ACTAGEOGRAPHICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK SLOVENICA 2019 59 2 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 59-2 • 2019 Contents Drago PERKO, Rok CIGLIČ, Mauro HRVATIN The usefulness of unsupervised classification methods for landscape typification: The case of Slovenia 7 Vladimir M. CVETKOVIĆ, Kevin RONAN, Rajib SHAW, Marina FILIPOVIĆ, Rita MANO,Jasmina GAČIĆ, Vladimir JAKOVLJEVIĆ Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities 27 Iwona CIEŚLAK Spatial conflicts: Analyzing a burden created by differing land use 43 Ivan PAUNOVIĆ, Verka JOVANOVIĆ Sustainable mountain tourism in word and deed: A comparative analysis in the macroregions of the Alps and the Dinarides 59 Nikola Darko VUKSANOVIĆ, Dragan TEŠANOVIĆ, Bojana KALENJUK, Milijanko PORTIĆ Gender, age and education differences in food consumption within a region: Case studies of Belgradeand Novi Sad (Serbia) 71 Special issue – Franciscean cadaster as a source of studying landscape changes Matej GABROVEC, Ivan BIČÍK, Blaž KOMAC Land registers as a source of studying long-term land-use changes 83 Ivan BIČÍK, Matej GABROVEC, Lucie KUPKOVÁ Long-term land-use changes: A comparison between Czechia and Slovenia 91 Lucie KUPKOVÁ, Ivan BIČÍK, Zdeněk BOUDNÝ Long-term land-use / land-cover changes in Czech border regions 107 Drago KLADNIK, Matjaž GERŠIČ, Primož PIPAN, Manca VOLK BAHUN Land-use changes in Slovenian terraced landscapes 119 Daniela RIBEIRO, Mateja ŠMID HRIBAR Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in two Slovenianrural landscapes 143 Mojca FOŠKI, Alma ZAVODNIK LAMOVŠEK Monitoring land-use change using selected indices 161 ISSN 1581-6613 9 771581 661010 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 2019 ISSN: 1581-6613 COBISS: 124775936 UDC/UDK: 91© 2019, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Internationaleditorialboard/mednarodniuredniškiodbor: DavidBole(Slovenia),MichaelBründl(Switzerland),RokCiglič(Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), BlažKomac (Slovenia), Andrej Kranjc (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCharty (United Kingdom), SlobodanMarković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Nika Razpotnik Visković(Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia) Editor-in-Chief/glavni urednik: Blaž Komac; blaz@zrc-sazu.si Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko; drago@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for physical geography/glavni urednik za fizično geografijo: Matija Zorn; matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for human geography/glavna urednica za humano geografijo: Mimi Urbanc; mimi@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for regional geography/glavni urednik za regionalno geografijo: Drago Kladnik; drago.kladnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for spatial planning/glavni urednik za regionalno planiranje: Janez Nared; janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si Chiefeditorforruralgeography/glavnaurednicazageografijopodeželja:NikaRazpotnikVisković;nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for urban geography/glavni urednik za urbano geografijo: David Bole; david.bole@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for geographic information systems/glavni urednik za geografske informacijske sisteme: Rok Ciglič; rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for environmental protection/glavni urednik za varstvo okolja: Aleš Smrekar; ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si Editorial assistant/uredniški pomočnik: Matjaž Geršič; matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZUPublished by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/Naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija The papers are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznike, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove. Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznike, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove. Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o. DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Tiskarna Present, d. o. o. Print run/naklada: 450 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia coreresearchprogramme(P6-0101)/revijaizhajaspodporoJavneagencijezaraziskovalnodejavnostRepublikeSlovenijein nastajav okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost,Geoscience e-Journals, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google scholar,and CrossRef. Oblikovanje/Design by: Matjaž Vipotnik Front cover photography: Exploration of the collapse dolines, such as the one at the Small Natural Bridge in RakovŠkocjan, has enabled a deeper understanding of karst processes in recent years (photograph: Matej Lipar).Fotografija na naslovnici: Raziskave udornice, kot je ta pri Malem Naravnem mostu v Rakovem Škocjanu, so v zadnjihletih omogočile globlje razumevanje kraških procesov (fotografija: Matej Lipar). HOUSEHOLDEARTHQUAKEPREPAREDNESSINSERBIA:ASTUDY OFSELECTEDMUNICIPALITIES Vladimir M. Cvetković, Kevin Ronan, Rajib Shaw, Marina Filipović, Rita Mano, Jasmina Gačić, Vladimir Jakovljević Aftermath of the Kraljevo earthquake. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.5445 UDC: 614.8:550.34(497.11) COBISS: 1.01 Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities ABSTRACT:Thisarticlepresentstheresultsofaqualitativestudyofhouseholdearthquakeandcommunity-levelpreparednessinSerbiaanditsrelationshiptovariousdemographicfactors.Aseriesof1,018face-to-face interviewswereconductedatthebeginningof2017ineightSerbianmunicipalities.Theresultsshowthat the population is generally unprepared, with low percentages of reported enhanced preparedness levels. In addition to presenting its findings, the study also considers future research directions, including using this study as a basis for more detailed research and to assist in facilitating community-led programs and strategies to increase earthquake safety. KEY WORDS: geography, natural hazards, earthquake, preparedness, household, survey, Serbia Pripravljenost gospodinjstev na potrese v Srbiji: Študija izbranih občin IZVLEČEK:Včlankusopredstavljenirezultatikvalitativneštudijepripravljenostinapotresvgospodinjstvih innaobčinskiravnivSrbijiinnjenipovezanostirazličnimidemografskimidejavniki.Članektemeljina1018 intervjujih,kisobiliizvedeninazačetkuleta2017vosmihsrbskihobčinah.Rezultatikažejo,dajeprebivalstvo nasplošnonepripravljeno,znizkimdeležemizboljšaneravnipripravljenosti.Poleglastnihugotovitevštudija obravnavatudiprihodnjesmeriraziskovanja,vključnozuporaboteštudijekottemeljazapodrobnejšeraziskave inzapomočpriprogramih, kijihvodijoskupnosti,terstrategij za povečanje potresnevarnosti. KLJUČNEBESEDE:geografija,naravnenesreče,potres,pripravljenost,gospodinjstvo,raziskovanje,Srbija Vladimir M. Cvetković, Marina Filipović, Jasmina Gačić, Vladimir Jakovljević University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies vmc@fb.bg.ac.rs, fmarina@fb.bg.ac.rs, jgacic@sezampro.rs, vjakov@fb.bg.ac.rs Kevin Ronan Central Queensland University, Clinical Psychology School of Human, Health and Social Sciences k.ronan@cqu.edu.au Rajib Shaw Keio University, Graduate School of Media and Governance shaw@sfc.keio.ac.jp Rita Mano University of Haifa, Department of Human Services ritamano@research.haifa.ac.il The article was submitted for publication on October 10th, 2017. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 10. oktobra 2017. 1 Introduction Disasters caused by earthquakes present various threats to human society and are generally seen as processes resulting from the interaction between natural and anthropogenic systems (Lukić et al. 2013). Thepreparednessofindividuals,households,andcommunitiesisveryimportantforimprovingcommunity resilience in the face of any natural hazards, especially with regard to modern society’s great vulnerability to earthquakes (Komac et al. 2013). Disaster preparedness is defined as self-protective or precautionary behavior (Mishra and Suar 2012),butpreparedness activities areusually not engaged in atthe household level(e.g.,Eisenmanet al. 2006;Kapucu2008;Bethel,Foreman,andBurke2011;Martiet al. 2018). More recentstudieshavehighlightedthefactorsassociatedwithearthquakepreparednessatthehouseholdand communitylevels(Murphyetal.2009;FEMA2009;Johnston,BeckerandPaton2012;MuttarakandPothisiri 2013;Patonet al.2015;Cvetkovićet al.2015;DeyoungandPeters2016;JohnsonandNakayachi2017;Fox et al. 2017). First, demographic and socioeconomic variables are a central set of characteristics linked to preparedness.Older,female,andbetter-educatedheadsofhouseholds,aswellasresidenceduration,tend to be associated with better household preparedness (Duval and Mulilis 1999; Shaw et al. 2004). On the otherhand,bettercommunitypreparednesshasbeenassociatedwithnon-singlestatusandfarmingoccu­pations (Tomio et al. 2014; Ashida et al. 2017). Second, recent studies (Kirschenbaum 2006; Tomio et al. 2014) have found that the relationship between household and community preparedness is not comple­mentary, and, as a result, a large proportion of households are unprepared at both the community and household levels (Kirschenbaum, Rapaport and Canetti 2017). In practice, disaster management author-itiesoftendonotimplementanyactivitiesrelatedtoearthquakepreparednessatlocallevels,andtheyfocus more on reactive and top-down approaches (Ainuddin and Routray 2012). Thisstudygatheredbasicdatanecessaryforunderstandingpreparednessandforuseinpreparedness planning and programs. Proceeding from this basis, it examined preparedness perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors, including investigation of the role of demographic factors (sex, age, education level, marital status,andhouseholdincome)influencinghouseholdearthquakepreparednessinSerbia.Suchvariations reflect the extentto which factors canshape community-drivenefforts and education, supportingefforts to prepare for and cope with an earthquake. Based on the findings, the article suggests some specific ini­tiatives that can be taken to improve preparedness in Serbia. 2 Study area Serbiabelongstoaregionwithmoderateseismicactivityintermsofthenumberandfrequencyofearth­quakesaswellastheirmagnitude,anditischaracterizedbyanirregulardistributionofepicenters,which makes it difficult to distinguish seismically active faults (Marović et al. 2002; Abolmasov et al. 2011; Dragicevićet al.2011).Marovićet al.(2002)foundthat,from1900to1970,stronger-intensityearthquakes (determined as I = VIII–IX) were registered at the following locations: Rudnik (a mountain), Lazarevac (a municipality of the city of Belgrade), Juhor (a mountain), Krupanj (a town and municipality in the Mačva district of western Serbia), Jagodina (a city and the administrative center of the Pomoravlje dis-trictincentralSerbia),Vranje(acityandtheadministrativecenterofthePčinjadistrictinsouthernSerbia), and Vitina (a town and municipality in eastern Kosovo), and, from 1970 onwards, only three moderate-intensity earthquakes have occurred: at Kopaonik (a mountain), Mionica (a town and municipality in the Kolubara district of western Serbia), and Trstenik (a town and municipality in the Rasina district of central Serbia). The most seismically threatened is Lazarevac, where an extreme earthquake (M = 6.1) was recorded in1922. NearthecityofKraljevo,Serbia,withapopulationofmore than100,000,anM = 5.4earthquake occurred on November 3rd, 2010. Over the next six days, 258 earthquakes were registered, with magni­tudes ranging from 1.0 to 4.4. Despite the moderate magnitude of the incident, two people were killed, manyotherswereinjured, andthetotaldamageto thecitywasassessedat morethan€100million(Panić et al. 2013). Bythe endof March2011,the earthquake hadbeenfollowedby asequence ofmorethan 650 aftershocks of a magnitude greater than 1.0 (Antonijević, Arroucanu and Vlahović 2013). Figure 1: Earthquake intensity zones (hundred-year return period) in Serbia and the number of respondents in the municipalities studied. 3 Methods Preparedness research investigates individuals’ perceived readiness before a disaster event and takes into accountallmitigationactionsandresponsebehaviorsintheaftermathoftheemergency(MulilisandLippa 1990;Paton2003).Withregardtopreparedness,thefollowingdimensionswereexamined:perceivedpre­parednessandhouseholdsafety(Dooleyet al. 1992;Levac,Toal-SullivanandO’Sullivan2012),storageof emergency food and supplies (Baker 2011), knowledge and availability of shelter (Kohn et al. 2012), and specialsupportandassistance(Flynnet al.1999).Aseriesof1,018face-to-faceinterviewswereconducted atthebeginningof2017ineightofSerbia’s150municipalities. Thesecommunitieswerechosenwithref­erenceto thenationalmap of seismic regionalization of Serbiawith a returnperiod ofone hundredyears (Vukasinović 1987) and their various demographic and social characteristics. The participants in these municipalities were selected randomly, with the number of respondents proportional to their size (0.2–0.9%),thusprovidingarandomselectionandarepresentativesamplingapproach(PaulandBhuiyan 2010). The communities where the interviews took place were Kraljevo (330), Lazarevac (190), Jagodina (150),Mionica(fifty),Vranje(eighty),Prijepolje(onehundred),Lapovo(sixtyandKopaonik(fifty-eight; Figure1).Usingamultistagerandomsample,inthefirststagewesingledoutthesecommunities,andthen inthesecondstageweselectedparticularstreetsandpartsofthestreets.Finally,weselectedvarioushouse-holds, where the survey was conducted. The respondents were determined based on a random selection procedureof adult household members, where an individual over eighteen was interviewed andpresent-ed with a structured questionnaire. 3.1 Survey instruments A structured questionnaire was set up using a combination of qualitative (close-ended) multiple-choice questions and five-point Likert scales (Joshi et al. 2015). The first part of the questionnaire is related to the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the interviewees (e.g., sex, age, and level of edu­cation). Subsequent sectionsincludedquestionsrelating to perceived preparedness and household safety (variablesabouthouseholdpreparedness,communitypreparedness,geologicallayersunderthehouse,earth-quake-proof houses, reinforced houses, furniture secured to walls, and well-reinforced houses), essential supplies(variablesaboutapreparedemergencykit,examinationofthecontentsoftheemergencykit,easy accesstotheemergencykit,possessionofasufficientemergencystock,andcommunity-storedemergency supplies), shelter (variables about designated shelter nearby, familiarization with the route to the shelter, obstaclesontheroutetotheshelter,alertingneighborsbeforeevacuation,thestateoftheshelter,andfamil­iarization with the management of shelters), and special support and assistance (variables about special care in cases of disaster, knowledge about situations when the dead and injured are elderly, difficulties in evacuating family members, dealing with the elderly, handicapped, and infants, knowledge about guid­ing thehearingorvisuallyimpaired, andfamiliarizationwith kindsof supportfor theelderly). Eachitem wasratedonafive-pointLikertscale(1 = stronglydisagree,5 = stronglyagree).Theitemshereweredevel-oped after consulting several published survey approaches (Mulilis, Duval and Lippa 1990; Matsuda and Okada2006;Spittalet al.2006;ArdalanandSohrabizadeh2016).Apilotpre–testofthequestionnairewas also conducted in Belgrade to check the comprehension and performance of the questionnaire. 3.2 Sample Theinterviewees,46.9%womenand50.1%men(97%fullycompletedthequestionnaire),wererepresentative ofthesexstratificationofSerbianpopulation,with51.3%womenand48.7%men.Theaverageageofrespon­dentswas 36 (population average:42.6), andthe largest categorywas thoseunder 36. The sample implies that the majority of respondents had a secondary education (population average: primary 20.76%, sec­ondary 48.93%, and associate’s degree 15.1%, according to Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia). In thehouseholdsample,marriedpeopleaccountedfor45%ofthesample(populationaverage:single27.91%, married 55.12%, widowed 11.64%, and divorced 4.93%). The majority of respondents were unemployed (populationaverage: employed29.3%), andthe monthly incomeatthe family level wasreported tobe up to €750 (population average: €480). The interviewees also had different homeownership statuses: family member (61.1%), owners (29.7%), and rented (8.8%; Table 1). Table 1: Socioeconomic and demographic information of respondents (number of responders). Variable and number of respondents Category n % Sex (1,016) Male 476 46.9 Female 540 50.1 Age (1,018) Young (18–38) 564 46.6 Middle-aged (39–60) 354 34.7 Elderly (over 60) 100 9.8 Education level (644) Primary 12 1.2 Secondary 294 28.9 Associate’s degree 102 10.0 Bachelor’s degree 194 19.1 Graduate degree 42 4.1 Marital status (786) Single 294 28.9 Married 458 45.0 Divorced 30 2.9 Widowed 4 0.4 Homeownership (1,014) Personal 302 29.7 Family member 622 61.1 Rented 90 8.8 Employment status (1,014) Employed 442 43.4 Unemployed 572 56.2 Monthly family income (€, 1018) Up to 210 152 14.9 Up to 420 304 29.9 Up to 630 382 37.5 Up to 750 130 12.8 Over 751 50 4.9 4 Results 4.1 Perceived preparedness and household safety Interms of preparednesslevels,the mean estimateof households’ preparedness was3.02 out of5, and for thelocalcommunity2.76outof5. Incategoricalterms,these meanscores reflectapproximatelythemid-point onafive-pointLikertscale,andinthis caseendorsement centeredaround 3,»neitherpreparednor unprepared.«Thus,intermsofcategoricalplacement,thehighestpercentageofrespondentssaidthattheir householdisneitherpreparednorunpreparedtorespond(39.5%),31.5%statedprepared,and29.0%said theywere unpreparedto respond. Focusing onthe perceptionsofcommunity preparedness andtranslat­ing the mean score of 3.02 in categorical terms, the largest percentage of respondents (44.0%) reported that the local community is unprepared for reaction, 33.2% stated neither prepared nor unprepared, and 22.8% said they were prepared to respond. The largest percentage of respondents (54.9%) reported hav­ingnoknowledgeofthegeologyunderthehouse. Intermsofbuildingsbeingreinforced,40.0%reported that they do not know whether the buildings are reinforced against an earthquake (Figure 2). Consideringdifferencesingenderrolesandresponsibilities,maleswerefoundtohavehigherpercentages inthefollowingcategories:perceptionthattheirhouseholdswereprepared,thatthelocalcommunitywas prepared,thattheyknewwhatkindofgeologicallayersexisted underthehouse,andthattheyweremore likelytoreinforcebuildings.Incontrast,womenwerefoundtohavehigherpercentagesinthefollowingareas: theycheckedtheirhousesforearthquakeresilience,reinforcedthehouse,andsecuredfurniture (Table2). Intermsofage,theresultsshowthat,comparedtothemiddle-agedandelderly,youngpeoplehadhigh­erpercentagesinthefollowingcategories:thatthehouseholdandlocalcommunitywasprepared,thatthe house was checked for earthquake resilience, that they secured furniture, and that they reinforced build-ings.Comparedtomiddle-agedandyoungpeople,elderlypeoplereportedhigherpercentagesofawareness about what kind of geological layers were under the house (Table 2). 2 3 4 5 Likert scale Household preparedness Community preparedness Geological layers under the house Buildings reinforced well Figure2:PercentageofrespondentsandrelatedLikertscalevalueforperceivedpreparednessandhouseholdsafety. Table2:Cross-tabulationbetweensex,age,andperceivedpreparednessandhouseholdsafetyvariables Variables Descriptive Sex Age M SD M% F% .2 p .2 Y MA E p Householdpreparedness 3.02 1.16 32.8 30.0 10.1 .038* 164.4 45.1 19.0 16.0 .000** Communitypreparedness 2.76 1.13 23.5 21.8 28.6 .000** 184.5 30.4 14.1 10.0 .000** Geologicallayersunderhouse 2.14 1.30 18.0 14.0 16.0 .003* 136.1 15.2 26.4 28.0 .000** Earthquake-proofhouse 1.91 0.29 12.6 5.5 15.3 .000** 39.8 14.8 8.5 2.0 .000** Reinforcedhouse 1.29 0.45 64.1 76.7 20.4 .000** 56.5 75.4 64.2 44.0 .000** Securedfurnituretowall 1.94 0.36 22.3 8.0 41.7 .000** 16.5 18.1 17.0 2.0 .002* Buildingsreinforcedwell 3.17 1.16 36.7 24.6 15.9 .003* 159.5 32.3 45.0 30.0 .000** Note: M=male,F=female,Y=young,MA=middle-aged,E=elderly. **Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(two-tailed). *Correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(two-tailed). 4.2 Essential supplies The results of the descriptive statistical analysis in this participant sample indicated that 67% of partici­pants reported preparing an emergency kit, 49% examining the contents of the emergency kit regularly, 62%havingeasy accessto anemergency kit, 37%havingemergency stocks,34%havingsufficientstocks, and 40% that their community stored emergency supplies (Figure 3). Chi-square analyses indicatedthat higher percentages of menthanwomen reported the following: hav­ingeasieraccesstoanemergencykit,havingemergencystock,andthatthecommunitystoredemergencysupplies. Incontrast,ahigherpercentageofwomenthanmenreportedthefollowing:preparinganemergencykit,exam­iningthecontentsofemergencykits,andensuringstocksufficiency(Table3).Womenwereagainmoreactive incarryingout preparedness,whereasmenweremorelikelytohavefavorable perceptionsofpreparedness. 10 0 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Figure3:Descriptivestatisticalanalysisregardingessentialsupplies. Table3:Cross-tabulationbetweensex,age,andessentialsupplyvariables Percentageof respondents (%) Easily access Have emergency Sufficient Community store of emergency kit stock of stock emergency supplies Variables Descriptive Sex Age M SD M% F% .2 p .2 Y MA E p Preparedanemergencykit Contentsofemergencykit Easilyaccessofemergencykit Haveemergencystock Sufficientstock 1.33 1.55 1.37 1.62 2.11 0.47 0.50 0.48 0.48 1.17 61.8 47.1 66.1 41.6 7.0 70.7 52.2 59.9 35.1 12.6 24.2 4.6 4.0 4.5 23.9 .000** .096 .050* .033* .000** 45.1 57.0 68.9 44.7 28.3 39.0 54.0 64.0 28.0 44.3 36.0 36.0 55.1 25.0 36.7 90.5 27.9 26.0 45.2 292.2 .000** .000** .000** .000** .000** Communalemergencysupplies 1.59 0.49 34.0 46.7 11.7 .001** 57.8 20.6 17.0 119.6 .000** Note: M=male,F=female,Y=young,MA=middle-aged,E=elderly. **Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(two-tailed). *Correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(two-tailed). Thisstudyfoundthathigherpercentagesofyoungpeoplereportedthefollowing:preparinganemer­gency kit, having easy access to an emergency kit, having an emergency stock, and that their community stored emergency supplies. In contrast, a higher percentage of middle-aged people reported the follow­ing: examining the contents of emergency kits and ensuring stock sufficiency (Table 3). 4.3 Shelter following an earthquake In terms of sex differences, a higher percentage of males than females reported the following: knowing theroute tothe shelter, beingfamiliar withthe obstacleson theroute tothe shelter,awarenessof thecon­ditionsofaprovidedanticipatedshelter,andbeingfamiliarwiththesheltermanagement.Incontrast,and consistent with the pattern of findings thus far on behavior-related sex differences, a higher percentage 10 0 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Figure4:Descriptivestatisticalanalysisregardingshelters. Table4:Cross-tabulationbetweensex,age,andsheltervariables Percentageof respondents (%) Obstacle on the Call for your Condition of Knowing route to neighbors provided shelter management Variables Descriptive Sex Age M SD M% F% .2 p .2 Y MA E p Designatedshelternearby Routetoshelter Obstaclesonroutetoshelter Callingneighbors Conditionofshelter Managementofshelters 1.77 1.76 2.61 1.29 1.85 2.34 0.41 0.42 0.59 1.45 0.98 2.94 24.0 24.8 6.4 88.0 19.3 13.0 21.0 21.2 5.2 94.0 18.1 7.8 1.91 13.5 48.6 31.5 16.6 51.3 .166 .001** .000** .000** .002* .000** 34.6 35.9 8.4 86.9 28.3 19.4 31.0 30.0 1.0 97.0 22.2 1.0 16.9 14.0 4.1 100.0 12.7 2.5 104.4 126.3 135.2 101.5 0.3 84.9 .000** .000** .000** .000** .124 .000** Note: M=male,F=female,Y=young,MA=middle-aged,E=elderly. **Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(two-tailed). *Correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(two-tailed). ofwomenthanmenreportedthattheywouldcalltheirneighborsbeforeevacuating.Regardingageeffects, a higher percentage of young people reported knowing the route to the shelter, having a designated shel­ter nearby, being aware of obstacles on the route to an anticipated shelter, being aware of the conditions of an anticipated shelter, and being familiar with the shelter management. In contrast, a higher percent­age of older adults reported that they would call their neighbors before evacuating (Table 4; Figure 4). 4.4 Support and assistance Research has found that just under half (44%) could name an individual that would require special care in the event of a disaster. This included 31% of the total sample that reported having knowledge of older adults,thedisabled,orinfantsthatmightrequiresupportandassistance;26%reportedhavingknowledge 10 0 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Yes No Figure5:Descriptivestatisticalanalysisregardingspecialsupportandassistance. Table5:Cross-tabulationbetweensex,age,andspecialsupportandassistancevariables Percentageof respondents (%) Difficulty Elderly or Knowing guide Knowing of in evacuation handicapped hearin or kind support Variables Descriptive Sex Age M SD M% F% .2 p .2 Y MA E p Specialcareinadisaster Deadandinjuredelderly Difficultyinfamilyevacuation Elderly,handicapped,infants Hearingorvisuallyimpaired 1.90 3.39 1.76 2.75 2.63 0.88 1.45 0.42 1.50 1.50 36.0 38.1 21.3 34.0 22.1 51.1 46.0 24.9 32.0 29.2 57.5 32.2 8.9 6.6 13.3 .000** .000** .030* .156 .010* 51.5 44.0 21.1 26.3 27.0 36.8 41.0 34.0 36.8 28.3 32.0 20.0 6.0 62.0 46.0 54.1 152.6 61.1 0.30 191.2 .000** .000** .000** .152 .000** Howtosupporttheelderly 3.22 1.41 24.9 47.7 45.9 .000** 50.1 58.5 32.0 115.6 .000** Note: M=male,F=female,Y=young,MA=middle-aged,E=elderly. **Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(two-tailed). *Correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(two-tailed). ofindividualswithhearingorvisualimpairments;and23%wereawareofdifficultiesrelatedtofamilyevac­uation.Intermsofotherfindingshere,42%reportedknowingwhatkindofsupportisneededbytheelderly and 44% knowing that the elderly are more vulnerable to life-threatening injuries (Figure 5). Intermsofsexdifferencesinrelationtoassistanceandsupportfactors,ahigherpercentageofwomen than men reported the following: knowing somebody that would need special care in the event of a dis-aster,anticipatingdifficultiesinfamilyevacuation,andknowingpeoplewithhearingorvisualimpairments thatmightrequireassistance. Theyalsoreportedbetterknowledgeof thekindofsupportrequiredbythe elderly, who are also more vulnerable (Table 5). A higher percentage of young people reported knowing somebody that would need special care in the event of a disaster and knowing that older adults are more vulnerable. A higher percentage of middle-aged people reported anticipating difficulties in family evac­uation and being aware of the kind of support older adults might require. Finally, a higher percentage of older adults reported knowing people with hearing or visual impairments that might require assistance (Table 5). 5 Discussion Manycountrieshavepromotedtheideathathouseholdsshouldprepareessentialsurvivalitems,makeaplan, improvesurvivalskills,andfacilitatepeople’sabilitytocopewiththeconsequencesofanearthquake(Russell, Goltz and Bourque 1995; Spittal et al. 2008; Becker et al. 2012; Jamshidi et al. 2016). However, a number ofnationalandinternationalstudieshaveshownthatlevelsofearthquakepreparednessaregenerallylow (Russell,GoltzandBourque1995;MiletiandDarlington1997;RonanandJohnston2005;AzimandIslam 2016).Motivatingpeopletopreparecanbeadifficulttask,andmuchresearchhasidentifiedspecificdemo­graphic,socioeconomic,andpsychologicalfactorsthatpredictpreparednessbehaviors(Russell,Goltzand Bourque1995;Rossi1990;Patonet al.2010;Solberg,RossettoandJoffe2010;..hnsonandNakayachi2017; Cvetković, Gačić and Ristanović 2018). Lack of social responsibility (e.g., insufficient insurance policies) can also be a very important factor in the preparedness process (Zorn and Komac 2015). The findings on the mean estimates of households’ preparedness (a somewhat low level) are consis­tent with some other studies (Russell, Goltz and Bourque 1995; Mileti and Darlington 1997; Spittal et al. 2008; Johnson and Nakayachi 2017). Forexample, a study about perceptionsof earthquakepreparedness of households in Saudi Arabia found that residents of Jeddah were mostly not prepared (Azim and Islam 2016).Similarly,thisstudyshowedthatthehighestpercentageofrespondentssaidtheirhouseholdisnei­therpreparednorunpreparedtorespond.ThiscouldbelinkedtothefactthatSerbiadoesnothaveeducation strategies,anawarenessprogram,drills,oracampaignforearthquakes.DeviandSharma(2015)foundthat less than half of adults had adequate practice in earthquake preparedness in Nepal. Becker et al. (2012) found that household earthquake preparedness still remains at modest levels despite the importance of preparing(e.g.,Napier,Wanganui,&TimaruinNewZealand).RonanandJohnston(2005)alsofoundthat overalllevelsofearthquakepreparationareuniversallylow,includinginrisk-proneareas(e.g.,California, Turkey, and Japan). Taken together, the results of descriptive analyses showed that the largest percentage of respondents reported that the local community is unprepared for reaction, lacking knowledge about the geological lay­ersunderhousesandnotknowingwhetherthebuildingsarereinforcedorwhethertheyareearthquake-resistant. Given the overall low levels of preparedness, including relevant knowledge, this points to identification of the factors that can assist emergency management agencies and other disaster risk reduction and safe­ty organizations to tailor communication to enhance knowledge, motivation, and specific preparedness activities. In contrast, in lower seismicity contexts, perceptions are typically lower. Regarding the effects of sex, the findings in our study are mixed, which is consistent with some pre­viousstudies(e.g.,AbleandNelson1990).Forexample,ahigherpercentageofmenfeltthattheirhouseholds were prepared and, incontrast,a higher percentage of women checked theirhouses forearthquake resis­tance. The results can be related to certain studies that found that women are less likely to be prepared (Hackl, Halla and Pruckner 2007). Other research and reviews have supported the notion that in many householdswomenoftentakemoreresponsibilityforhouseholdmatters,includingdisasterpreparedness (Ersinget al.2015).InSerbia,mentraditionallyperformmorephysicallabor,whichmaythenhaveimpli­cationsforhouseholdandcommunitypreparedness(Pešić2006).Ontheotherhand,womenaretraditionally seenashousekeepersandchildminders.Suchfindings,ofcourse,haveimplicationsforpreparednesscom­munication,includingspecificguidancecoupledwiththenotionofbothwomenandmenworkingtogether inhouseholdandcommunitytermsandpossibleenhancedeffectsofbalancinglevelsofpreparednesswith reality.Inaddition,thiscombinationoffindingshasimplicationsforbothplanningsheltersandpreparedness communication within the community (Woersching and Snyder 2003; Liu, Ruan and Shi 2011). Comparedtomiddle-agedandelderlypeople,youngpeopleperceivedthepreparednessandhousehold safetyinadifferentway.TheseresultsareconsistentwithapreviousstudybySattler,Kaiser,andHittner(2000), which found a positive relationship between older age and personal disaster preparedness. Research has alsofoundthatolderadultsaretypicallymoreemotionallyresilienttotheeffectsofnaturaldisasters,com­paredtoyoungerpeople(Helleretal.2005).Comparedtomiddle-agedandyoungpeople,ahigherpercentage of elderly people also reported awareness of what kind of geological layers lie under the house. Based on this, it can be assumed that older people mostly built their own houses and as a result are more familiar with the characteristics of the area or have a fear of earthquakes. Reasonsforthismaybepreviousexperience,bothgenerallifeexperienceaswellashavingexperienced andcopedwithprevioushazardevents(Norriset al.2002).Giventhisrangeoffindings,emergencycom­munication and education that features a cooperative, participatory approach may then benefit from the relative strengths and tendencies seen within different age cohorts. Generally,thereasonsforengagingininitialandsustainedpreparednessincludepeoplereportingadesire to be prepared and, over time, to keep their supplies fresh and/or in working order in case they have to usethem.Protectionmotivationtheory(MadduxandRogers1983)andtheoryofplannedbehavior(Ajzen 1991, 2011) may be used as a framework for understanding various preparedness behaviors. People that do replenish their emergency supplies report wanting to ensure they have safe drinking water and food (Pageet al.2008;Kapucu2008;Beckeretal.2012).Therearegroupswithinanycommunitythatmayrequire additionalsupportandassistancefollowinganearthquake(Tanida1996;MatsudaandOkada2006;WHO 2008;Cvetković,MilašinovićandLazić2018).Often,however,marginalgroupsarenotconsideredindis-aster planning (Heller et al. 2005; Zorn 2018). In an urban area, earthquakes have been found to cause especiallyheavydamagetotheinner-cityhousingoflow-incomepeopleandtheelderly(Hirayama2000). This idea is buttressed by our findings that just under half could name an individual that would require special care during a disaster. 6 Conclusion Takentogether,thisstudycontributesnewinformationthatcanbeusedtoassistinlocalandnationalemer-gencymanagementcommunicationtoimprovehouseholdearthquakepreparedness.Thefactthatarelatively lownumberofparticipantsin thisstudyreportedperceptions,knowledge,oractualpreparednessbehav­iorssuggestscomplacencyintermsofearthquakeprevention,mitigation,andpreparednessinparticular, and, in our opinion, low general readiness for a range of hazards. The importance of focusing on human risk perceptions, decision-making, and behavior processes in preparedness is a focal point of this study. Knowledge about the differences between social groups in terms of socioeconomic characteristics such assexandageorhealthstatusisaprecursortotappingintothecognitive,emotional,andbehavioralfunc­tioningofindividualsinrelationtoprevention,mitigation,andpreparednessforearthquakesandotherhazards. Thus,thesefindingssuggestdemographicprofilesinwhichsomehaverelativestrengths.Aprominentexam­pleacross the categories examined is that women reported more actual behavioralpreparedness whereas men reported more perceptions and knowledge. Limitations of this study include the fact that the find-ingspresentedaremainlydescriptive.Futureresearchshouldevaluatenotonlyindividualfactors,butalso social and community factors. At the same time, the sample was reasonably large and as such it offered initial basic findings that can promote more detailed future investigations. Such future research should examine the factors that affect the preparedness for earthquakes and other events, and factors improving preparedness,includingmorepsychological(e.g.,self-efficacyandbehavioralintentions)andsocial(e.g., collectivehelping)constructs.Suchinformationmightthenbeusedasastartingpointtodesignprograms toimprovehouseholdpreparednessforearthquakesandotherhazardevents.Acriticalissueinemergency management education and communication is how to help a population, including those with increased vulnerability,andknowinghowtorespondduringanearthquaketoprotectoneselfandothers.Oneinter­ national initiative, ShakeOut (Internet 1), could be used to help people not only learn more about pro­tecting themselves effectively during an earthquake, but also to facilitate more effective preparedness. This initiative was used to assist over fifty-five million people more effectively prepare for earthquakes in 2016. Inaddition,itcanbeusedformoreextensivedisasterriskreductionandeducationinclassrooms(e.g.,Johnson et al.2014)andcommunitysettings(e.g.,anationaleffortcarriedoutregularlyinNewZealand;Internet2). 7 References Able, E., Nelson, M. 1990: Circles of care: Work and identity in women’s lives. Albany. Abolmasov,B.,Jovanovski,M.,Ferić,P.,Mihalić,M.2011:LossesduetohistoricalearthquakesintheBalkan region: Overview of publicly available data. Geofizika 28-1. Ainuddin,S.,Routray,J.K.2012:Institutionalframework,keystakeholdersandcommunitypreparedness for earthquake induced disaster management in Balochistan. Disaster Prevention and Management 21-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09653561211202683 Ajzen, I. 1991: Thetheory ofplannedbehavior. Organizational BehaviorandHuman Decision Processes 50-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I. 2011: Theory of planned behavior. Psychology and Health 26-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08870446.2011.613995 Antonijević,S.K.,Arroucau,P.,Vlahović,G.2013:SeismotectonicmodeloftheKraljevo3November2010 Mw5.4earthquakesequence. SeismologicalResearchLetters84-4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1785/0220120158 Ardalan, A., Sohrabizadeh, S. 2016: Assessing households preparedness for earthquakes: an exploratory study in the development of a valid and reliable Persian-version tool. PLoS Currents 25-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.ccc8697279713e66887b928b839d0920 Ashida, S., Robinson, E. L., Gay, J., Slagel, L. E., Ramirez, M. R. 2017: Personal disaster and emergency support networks ofolderadultsin a ruralcommunity: changesafter participation in apreparedness program. DisasterMedicineandPublicHealthPreparedness11-1. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2016.197 Azim, M. T., Islam, M. M. 2016: Earthquake preparedness of households in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: aperceptualstudy.EnvironmentalHazards15-3.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2016.1173006 Baker, E.J.2011:Householdpreparednessfortheaftermath ofhurricanes in Florida.Applied Geography 31-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.05.002 Becker, J. S., Paton, D., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R. 2012: A model of household preparedness for earthquakes: how individuals make meaning of earthquake information and how this influences preparedness. Natural Hazards 64-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0238-x Bethel, J. W., Foreman, A. N., Burke, S. C. 2011: Disaster preparedness among medically vulnerable populations. AmericanJournalofPreventiveMedicine40-2. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.020 Cvetković, V., Dragićević, S., Petrović, M., Mijaković, S., Jakovljević, V., Gačić, J. 2015: Knowledge and perceptionofsecondaryschoolstudentsinBelgradeaboutearthquakesasnaturaldisasters.PolishJournal of Environmental Studies 24-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/39702 Cvetković, V., Ristanović, E., Gačić, J. 2018: Citizens attitudes about the emergency situations caused by epidemics in serbia. Iranian Journal of Public Health 47-8. DOI: https://doi.org/pmid: 30186797 Cvetković,V.,Milašinović,S.,Lazić,Ž.2018:Examinationofcitizens’ attitudestowardsprovidignsupport tovulnerablepeopleandvoluntereeingduringdisasters.JournalforSocialSciencesTEME42-1.DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME1801035C Devi,A.W.,Sharma,D.2015:Awarenessonearthquakepreparedness:Akeytosafelife.InternationalJournal of Nursing Research and Practice 2-2. DeYoung,S.E.,Peters,M.2016:Mycommunity,mypreparedness:Theroleofsenseofplace,community, andconfidenceingovernmentindisasterreadiness.InternationalJournalofMassEmergenciesDisasters 34-2. Dooley,D.,Catalano,R.,Mishra,S.,Serxner,S.1992:Earthquakepreparedness:Predictorsinacommunity survey. JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology22-6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00984.x Dragicević,S.,Filipović,D.,Kostadinov,S.,Živkovic,N.,Anđelković,G.,Abolmasov,B.2011:Naturalhazard assessmentforland–useplanninginSerbia.InternationalJournalofEnvironmentalResearch5-1.DOI: https://doi.org/10.22059/IJER.2011.322 Duval, T. S., Mulilis, J. P. 1999: A person-relative-to-event (PrE) approach to negative threat appeals and earthquakepreparedness:afieldstudy.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology29-3.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01398.x Ersing,R.L.,Alhassan,O.,Ayivor,J.S.,Caruson,K.2015:Enhancinghazardresilienceamongimpoverished urbancommunitiesinGhana:theroleofwomenascatalystsforimprovement.CitiesatRisk:Planning for and Recovering from Natural Disasters. New York. Eisenman, D. P., Wold, C., Fielding, J., Long, A., Setodji, C., Hickey, S., Gelberg, L. 2006: Differences in individual-levelterrorismpreparednessinLosAngelesCounty.Americanjournalofpreventivemedicine 30-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.001 FEMA, 2009: Personal preparedness in America: Findings from the Citizen Corps National Survey. Flynn,J.,Slovic,P.,Mertz,C.K.,Carlisle,C.1999:PublicsupportforearthquakeriskmitigationinPortland, Oregon. Risk Analysis 19-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006969526398 Fox,M.H.,White,G.W.,Rooney,C.,Rowland,J.L.2007:Disasterpreparednessandresponseforpersons with mobility impairments: results from the University of Kansas Nobody Left Behind study. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 17-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073070170040201 Hackl, F., Halla, M., Pruckner, G. J. 2007: Volunteering and income–the fallacy of the good Samaritan? Kyklos 60-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2007.00360.x Heller,K.,Alexander,D.B.,Gatz,M.,Knight,B.G.,Rose,T.2005:Socialandpersonalfactorsaspredictors of earthquake preparation: The role of support provision, network discussion, negative affect, age, and education. JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology35-2. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02127.x Hirayama,Y.2000:Collapseandreconstruction:HousingrecoverypolicyinKobeaftertheHanshinGreat Earthquake. Housing Studies 15-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030082504 Internet 1: https://www.shakeout.org/ (02. 05. 2018). Internet 2: https://www.shakeout.govt.nz (02. 05. 2018). Jamshidi, E., Majdzadeh, R., Namin, M. S., Ardalan, A., Majdzadeh, B., Seydali, E. 2016: Effectiveness of communityparticipationinearthquakepreparedness:acommunity-basedparticipatoryintervention studyofTehran.DisasterMedicineandPublicHealthPreparedness10-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/ dmp.2015.156 Johnson, B. B., Nakayachi, K. 2017: Examining associations between citizens’ beliefs and attitudes about uncertaintyandtheirearthquakeriskjudgments,preparednessintentions,andmitigationpolicysupport in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.02.019 Johnston, D., Becker, J., Paton, D. 2012: Multi-agency community engagement during disaster recovery: LessonsfromtwoNewZealandearthquake events.Disaster Prevention andManagement21-2.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09653561211220034 Johnson, V. A., Johnston, D. M., Ronan, K. R., Peace, R. 2014: Evaluating children’s learning of adaptive responsecapacitiesfrom ShakeOut, anearthquake and tsunami drill in two Washington State school districts. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 11-3. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1515/jhsem-2014-0012 Joshi,A.,Kale,S.,Chandel,S.,Pal,D.K.2015:Likertscale:Exploredandexplained. BritishJournalofApplied Science and Technology 7-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 Kapucu, N. 2008: Culture of preparedness: household disaster preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management 17-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560810901773 Kirschenbaum,A.2006:Familiesanddisasterbehavior:areassessmentoffamilypreparedness.International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 24-1. Kirschenbaum, A. A., Rapaport, C., Canetti, D. 2017: The impact of information sources on earthquake preparedness. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijdrr.2016.10.018 Kohn,S.,Eaton,J. L.,Feroz,S.,Bainbridge,A. A.,Hoolachan,J.,Barnett,D. J. 2012:Personaldisasterpreparedness: an integrative review of the literature. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 6-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/dmp.2012.47 Komac,B.,Zorn,M.,Gavrilov,B.,Marković,S.2013:Naturalhazards –someintroductorythoughts.Acta geographica Slovenica 53-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53300 Levac, J., Toal-Sullivan, D., O’Sullivan, T. L. 2012: Household emergency preparedness: a literature review. Journal of Community Health 37-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9488-x Lindell, M. K., Perry, R. W. 2000: Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of research. Environment and Behavior 32-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972621 Liu, Q., Ruan, X., Shi, P. 2011: Selection of emergency shelter sites for seismic disasters in mountainous regions:Lessonsfromthe2008WenchuanMs8.0Earthquake,China.JournalofAsianEarthSciences 40-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.07.014 Lukić,T.,Gavrilov,M.B.,Marković,S.B.,Zorn,M.,Komac,B.,Mladjan,D.,Djordjević,J.,Milanović,M., Vasiljević,D. A.,Vujićič,M.D.,Kuzmanović,B.,Prentović,R. 2013:Classificationofthenaturaldisasters betweenthelegislationandapplication:experienceoftheRepublicofSerbia.ActageographicaSlovenica 53-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53301 Maddux,J.E.,Rogers,R.W.1983:Protectionmotivationandself-efficacy:Arevisedtheoryoffearappeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0022-1031(83)90023-9 Marović,M.,Djoković,I.,Pesić,L.,Radovanović,S.,Toljić,M.,Gerzina,N.2002:Neotectonicsandseismicity of the southern margin of the Pannonian basin in Serbia. EGU Stephan Mueller Special Publication Series 3. Marti, M., Stauffacher, M., Matthes, J., Wiemer, S. 2018: Communicating earthquake preparedness: the influence of induced mood, perceived risk, and gain or loss frames on homeowners’ attitudes toward generalprecautionarymeasuresforearthquakes. RiskAnalysis38-4. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12875 Matsuda,Y.,Okada,N. 2006:Communitydiagnosisforsustainabledisasterpreparedness.JournalofNatural Disaster Science 28-1. Mileti,D. S.,Darlington,J. D. 1997:Theroleofsearchinginshapingreactionstoearthquakeriskinformation. Social Problems 44-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3096875 Mishra,S.,Suar,D. 2012:Effectsofanxiety,disastereducation,andresourcesondisasterpreparednessbehavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00853.x Mulilis,J.P.,Duval,T.S.,Lippa,R.1990:Theeffectsofalargedestructivelocalearthquakeonearthquake preparednessasassessedbyanearthquakepreparednessscale.NaturalHazards3-4.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00124393 Mulilis,J.P.,Lippa,R.1990:Behavioralchangeinearthquakepreparednessduetonegativethreatappeals: Atestofprotectionmotivationtheory.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology20-8.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00429.x Murphy, S. T., Cody, M., Frank, L. B., Glik, D., Ang, A. 2009: Predictors of emergency preparedness and compliance. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 3-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ dmp.0b013e3181a9c6c5 Muttarak,R.,Pothisiri,W.2013:Theroleofeducationondisasterpreparedness:casestudyof2012Indian Ocean earthquakes on Thailand’s Andaman Coast. Ecology and Society 18-4. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.5751/es-06101-180451 Norris,F.H.,Friedman,M.J.,Watson,P.J.,Byrne,C.M.,Diaz,E.,Kaniasty,K.2002:60,000disastervictims speak:PartI.Anempiricalreviewoftheempiricalliterature,1981–2001.Psychiatry:Interpersonaland biological processes 65-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.65.3.207.20173 Page, L., Rubin, J., Amlôt, R., Simpson, J., Wessely, S. 2008: Are Londoners prepared for an emergency? AlongitudinalstudyfollowingtheLondonbombings. BiosecurityandBioterrorism:BiodefenseStrategy, Practice, and Science 6-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2008.0043 Panić,M.,Kovačević-Majkić,J.,Miljanović,D.,Miletić,R.2013:Importanceofnaturaldisastereducation­casestudyoftheearthquakenearthecityofKraljevo:Firstresults.JournaloftheGeographicalInstitute »Jovan Cvijic« SASA 63-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/IJGI121121001P Paton,D.2003:Disasterpreparedness:asocial-cognitiveperspective.DisasterPreventionandManagement 12-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560310480686 Paton, D., Anderson, E., Becker, J., Petersen, J. 2015: Developing a comprehensive model of hazard preparedness: lessons from the Christchurch earthquake. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.11.011 Paton,D.,Sagala,S.,Okada,N.,Jang,L.J.,Bürgelt,P.T.,Gregg,C.E.2010:Makingsenseofnaturalhazard mitigation:Personal,socialandculturalinfluences.EnvironmentalHazards9-2.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.3763/ehaz.2010.0039 Paul, B. K., Bhuiyan, R. H. 2010: Urban earthquake hazard: Perceived seismic risk and preparedness in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Disasters 34-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01132.x Pešić, J. 2006: Persistence of traditionalist value orientations in Serbia. Sociologija 48-4. Ronan,K.,Johnston,D.2005:PromotingCommunityResilienceinDisasters:TheRoleforSchools,Youth, and Families. Boston. Ronan, R., Johnston, M. 2005: Promoting community resilience in disasters. New York. Rossi, P. P. H. 1990: Of human bonding: Parent-child relations across the life course. Hawthorne. Russell, L. A., Goltz, J. D., Bourque, L. B. 1995: Preparedness and hazard mitigation actions before and aftertwoearthquakes.EnvironmentandBehavior27-6.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276002 Rüstemli,A.,Karanci,A.N.1999:Correlatesofearthquakecognitionsandpreparednessbehaviorinavictimized population.TheJournalofSocialPsychology139-1.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598364 Sattler,D.N.,Kaiser,C.F.,Hittner,J.B.2000:Disasterpreparedness:Relationshipsamongpriorexperience, personalcharacteristics,anddistress.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology30-7.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02527.x Shaw,R.,Shiwaku,K.,Kobayashi,H.,Kobayashi,M.2004:Linkingexperience,knowledge,perceptionand earthquake preparedness. Disaster Prevention and Management 13-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09653560410521689 Solberg,C.,Rossetto,T.,Joffe,H.2010:Thesocialpsychologyofseismichazardadjustment:re-evaluating theinternationalliterature.NaturalHazardsandEarthSystemSciences10-8.DOI:https://doi.org/10.5194/ nhess-10-1663-2010 Spittal,J.,McClure,J.,Siegert,J.,Walkey,H.2008:Predictorsoftwotypesofearthquakepreparation:survival activities and mitigation activities. Environment and Behavior 40-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013916507309864 Spittal, M. J., Walkey, F. H., McClure, J., Siegert, R. J., Ballantyne, K. E. 2006: The earthquake readiness scale: The development of a valid and reliable unifactorial measure. Natural Hazards 39-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-2369-9 Tanida,N.1996:WhathappenedtoelderlypeopleinthegreatHanshinearthquake.BritishMedicalJournal 313-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7065.1133 Tomio,J.,Sato,H.,Matsuda,Y.,Koga,T.,Mizumura,H.2014:Householdandcommunitydisasterpreparedness inJapaneseprovincialcity:apopulation–basedhouseholdsurvey.AdvancesinAnthropology4-2.DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/aa.2014.42010 Vukasinovic, M. 1987: Seizmološka mapa Srbije za povratni period od 100 godina. Belgrade. WHO,2008.ManualfortheHealthCareofChildreninHumanitarianEmergencies.WorldHeathOrganization. Geneva. Woersching, J. C., Snyder, A. E. 2003: Earthquakes in El Salvador: a descriptive study of health concerns in a rural community and the clinical implications, part I. Disaster Management Response 1-4. Zorn, M. 2018: Natural disasters and less developed countries. Nature, Tourism and Ethnicity as Drivers of(De)Marginalization.PerspectivesonGeographicalMarginality3.Cham.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-59002-8_4 Zorn, M., Komac, B. 2015: Naravne nesreče in družbena neodgovornost. Geografski vestnik 87-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/GV87205