Results
In order to determine the level of awareness about earthquakes, the rst question
that was asked was: “Do you think you live in a city that an earthquake could en-
danger?” The most signicant percentage of respondents answered armatively to
this question (41.2%), but as many as 32.8% of respondents answered that they were
not sure. The answers to the following question: “How do you assess the possibility
of an earthquake in your city” show that almost half of the respondents (48.1%) be-
lieve that an earthquake is partially possible. 29.4% of respondents believe that the
possibility of an earthquake is unlikely, and the smallest number of respondents,
2.1%, believe that an earthquake is absolutely possible.
Regarding assessing the period in which an earthquake will occur, the most sig-
nicant percentage of respondents (41.3%) believe that the earthquake will occur
within 5 to 20 years. Approximately the same percentage of respondents have es-
timated that an earthquake will occur in a period of 5 years and a period of 20 to
50 years, 23% and 18.3%. It is the same with the assessment for the next year and
over 50 years, 7.2% and 10.2%. In addition, the most signicant percentage of re-
spondents, 48.9%, believe that their homes would be damaged in the event of an

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Jelena Planić
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
78
earthquake. The percentage of those who think their homes would not be damaged
is 14.9%. 38.2% of respondents said they were not sure. In correlation with the pre-
vious question, respondents were asked to assess the level of damage they could
suer in the event of an earthquake. The most signicant percentage of respondents
(38.7%) estimated that the level of damage would be mediocre, and 13.2% said that
the damage would be negligible (Table 2).
Table 2. Aitudes related to earthquake risk perception.
Yes No Not sure
Perception of the city’s vulnerability to earthquakes 41.2 26 32.8
Earthquake vulnerability of households 48.9 14.9 38.2
Knowledge of household response procedures 65.5 11.1 23.4
Knowledge of outdoor response procedures 56.6 15.7 27.7
Owning a rst aid kit 57.9 33.2 8.9
Possession of necessary supplies 44.3 46.8 8.9
Knowledge of number 112 49.8 50.2 /
Possession of insurance 15.3 84.7 /
In order to check the level of preparedness, the respondents were rst asked to
assess their level of preparedness for earthquakes. The most signicant number of
respondents believe that they are partially prepared, 40.9%. There is a large per-
centage of those respondents who think they are entirely unprepared, 19.1%, while
there is the lowest percentage of absolutely prepared respondents, only 9.4%. After
assessing personal preparedness, the respondents were supposed to assess the level
of preparedness of the city of Belgrade. The results show that only 4.3% of respond-
ents believe that Belgrade is prepared or absolutely prepared for earthquakes. Ap-
proximately two-thirds of respondents (65.5%) believe that the city is unprepared or
completely unprepared (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Aitudes on the Likert scale related to earthquake risk perception.

Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
79
When asked: “Do you know how to behave during an earthquake if you are at
home” (Table 15), 65.5% of respondents answered that they know, while the per-
centage of respondents who do not know how to behave during an earthquake
when they are at home is 11.1%. The percentage of respondents who are unsure is
23.4%. The next question was: “Do you know how to behave during an earthquake
if you are outdoors.” The percentage of respondents who answered yes to this ques-
tion is 56.6%, while those who do not know is 15.7%. However, more than a quarter
of respondents answered that they were not sure (27.7%). The percentage of those
who have a rst aid kit is 57.9%. In the follow-up questions for those who own a rst
aid kit, it was found that 65% of respondents keep rst aid kits in an easily accessi-
ble place. However, only 37% of respondents have recently checked the contents of
the kit. When asked if they have stocks of necessary groceries in their household.
The percentage of respondents who do not have stocks is higher (46.8%) than the
respondents who have food stocks (44.3%). Each European Union member state has
an integrated protection and rescue system in emergencies - the system is “number
112 for emergency calls”. This is one of the conditions for countries that want to
become members of the EU (Lipovac & Cvetkovic, 2015). The answers to the ques-
tion of whether they know about the number 112 are divided. There is practically
an equal number of respondents who know and those who do not know about the
number 112. Finally, the respondents were asked whether they had insurance that
covers the consequences of the earthquake. Of the total number of respondents,
only 15.7% of respondents have earthquake insurance (Table 2).
The T-test results show no statistically signicant dierence according to gender
in relation to earthquake risk perception, perception of preparedness, and damage
perception (Table 3).
Table 3. Independent samples t-test results between gender and the
variables on earthquake risk perception.
Variable
Gender
F t Sig.
(2-Tailed) df Male
X (SD)
Female
X (SD)
Earthquake risk perception 3.51 -.945 .345 233 2.31 (.970) 2.44 (.1.11)
Perception of preparedness .645 .126 .900 233 2.08 (.937) 2.07 (.894)
Damage perception 1.85 .177 .526 232 1.32 (.726) 1.23 (.082)
* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.
Also, the correlation results between age and specic variables were investigated
using Pearson’s linear correlation coecient. Preliminary analyses were performed
to prove that the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homogeneity of variance
were satised. There is a slightly positive correlation between age and earthquake
risk perception, r = .159 n = 235, p <.005, perception increases with age (Table 4).

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Jelena Planić
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
80
Table 4. Pearson correlation test results between age and
variables regarding earthquake risk perception (n = 235).
Age
Earthquake risk perception Pearson correlation .159*
Sig. (2-tailed) .015
Preparedness Pearson correlation .031
Sig. (2-tailed) .633
Perception of damage Pearson correlation .185
Sig. (2-tailed) .075
The results of the examination of the relationship between the level of education
and the observed variables show no statistically signicant correlation between the
respondents’ level of education and earthquake risk perception, repair, and percep-
tion of damage (Table 5).
Table 5. ANOVA test results between education and variables
regarding earthquake risk perception (n = 235).
Sum of
Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Earthquake risk percep-
tion
Between
Groups 3.346 5 .669 .865 .505
Within Groups 177.182 229 .774
Total 180.528 234
Preparedness
Between
Groups 3.906 5 .781 .938 .457
Within Groups 190.715 229 .833
Total 194.621 234
Perception of damage
Between
Groups .478 4 .119 .277 .892
Within Groups 38.331 89 .431
Total 38.809 93
Discussion
The primary goal of this research was to examine whether and to what extent
demographic factors aect the perception of the risk of Belgrade citizens from nat-
ural disasters caused by earthquakes. Previous research conducted on this topic has
shown that risk perception is inuenced by a large number of factors, demographic,
socio-economic, psychological (Armaş, 2006; Tian et al., 2014; García, 2017; Han et
al., 2017; Shapira et al., 2018; Ao et al., 2020). In order to determine the level of aware-
ness of the respondents, the question was asked whether they think that The earth-
quake could endanger Belgrade. Compared to the results of the research conducted
by Cvetković and Filipović (2019), when 51.9% of respondents estimated that it was
unbelievable to experience an earthquake, there is a signicantly lower percentage
of respondents who do not believe that an earthquake can occur. The recent earth-
quakes in the region, also felt in Serbia, could explain the increase in awareness

Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
81
about earthquakes. In Korea, after the earthquake that occurred in 2016, a survey
was conducted to determine whether there was an increase in the respondents’ level
of awareness (Ha, 2018). In line with the previous research, it was concluded that
the awareness was broadly higher and that this was especially noticeable among the
respondents who participated in the recovery process after the earthquake.
The assessment results of the level of preparedness show that the largest percent-
age of respondents are partially prepared. Cvetković and associates (2019) came
to the same results in examining the level of preparedness of the citizens of the
Republic of Serbia. These results are consistent with a study conducted in Istanbul
(Tekeli-Yeşil et al., 2010), which showed that people do not pay enough aention
to the risk of earthquakes and take preventive measures because of the many risks
in everyday life. When assessing the level of preparedness of the city of Belgrade,
the results show that two-thirds of the respondents think that the city is unpre-
pared for reaction, with a minimal percentage of respondents who assess that the
city is prepared. These results were not in line with the research in Serbia from
2019 (Cvetković et al., 2019), when one-third of the respondents assessed their lo-
cal self-government unprepared. For example, in a study conducted in China, the
results show that respondents have tremendous condence in the authorities and
assess that they are prepared to react in the event of an earthquake (Han et al., 2017).
This result is explained by the fact that the authorities successfully dealt with the
Yushu earthquake, which increased public condence.
A statistically signicant association of gender with risk perception has been
demonstrated in assessing the possibility of earthquakes and preparedness levels.
Women showed a higher level of awareness, considering that a high percentage of
men assessed the possibility of an earthquake as impossible. These results concur
with the results obtained in a study conducted by Tian et al. (2014) in China, Fer-
nandez et al. (2018) in Myanmar, and Bronfman et al. (2016) in Chile. On the other
hand, research results show that men have a higher preparedness level than wom-
en, while, for example, a study conducted by Rahman (Rahman, 2019) in Dhaka
showed that women are beer prepared than male respondents.
When examining the inuence of age on the perception of risk, it is noticed that
almost half of the youngest respondents in the category of 18-30 years of age be-
lieve that the occurrence of earthquakes is impossible or unlikely. The youngest
respondents probably think so because they have no experience with earthquakes.
Respondents in a study conducted in Myanmar (Fernandez et al., 2018) cited a lack
of experience as the reason for low-risk perception. Older respondents have a beer
perception of risk, which is in line with the research results conducted by Armaş
(2006) in Bucharest and Ainuddin et al. (2014) in Pakistan. Respondents from the
category of 31-45 years of age proved to be the least prepared.
The results of the Chi-square test in no case showed that the level of education
impacts risk perception. The most signicant dierence is in assessing the damage
that could be suered in an earthquake, to which the respondents with secondary
education in the most signicant percentage answered that the damage would be
serious or severe, almost 40% of the respondents. This can be explained by the fact
that respondents with a higher level of education know that Serbia is not situated in
a region characterized by devastating earthquakes (Cvetković and Filipović, 2019).
However, respondents with higher education and postgraduate studies in a higher
percentage stated that they are unprepared than the respondents with secondary
education. This result is inconsistent with the results of research conducted in Bang-

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Jelena Planić
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
82
ladesh (Rahman, 2019), which showed that with more years of education, knowl-
edge about earthquakes, response methods, and prevention measures increases.
When it comes to the impact of ownership of the facility, the results did not show
a statistically signicant association with risk perception; however, respondents liv-
ing in a building owned by a family member, in the highest percentage believe that
an earthquake is unlikely, while those living in personal property in the most sig-
nicant percentage estimate that an earthquake is possible. A study conducted in Is-
tanbul in 2011 (Tekeli-Yeşil, Dedeoğlu, Braun-Fahrlaender, & Tanner, 2011) also did
not prove a link between object ownership and risk perception. On the other hand,
research in Korea (Moon, Hwang, & Chung, 2019) showed that ownership of a facil-
ity has an impact on risk perception, given that respondents living in a facility that
is personally owned take preventative measures and have insurance that covers
the consequences of the earthquake, whereas the respondents who rent apartments
do not. Regarding preparedness, the highest level of preparedness is expressed by
respondents who live in a facility owned by a family member. On the other hand, a
high percentage of those who are unprepared is also noticed.
The limitations of the conducted research are the coverage of a smaller territorial
area and the population of the Republic of Serbia. The method of electronic survey-
ing applied in this research has its drawbacks. They are reected in the fact that
there is no complete certainty regarding the credibility of its results. This implies
the possibility for the same respondent to ll in the survey several times or provide
incorrect answers. Also, one of the shortcomings is reected in the fact that it is not
possible to ask additional questions, or interpret the body language of the respond-
ents, as is the case with the method of face-to-face examination. In addition, if the
respondents do not understand the questions, it is not possible to provide addition-
al clarications and instructions in this method.
Conclusions
People’s behavior at minimizing danger stems from one’s perception of risk,
probability of danger, eciency, cost of personal precautions, and perception of
potential consequences. Misperception of risk can lead to more signicant conse-
quences and losses. It is the perception of risk that shapes the behavior of individ-
uals before and during danger. Therefore, it is justied and necessary to study the
perception of risk and the factors that shape the perception of risk of individuals.
When reviewing the current domestic and foreign literature, dierent results were
observed, so that in some studies, the inuence of some factors were conrmed,
and in some other researches, the inuence of other factors on the perception of
risk. It is concluded that various factors can shape the perception of risk, and in the
rst place, those are demographic, socio-economic, and psychological factors. This
research aimed to examine the perception of risk of the citizens of Belgrade from
natural disasters caused by earthquakes and the impact of demographic factors on
the perception of risk. Earthquakes happen very often, but in most cases, they are of
low intensity. However, more destructive ones are possible, which leave signicant
consequences, and can cause great mortality. In 2010, an earthquake in Kraljevo in
Serbia took two lives and left signicant material consequences.
The results of the research show that women have a higher perception of risk. It
has been proven that the youngest respondents from the age category of 18-30 have

Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
83
the lowest risk perception. The inuence of education levels in no case showed a
statistically signicant correlation with risk perception. The association of gender
with preparedness was conrmed; namely, men were beer prepared than wom-
en, while no statistically signicant association was proven at the respondents’ age
and level of education. Given the relatively high percentage of respondents who
are unsure whether their city is at risk from the earthquake and the low levels of
respondents’ preparedness, it is clear that insucient aention is paid to educating
and informing citizens about natural disasters caused by earthquakes. It is neces-
sary to follow the examples of developed countries that have incorporated disaster
education into the education system, such as Japan (Shaw et al., 2004). The results
obtained in this research can serve as guidelines and recommendations for the au-
thorities and institutions, which can use them in their educational programs to im-
prove the perception of the risk of natural disasters among citizens. By implement-
ing educational and preventive activities, the consequences of natural disasters can
be signicantly reduced.
Earthquakes occur in a brief period. Practical eorts to adapt to and cope with
earthquakes rely essentially on the extent to which the required knowledge, re-
sources, and competencies are organized in advance and whether they are used
quickly and eciently if the need arises. Understanding how the public perceives
earthquake risk is an essential rst step in assessing a community’s seismic vulner-
ability. This information can be crucial for professionals and policymakers to de-
sign mitigation strategies, prepare evacuation guidelines, and implement an eec-
tive disaster response. The results of this research provide insight into the aitudes
and preparedness of the citizens of Belgrade, and given that risk perception plays
a crucial role in taking preventive measures, it is imperative to conduct regular risk
perception surveys. Few papers in the domestic literature deal with this topic, and
given the seriousness of the consequences that earthquakes can cause, it is necessary
to conduct regular research to monitor changes in the perception of risks that may
occur in the future. Further research into the factors inuencing risk perception
could recommend eective measures that align with changes in the social environ-
ment. Future research should cover a more signicant part of the territory of the
Republic of Serbia and a more signicant number of respondents.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their com-
ments, and the Scientic-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management (hp://
upravljanje-rizicima.com/) and International Institute for Disaster Research in Bel-
grade, Serbia for their scientic support.
Funding: This research was funded by the Scientic-Professional Society for Dis-
aster Risk Management, Belgrade, Serbia (hp://upravljanje-rizicima.com/) and In-
ternational Institute for Disaster Research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conict of interest.

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Jelena Planić
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
84
References
1. Ainuddin, S., Kumar Routray, J., & Ainuddin, S. (2014). People’s risk perception
in earthquake-prone Quea city of Baluchistan. International Journal of Disaster
Risk Reduction, 7, 165–175.
2. Ao, Y., Huang, K., Wang, Y., Wang, Q., & Martek, I. (2020). Inuence of built en-
vironment and risk perception on seismic evacuation behavior: evidence from
rural areas aected by Wenchuan earthquake. International journal of disaster risk
reduction, 46, 101504.
3. Armaş, I. (2006). Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Analy-
sis, 26(5), 1223-1234.
4. Armaş, I., & Avram, E. (2008). Paerns and trends in the perception of seismic
risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards, 44(1), 147-
161.
5. Armaş, I., Cretu, R. Z., & Ionescu, R. (2017). Self-ecacy, stress, and locus of con-
trol: The psychology of earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Inter-
national journal of disaster risk reduction, 22, 71-76.
6. Baytiyeh, H., & Öcal, A. (2016). High school students’ perceptions of earthquake
disaster: A comparative study of Lebanon and Turkey. International Journal of Dis-
aster Risk Reduction, 18, 56-63.
7. Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., & Ronan, K. R. (2012). A model of house-
hold preparedness for earthquakes: how individuals make meaning of earth-
quake information and how this inuences preparedness. Natural hazards, 64(1),
107-137.
8. Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R., & McClure, J. (2017). The role
of prior experience in informing and motivating earthquake preparedness. Inter-
national journal of disaster risk reduction, 22, 179-193.
9. Bradley, D. T., McFarland, M., & Clarke, M. (2016). The eectiveness of disaster
risk communication: a systematic review of intervention studies. Eective Commu-
nication During Disasters, 81-120.
10. Bronfman, N. C., Cisternas, P. C., López-Vázquez, E., & Cifuentes, L. A. (2016).
Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness
in Chile. Natural Hazards, 81(1), 307-327.
11. Buylova, A., Chen, C., Cramer, L. A., Wang, H., & Cox, D. T. (2020). Household
risk perceptions and evacuation intentions in earthquake and tsunami in a Cas-
cadia Subduction Zone. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 44, 101442.
12. Cvetković, V. (2014). Zaštita kritične infrastructure od posledica prirodnih
katastrofa. In Sedma međunarodna znastveno-stručna konferencija ,,Dani kriznog up-
ravljanja”. Hrvatska: Velika Gorica (Vol. 22, pp. 1281-1295).
13. Cvetković, V. (2016). Uticaj demografskih, socio-ekonomskih i psiholoških fak-
tora na preduzimanje preventivnih mera. Kultura polisa, 13(32), 393-404.
14. Cvetković, V. (2017). Metodologija istraživanja katastrofa i rizika: teorije, kon-
cepti i metode [Disaster and risk research methodology: Theories, concepts and
methods]. Belgrade: Zadužbina Andrejević.
15. Cvetković, V. (2020). Upravlјanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama. Beograd:
Naučno-stručno društvo za upravlјanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.

Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
85
16. Cvetković, V. M. i Filipović, M. (2019). Percepcija rizika od zemlјotresa u Repub-
lici Srbiji-teorijsko-empirijska studija. Vojno delo, 71(2), 142-159.
17. Cvetković, V. M., & Stanišić, J. (2015). Relationship between demographic and
environmental factors and knowledge of secondary school students on natural
disasters. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic Sasa, 65(3), 323-340.
18. Cvetković, V. M., Filipović, M., Dragićević, S., & Novković, I. (2018). The role of
social networks in disaster risk reduction. In VIII International scientic conference
Archibald Reiss days, Belgrade (pp. 311-321).
19. Cvetković, V. M., Ronan, K., Shaw, R., Filipović, M., Mano, R., Gačić, J., & Jak-
ovljević, V. (2019). Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of se-
lected municipalities. Acta Geographica Slovenica-Geografski Zbornik, 59(2), 27-42.
20. Cvetković, V., Ivanov, A., & Sadiyeh, A. (2015). Knowledge and perceptions of stu-
dents of the Academy of criminalistic and police studies about natural disasters. Paper
presented at the International scientic conference Archibald Reiss days, Bel-
grade, 3-4 March 2015.
21. Cvetković, V., Milojković, B. i Stojković, D. (2014). Analiza geoprostorne i vre-
menske distribucije zemlјotresa kao prirodnih katastrofa. Vojno delo, 2(2014),
166-185.
22. Đurković, M. (2017). Netipični izazovi za bezbednost Srbije i Republike Srpske.
Politika nacionalne bezbednosti 1/2017. Institut za političke studije, Beograd, pp.
97-110.
23. Fernandez, G., Tun, A. M., Okazaki, K., Zaw, S. H., & Kyaw, K. (2018). Factors
inuencing re, earthquake, and cyclone risk perception in Yangon, Myanmar.
International journal of disaster risk reduction, 28, 140-149.
24. Fothergill, A. (1996). Gender, risk, and disaster. International journal of mass emer-
gencies and disasters, 14(1), 33-56.
25. Gaćinović, R. (2020). Osnovne funkcije države u procesu izgradnje sistema bez-
bednosti. Politika nacionalne bezbednosti 2/2020. Institut za političke studije, Be-
ograd, pp. 277-295.
26. García, F. E. (2017). Factores socio-demográcos, crecimiento y sintomatología
postraumática en sobrevivientes del terremoto de Chile del 2010. Summa Psi-
cológica UST, 14(1), 33-42.
27. Gasparini, P., Manfredi, G., & Zschau, J. (2011). Earthquake early warning as
a tool for improving society’s resilience and crisis response. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 31(2), 267-270.
28. Goyal, N. (2019). Disaster Governance and Community Resilience: The Law and
the Role of SDMAs. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 61-75.
29. Griths, M. (2015). Judging dread: A quantitative investigation of aect, psychometric
dread and risk consequence. Retrieved from hps://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1706
30. Han, Z., Lu, X., Hörhager, E. I., & Yan, J. (2017). The eects of trust in government on
earthquake survivors’ risk perception and preparedness in China. Natural Hazards,
86(1), 437-452.
31. Heilbrun, K., Wolbransky, M., Shah, S., & Kelly, R. (2010). Risk communication of
terrorist acts, natural disasters, and criminal violence: Comparing the processes of un-
derstanding and responding. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(6), 717–729.

Vladimir M. Cvetković, Jelena Planić
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
86
32. Henrich, L., McClure, J., & Crozier, M. (2015). Eects of risk framing on earth-
quake risk perception: Life-time frequencies enhance recognition of the risk. In-
ternational journal of disaster risk reduction, 13, 145-150.
33. Henrich, L., McClure, J., & Doyle, E. E. (2018). Perceptions of risk characteris-
tics of earthquakes compared to other hazards and their impact on risk toler-
ance. Disasters, 42(4), 761-781.
34. Ho, M. C., Shaw, D., Lin, S., & Chiu, Y. C. (2008). How do disaster characteristics
inuence risk perception?. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(3), 635-643.
35. Jakovlјević, V., Cvetković, V. I Gačić, J. (2015): Prirodne katastrofe i obrazovanje.
Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet bezbednosti.
36. Jevtović, Z. (2016). Uloga društvenih mreža u promociji sajber terorizma. Poli-
tika nacionalne bezbednosti 1/2016. Institut za političke studije, Beograd, pp.
99-119.
37. Jones, E. C., Faas, A. J., Murphy, A. D., Tobin, G. A., Whiteford, L. M., & McCarty,
C. (2013). Cross-cultural and site-based inuences on demographic, well-being,
and social network predictors of risk perception in hazard and disaster seings
in Ecuador and Mexico. Human Nature, 24(1), 5-32.
38. Knuth, D., Kehl, D., Hulse, L., & Schmidt, S. (2014). Risk perception, experi-
ence, and objective risk: A cross-national study with European emergency sur-
vivors. Risk analysis, 34(7), 1286-1298.
39. Kung, Y. W., & Chen, S. H. (2012). Perception of earthquake risk in Taiwan: Ef-
fects of gender and past earthquake experience. Risk Analysis: An International
Journal, 32(9), 1535-1546.
40. Lipovac, M. i Cvetković, V. M. (2015). Integrisani sistem zaštite i spasavanja u
vanrednim situacijama-sistem ‘Broj 112 za hitne pozive’. Evropsko zakonodavstvo,
14(54), 300-306.
41. Mano, R. M., Kirshcenbaum, A., & Rapaport, C. (2019). Earthquake prepared-
ness: A Social Media Fit perspective to accessing and disseminating earthquake
information. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 19-31.
42. Mızrak, S., Özdemir, A., & Aslan, R. (2021). Adaptation of hurricane risk percep-
tion scale to earthquake risk perception and determining the factors aecting
women’s earthquake risk perception. Natural Hazards, 1-19.
43. Moon, J. W., Hwang, H., & Chung, J. B. (2019). Factors aecting awareness of
preparedness after moderate earthquakes: An analysis of the Pohang earthquake
in Korea. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal.
44. Ohtomo, S., Kimura, R., & Hirata, N. (2020) The 2016 Kumamoto earthquakes’
inuence on residents’ risk perception. In: 17th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, 17WCEE Sendai, Japan.
45. Olawuni, P., Olowoporoku, O., & Daramola, O. (2020). Determinants of Resi-
dents’ Participation in Disaster Risk Management in Lagos Metropolis Nigeria.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 1-19.
46. Plapp, T., & Werner, U. (2006). Understanding risk perception from natural haz-
ards: examples from Germany. In RISK21-coping with risks due to natural hazards
in the 21st century (pp. 111-118). CRC Press.
47. Qing, C., Guo, S., Deng, X., & Xu, D. (2021). Farmers’ disaster preparedness and
quality of life in earthquake-prone areas: The mediating role of risk percep-
tion. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 59, 102252.

Earthquake risk perception in Belgrade: implications for disaster risk management
International journal of disaster risk management • (IJDRM) • Vol. 4, No. 1
87
48. Qureshi, M. I., Khan, S. U., Rana, I. A., Ali, B., & ur Rahman, A. (2021). Deter-
minants of people’s seismic risk perception: A case study of Malakand, Paki-
stan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 55, 102078.
49. Rahman, M. L. (2019). Risk perception and awareness of earthquake: the case of
Dhaka. International journal of disaster resilience in the built environment.
50. Rego, I. E., Pereira, S. M., Morro, J., & Pacheco, M. P. (2018). Perceptions of seis-
mic and volcanic risk and preparedness at São Miguel Island (Azores, Portu-
gal). International journal of disaster risk reduction, 31, 498-503.
51. Rico, G. (2019). School-Community Collaboration: Disaster Preparedness towards
Building Resilient Communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Manage-
ment, 1(2), 45-61.
52. Santos-Reyes, J., Santos-Reyes, G., Gouzeva, T., & Velazquez-Martinez, D. (2017).
Schoolchildren’s earthquake knowledge, preparedness, and risk perception of a
seismic-prone region of Mexico. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An Inter-
national Journal, 23(3), 494-507.
53. Shapira, S., Aharonson-Daniel, L., & Bar-Dayan, Y. (2018). Anticipated behavio-
ral response paerns to an earthquake: The role of personal and household char-
acteristics, risk perception, previous experience and preparedness. International
journal of disaster risk reduction, 31, 1-8.
54. Shaw, R., Kobayashi, K. S. H., & Kobayashi, M. (2004). Linking experience, edu-
cation, perception and earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Manage-
ment: An International Journal.
55. Shrestha, S. R., Sliuzas, R., & Kuer, M. (2018). Open spaces and risk perception
in post-earthquake Kathmandu city. Applied geography, 93, 81-91.
56. Sjöberg, L., Moen, B. E., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An
evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research, 10(2), 665-612.
57. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
58. Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reections on the psychometric paradigm.
Social Theories of Risk. Praeger. 117—152.
59. Slovic, P., Fischho, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived
risk. Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology, 91-125.
60. Stajić, LJ. (2021). Načela ekonomske bezbednosti. Politika nacionalne bezbed-
nosti 1/2021. Institut za političke studije, Beograd, pp. 111-125.
61. Stojadinović, M. (2020). Geopolitika i energetska bezbednost balkanskih država.
Politika nacionalne bezbednosti 2/2020. Institut za političke studije, Beograd, pp.
113-131.
62. Sun, L., & Xue, L. (2020). Does non-destructive earthquake experience aect risk
perception and motivate preparedness?. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Manage-
ment, 28(2), 122-130.
63. Sund, B., Svensson, M., & Andersson, H. (2017). Demographic determinants of
incident experience and risk perception: do high-risk groups accurately perceive
themselves as high-risk?. Journal of risk research, 20(1), 99-117.
64. Tekeli-Yeşil, S., Dedeoğlu, N., Braun-Fahrlaender, C., & Tanner, M. (2011). Earth-
quake awareness and perception of risk among the residents of Istanbul. Natural
hazards, 59(1), 427-446.

65. Tekeli-Yeşil, S., Dedeolu, N., Tanner, M., Braun-Fahrlaender, C., & Obrist, B.
(2010). Individual preparedness and mitigation actions for a predicted earth-
quake in Istanbul. Disasters, 34(4), 910-930.
66. Tian, L., Yao, P., & Jiang, S. J. (2014). Perception of earthquake risk: a study of the
earthquake insurance pilot area in China. Natural hazards, 74(3), 1595-1611.
67. Vibhas, S., Bismark, A. G., Ruiyi, Z., Anwaar, M. A., & Rajib, S. (2019). Under-
standing the barriers restraining eective operation of ood early warning sys-
tems. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(2), 1-19.
68. Xu, D., Zhuang, L., Deng, X., Qing, C., & Yong, Z. (2020). Media exposure, disaster
experience, and risk perception of rural households in earthquake-stricken areas:
evidence from rural China. International journal of environmental research and public
health, 17(9), 3246.
69. Xuesong, G., & Kapucu, N. (2019). Examining Stakeholder Participation in Social
Stability Risk Assessment for Mega Projects using Network Analysis. Interna-
tional Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), 1-31.