1. Introduction

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

The geographical expanse of the Republic of Serbia covers 88,499 square kilometres, positioning it at the intersection of central and south-eastern Europe within the Southern Pannonian Plain and the central Balkans. It shares borders with Hungary to the north, Romania to the northeast, Bulgaria to the southeast, North Macedonia to the south, Montenegro to the southwest, and Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to the west (Figure 2).

Between the 1970s and 2002, Serbia experienced approximately 5000 disasters and according to data from UNOCHA’s Reliefweb, floods were the most frequent disasters, with fifteen catastrophic floods occurring between 1988 and 2014 (Cvetković et al., 2021). From 2007 to 2016, Serbia witnessed around 20 disasters, resulting in 90 fatalities, 620 injuries, displacement of 1470 individuals, and material damage estimated at 2 million dollars (Cvetković, Öcal, & Ivanov, 2019). Serbia is situated in a region with moderate seismic activity, characterized by varying seismic intensity, frequency, and magnitude of earthquakes. The distribution of epicentres is irregular, posing challenges in identifying seismically active faults (Ocal, Cvetković, Baytiyeh, Tedim, & Zečević, 2020). Historically, stronger earthquakes (with intensities of VIII–IX) were documented in locations including Rudnik, Lazarevac, Juhor, Krupanj, Jagodina, and Vitina from 1900 to 1970. However, since 1970, only three moderate-intensity earthquakes have been recorded in Kopaonik (a mountain), Mionica, and Trstenik (Marovic et al., 2002). Referring to official data sourced from the Emergency Situations Department of Serbia, there was a 50% increase in the number of fires in 2017 compared to the corresponding period in the preceding year. Additionally, as per the records maintained by the Directorate for Fire-Rescue Units of the Sector for Emergency Situations, spanning from 2012 to 2022, Serbia witnessed 38,279 residential fires. Within these incidents, 665 individuals lost their lives, 1747 sustained injuries, and 2134 were successfully rescued (Cvetković et al., 2022a). For a comparative perspective over the years in the mentioned timeframe, the situation unfolded as follows (number of fires/deaths): 2012 (946/7), 2013 (836/6), 2014 (887/8), 2015 (827/5), 2016 (872/10), 2017 (899/18), 2018 (842/14), 2019 (796/10), 2020 (842/23), and 2021 (828/21) (V. M. Cvetković et al., 2022a). According to the National Strategy for Protection and Rescue ("Official Gazette of RS," No. 86/2011 of November 18, 2011), Serbia experienced around 134,686 fires from 2003 to 2011. Notably, in 2020, fires in housing units claimed the lives of 51 individuals across Serbia. The Ministry of Interior reported that fire and rescue services conducted over 4000 interventions, with more than 3000 specifically addressing fire incidents.

Figure 2. Study area. Location of Serbia.

Figure 2. Study area. Location of Serbia.

3. Results

3.1. The predictors of community (social) disaster resilience (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity-diversity and social belief)

Firstly, the central hypothesis was tested, which aimed to determine whether gender, age, and educational level could predict community (social) disaster resilience (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and social belief) in Serbia. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the extent to which five scores of the subscales (social structure, social capital, social mechanisms, social equity and social belief) were associated with eight demographic and socio-economic variables: gender, age, education level, marital status, employment status, monthly income, property ownership, household members (Figure 3). Analyses showed that the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homogeneity of variance had not been violated.

The results of the multivariate regressions for the social structure subscale show that the most significant predictor is age (β = 0.22), explaining 3.61% of the variance in social structure. This is followed by marital status (β = 0.18, 2.25%), employment status (β = 0.15, 1.69%), and gender (β = 0.13, 1.44%). The remaining variables (e.g., education level, income, property ownership, and household members) were not significantly affected by social structure. This model (R² = 0.09, Adj. R² = 0.07, F = 4.22, t = 21.5, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 7% variance of social structure (Table 2).

Additional analyses revealed that the most significant predictor of social capital subscale was education (β = −0.41), explaining 15.21% of the variance in social capital. This is followed by gender (β = 0.28, 6.76%), property ownership (β = −0.26, 6.25%), marital status (β = 0.24, 4.41%), and number of household members (β = 0.21, 4.01%), and age (β = 0.27, 1.01%). The monthly income was not significantly affected by social capital. This model (R² = 0.30, Adj. R² = 0.28, F = 17.13, t = 28.58, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 28% variance of social capital (Table 2).

Regarding social mechanisms, analyses revealed that the most significant predictor was employment status (β = 0.41), explaining 4.84% of the variance in social mechanisms. This is followed by gender (β = 0.12, 1.22%), and income level (β = −0.11, 1.19%). The remaining variables were not significantly affected by social mechanisms. This model (R² = 0.11, Adj. R² = 0.08, F = 4.79, t = 24.95, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 8% variance of social mechanisms (Table 2).

Further analyses revealed that the most significant predictor of social equity and diversity subscale was employment status (β = 0.13), explaining 1.21% of the variance in social equity and diversity. This is followed by a number of household members (β = 0.11, 1.02%). The remaining variables were not significantly affected by social equity and diversity. This model (R² = 0.06, Adj. R² = 0.04, F = 2.70, t = 24.86, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 4% variance of social equity and diversity (Table 2).

Furthermore, analyses revealed that the most significant predictor of the social beliefs subscale was property ownership (β = −0.13), explaining 1.39% of the variance in social beliefs. The remaining variables were not significantly affected by social beliefs. This model (R² = 0.06, Adj. R² = 0.03, F = 2.59, t = 26.18, p < 0.01) with all mentioned independent variables explains the 3% variance of social beliefs (Table 2).

Figure 3. The predictors of community (social) disaster resilience.

Figure 3. The predictors of community (social) disaster resilience.

3.3. Community (social) disaster resilience framework (social structure, capital, mechanisms, equality and belief)

In the continuation of the research on social resilience to disasters, participants were asked to objectively assess various attitudes regarding key dimensions of society, including social structure, capital, mechanisms, equality, and beliefs. The obtained attitude scores reflect their perceptions towards these crucial aspects that significantly influence the preparation and response to disasters, consequently impacting the societal resilience to disasters in Serbia. The obtained results of mean values for subscales indicate that participants gave the highest ratings to beliefs within the social beliefs category (M = 2.76), while the lowest values were recorded in the social structure category (M = 2.46). Following this, the ratings for social equity and diversity (M = 2.66), social capital (M = 2.65), and social mechanisms (M = 2.59) are next (Figure 5).

About the assessment of social structure (M = 2.46), 10 attitudes were analyzed. According to the obtained results, the development of response services in disasters by different first responders received the highest rating (M = 2.93). Such a rating may indicate a level of trust in the work of such services and their readiness to assist in disasters. The second-rated attitude (M = 2.81) pertains to the level of development of leadership in the community. Participants indicate a positive attitude towards the quality of leadership within the community, which could have an impact on effective management in various disasters. In the third place, the collaboration of local authorities with different entities relevant to preventive measures in disasters was evaluated (M = 2.61) (Table 4).

On the contrary, the least-rated attitudes were the development of financial resources for disaster management purposes (M = 2.24), the development of technological resources for disaster management purposes (M = 2.34), and the level of development of human resources for disaster management purposes (M = 2.37). Participants believe that there is room for improvement in financial resources for protection and rescue, indicating a lack of such funds and effective financial strategies for disaster management. Additionally, there is a clear emphasis on the need to enhance technological resources in all phases of disaster management. Moreover, although a slightly higher rating was recorded, it also points to the need for improvement in the development of human resources for preparation, mitigation, response, and recovery from disasters. Certainly, this may involve improving human resource management policies regarding additional hiring of skilled personnel, training, and further development (Table 4).

The analysis of attitudes regarding social structure shows that participants have a positive attitude towards the development of response services and leadership in the community while recognizing the need for improvement in financial, technological, and human resources. Also, the identified mean values indicate an overall neutral stance of the community towards issues of disaster preparedness and response.

Table 4. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards social structure, capital, mechanisms, equality, and belief.

Table 4. Results of the survey on participants’ attitudes towards social structure, capital, mechanisms, equality, and belief.

	Attitudes	M (SD)	Total
SOCIAL STRUCTURE	Organization and structuring of the local community for disaster response	2.51 (1.08)	2.46 (0.94)
	Access to essential services such as health, education, and social assistance during disasters	2.62 (1.14)
	Quality of regulatory governance in disaster management	2.54 (1.11)
	Quality of risk assessment and developed plans for protection and rescue	2.50 (1.16)
	Level of development of human resources in society for protection and rescue	2.37 (1.05)
	Level of development of financial resources in society for protection and rescue	2.24 (1.12)
	Level of development of technological resources in society for protection and rescue	2.34 (1.00)
	Collaboration of local authorities with all relevant entities in designing preventive measures	2.61 (1.08)
	Development of response services in disasters - police, firefighting and rescue units, civil protection, etc.	2.93 (1.13)
	Developed leadership in the community	2.81 (1.07)
SOCIAL CAPITAL	Level of mutual trust and support within the community	2.88 (1.11)	2.65 (0.93)
	Existence and strength of social networks and connections	2.80 (1.11)
	Participation in volunteer activities and community projects	2.47 (1.03)
	Regular dialogue and collaboration between local communities and authorities	2.48 (1.08)
	Involvement of different social groups in decision-making and planning during disasters	2.53 (1.07)
	The existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness involving various socioeconomic groups	2.42 (1.09)
	Existence and strength of economic cooperation between different socio-economic groups.	2.58 (1.14)
	Level of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses	3.10 (1.22)
	Strength of family ties and interactions within the community	2.43 (1.17)
SOCIAL MECHANISMS	Education and training for emergencies	2.66 (1.18)	2.59 (0.95)
	Understanding and respecting cultural diversity	2.67 (1.17)
	Level of personal and collective responsibility towards community resilience and safety in disasters	2.44 (1.08)
	Community preparedness for disasters	2.48 (1.12)
	Household preparedness for disasters	2.39 (1.12)
	Perception of disaster risks	2.40 (1.14)
	Implementation of campaigns to enhance disaster preparedness	2.46 (1.15)
	Application of special measures to protect critical infrastructure	2.47 (1.13)
	Citizen awareness of disaster risks	2.48 (1.20)
	Capability for rapid evacuation and the existence of shelters	2.50 ()
	The ability for prompt decision-making in relevant institutions without bureaucratic complications	2.63 (1.13)
	Active community involvement in the implementation of protection and preparedness measures	2.81 (1.07)
	Level of faith and optimism in the community’s ability to face disasters	2.70 (1.03)
	Level of flexibility and adaptability in dealing with unforeseen situations.	2.72 (1.18)
	Collective willingness to learn from previous disasters and improve future responses	2.59 (1.15)
	Effectiveness of early warning and people’s notification systems	2.62 (1.21)
	Development of disaster insurance	2.71 (1.16)
SOCIAL EQUALITYANDDIVERSITY	Access to resources and services without discrimination	2.76 (1.11)	2.66 (0.95)
	Measures to protect and promote the rights of minority groups	2.55 (1.05)
	Community readiness to address social injustices	2.85 (1.16)
	Level of availability and access to key resources (water, food, shelter)	2.92 (1.18)
	Access to medical services and emergency interventions regardless of socioeconomic status	2.71 (1.04)
	The extent of social aid and support available to different groups in the community during disasters	2.65 (1.04)
	Presence and active participation of various social groups in planning and implementing measures	2.72 (1.14)
	Existence of programs targeting specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, etc.	2.39 (1.16)
	Availability of personalized emergency plans for individuals with special needs.	2.63 (1.13)
	Access to transportation and evacuation that suits different levels of mobility and needs.	2.59 (1.09)
	Openness and adaptation of communication strategies for different linguistic and cultural communities	2.58 (1.09)
	Involvement of various social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementation measures	2.54 (1.20)
	Justice in access and participation in local disaster management bodies	2.58 (1.09)
SOCIAL BELIEFS	Trust in the work of social institutions and services during disasters	2.45 (1.08)	2.76 (0.91)
	Level of development of disaster resilience culture	3.03 (1.13)
	Significance of cultural and religious values in the life of the community	2.81 (1.06)
	Openness to dialogue and understanding between different cultural and religious groups	2.92 (1.16)
	Participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity	2.92 (1.21)
	Adherence to traditional social norms and values in the community	2.83 (1.20)
	Level of individual involvement in local cultural activities and communal events	2.93 (1.21)
	Respect for and preservation of local customs and traditions during and after disasters	2.94 (1.19)
	Intensity and regularity of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals	2.83 (1.20)
	Influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community	2.64 (1.07)
	Intensity and regularity of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals	3.03 (1.14)
	Activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness and emergencies	2.72 (1.23)
	Local culture and tradition shape the interpretation of disasters	2.80 (1.21)

Through further analysis, participants’ attitudes towards social capital (M = 2.65) were examined, encompassing 9 attitudes. The obtained results indicate that the highest-rated attitude pertains to the “Level of mutual trust and support within the community” (M = 2.88). Such a result suggests a high level of mutual trust and support within the community, indicating a prerequisite for strong interpersonal bonds and a positive social environment. In the second place, participants rated the “Existence and strength of social networks and connections” (M = 2.80) highly. This aspect, with a high rating, points to the existence of strong social networks, reflecting a robust interconnectedness among community members. In the third place, the “Level of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses” (M = 3.10) was rated. The obtained value reflects a high degree of interaction and collaboration with other communities, organizations, or businesses, which is significant for broader social connectivity (Table 4).

Conversely, the least-rated aspect concerns the “Existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness involving various socio-economic groups” (M = 2.42). The obtained result indicates that participants hold a more negative attitude towards the existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness that involve various socio-economic groups. Then, the second-lowest-rated attitude pertains to “Participation in volunteer activities and community projects” (M = 2.47). This value unequivocally suggests that participants perceive a lower level of engagement in volunteer activities and various community projects. Of course, this may indicate the need for further encouragement of greater involvement in various volunteer activities and initiatives. In the third place, the least-rated attitude concerns the “Strength of family ties and interactions within the community” (M = 2.43). Therefore, the strength of family ties and interactions within the community is at a lower level, which could negatively impact society’s resilience to disasters (Table 4).

Overall, the ratings show that participants perceive a high level of mutual trust and support, strong social networks and connections, and a high degree of interaction and collaboration with other communities. On the other hand, volunteer activities and projects received lower ratings, indicating potential room for improvement in encouraging community involvement. Mean values suggest a generally neutral stance towards dialogue with authorities, involvement of different social groups in decision-making during disasters, and the existence of local initiatives for disaster preparedness involving various socio-economic groups.

Analysis of the survey results on participants’ attitudes towards social mechanisms (M = 2.59) indicates that the highest-rated attitude is “Active community involvement in the implementation of disaster protection and preparedness measures” (M = 2.81). Such a value reflects the active engagement of the community in implementing protective and preparatory measures for disasters. The high rating suggests a positive attitude towards the active role of the community in enhancing resilience and safety. In the second place, the “Level of flexibility and adaptability in dealing with unforeseen situations” (M = 2.72) is rated. Participants highlight the community’s high adaptability to unforeseen situations, which can be crucial for effective responses in disasters. With the highest rating, in the third place, the "Development of disaster insurance" (M = 2.71) is assessed. Recognizing the importance of insurance indicates an awareness of the necessity of financial protection in disasters (Table 4).

On the other hand, the lowest-rated aspect is "Household preparedness for disasters" (M = 2.39). Such a value suggests and indicates lower perceptions of household readiness to cope with disasters. For these reasons, continuous efforts are needed to strengthen and improve household preparedness measures for disasters. The second-lowest-rated attitude is “Perception of disaster risks” (M = 2.40). The result indicates lower levels of perception of disaster risks, emphasizing the need to increase awareness of potential dangers to enhance overall preparedness. Additionally, a lower level of citizen awareness of disaster risks (M = 2.48) is identified. This rating suggests that citizens may not have a sufficient level of awareness of potential disaster risks (Table 4).

The obtained high values for active community involvement, flexibility, adaptability, and the development of disaster insurance indicate a positive attitude towards specific social mechanisms. Conversely, low ratings for household preparedness, perception of risks, and citizen awareness suggest the need for a stronger focus on these aspects to improve overall community preparedness. Mean values also suggest a neutral stance towards education, cultural diversity, and citizen awareness of risks, indicating areas for further reflection and improvement.

Further analysis of the survey results regarding participants’ attitudes towards social equity and diversity (M = 2.66) reveals that the highest-rated attitude is related to the “Level of availability and access to key resources (water, food, shelter)” (M = 2.92). The obtained value indicates the recognition of the importance of providing resources such as food and water for all community members during disasters. The second-rated attitude pertains to “Community readiness to address social injustices” (M = 2.85). This rating indicates a high level of community readiness to confront social injustices during disasters, implying an awareness of the need for an adequate response to social challenges before, during, and after disasters. The third-rated attitude is related to "Access to resources and services without discrimination" (M = 2.76). Participants demonstrate an awareness and positive attitude towards access to resources and services without discrimination. All of this unequivocally suggests the importance of equal access for everyone, regardless of specific demographic and socio-economic characteristics (Table 4).

In contrast, the least-rated attitudes are related to the "Existence of programs targeting specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, etc." (M = 2.39). This value indicates significant challenges in recognizing and addressing the specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. Therefore, there is a need to work on improving access to support for such groups during disasters. In the second place, the attitude related to “Measures to protect and promote the rights of minority groups” (M = 2.55) is rated. The score for this attitude indicates challenges in implementing measures to protect and promote the rights of minority groups during disasters. Hence, additional steps need to be considered to ensure adequate protection of the rights of minority groups during disasters. Finally, the third least-rated attitude is related to the “Involvement of various social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementation measures” (M = 2.54). This value suggests a need for improvement in involving different social groups in planning, decision-making, and implementing measures during disasters. It may also indicate the need for greater inclusivity in decision-making processes (Table 4).

Overall, high scores for the availability of key resources and community readiness to address social injustices suggest a positive attitude towards aspects of equality and diversity. On the other hand, low scores for programs targeting the specific needs of vulnerable groups, protection of minority rights, and the involvement of different social groups in planning indicate the need for improvement in these areas to ensure a fair and inclusive response to disasters.

In the end, attitudes regarding social beliefs were also examined (M = 2.76), and it was found that the highest recorded value pertained to the level of development of disaster resilience culture (M = 3.03). This may indicate a high level of development of a culture resilient to disasters, as well as a positive attitude towards the development of community awareness and practices related to disaster preparedness and response. In second place is the assessment of the attitude regarding participation in traditional and religious rituals that strengthen collective identity (M = 2.92). The obtained result suggests significant participation in traditional and religious rituals that enhance collective identity. Therefore, there is a positive inclination toward preserving and strengthening the collective identity through traditional and religious practices. In the third place is the assessment of the attitude regarding the intensity and regularity of community participation in religious ceremonies and rituals (M = 3.03). Hence, there is a positive attitude toward the community’s engagement in religious ceremonies and rituals.

In contrast, the least rated values are related to the attitude concerning trust in the work of social institutions and services during disasters (M = 2.45). It can be said that there are certain challenges in trusting the work of social institutions and services during disasters. This may suggest the need to enhance trust in social institutions during catastrophes. Following this, there is an assessment of the attitude related to the influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community (M = 2.64). This value indicates the limited influence of religious leaders and institutions on decision-making in the community. Certainly, this may suggest a lower level of faith in religious authorities in the decision-making process during disasters. Finally, in the third place, there is an assessment of the attitude concerning the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness and emergencies (M = 2.72). This value indicates challenges in the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness. It suggests the need for a stronger focus by religious institutions on disaster preparedness.

High ratings for attitudes such as the development of a culture resilient to disasters, participation in traditional and religious rituals, and regular involvement in religious ceremonies and rituals indicate a positive orientation toward tradition, faith, and culture. On the other hand, challenges in trust towards social institutions during disasters, limited influence of religious leaders in decision-making, and the need to improve the activities of religious institutions related to disaster preparedness suggest areas that require additional attention and improvement to enhance society’s resilience to disasters.

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

References

1. Able, E., & Nelson, M.. Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women’s Lives; SUNY Press: Albany, NY, 1990.
2. Adeagbo, A.; Daramola, A.; Carim-Sanni, A.; Akujobi, C.; Ukpong, C. Effects of natural disasters on social and economic well being: A study in Nigeria. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016, 17, 1–12. [CrossRef]
3. Adger, W. N. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in human geography 2000, 24, 347-364. [CrossRef]
4. Al-Rousan, T.M.; Rubenstein, L.M.; Wallace, R.B. Preparedness for Natural Disasters Among Older US Adults: A Nationwide Survey. Am. J. Public Heal. 2014, 104, 506–511. [CrossRef]
5. Albanese, J.; Birnbaum, M.; Cannon, C.; Cappiello, J.; Chapman, E.; Paturas, J.; Smith, S. Fostering Disaster Resilient Communities across the Globe through the Incorporation of Safe and Resilient Hospitals for Community-Integrated Disaster Responses. Prehospital Disaster Med. 2008, 23, 385–390. [CrossRef]
6. Almazan, J.U.; Albougami, A.S.; Alamri, M.S.; Colet, P.C.; Adolfo, C.S.; Allen, K.; Gravoso, R.; Boyle, C. Disaster-related resiliency theory among older adults who survived Typhoon Haiyan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 35, 101070. [CrossRef]
7. Alshehri, S.A.; Rezgui, Y.; Li, H. Disaster community resilience assessment method: a consensus-based Delphi and AHP approach. Nat. Hazards 2015, 78, 395–416. [CrossRef]
8. Appleby-Arnold, S.; Brockdorff, N.; Jakovljev, I.; Zdravković, S. Applying cultural values to encourage disaster preparedness: Lessons from a low-hazard country. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 31, 37–44. [CrossRef]
9. Asadzadeh, A.; Pakkhoo, S.; Saeidabad, M.M.; Khezri, H.; Ferdousi, R. Information technology in emergency management of COVID-19 outbreak. Informatics Med. Unlocked 2020, 21, 100475–100475. [CrossRef]
10. Assarkhaniki, Z.; Rajabifard, A.; Sabri, S. The conceptualisation of resilience dimensions and comprehensive quantification of the associated indicators: A systematic approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 51. [CrossRef]
11. Baker, M.D.; Baker, L.R.; Flagg, L.A. Preparing Families of Children With Special Health Care Needs for Disasters: An Education Intervention. Soc. Work. Heal. Care 2012, 51, 417–429. [CrossRef]
12. Beatley, T. The vision of sustainable communities. Cooperating with nature: Confronting natural hazards with land-use planning for sustainable communities 1998, 233-262.
13. Béné, C.; Al-Hassan, R.M.; Amarasinghe, O.; Fong, P.; Ocran, J.; Onumah, E.; Ratuniata, R.; Van Tuyen, T.; McGregor, J.A.; Mills, D.J. Is resilience socially constructed? Empirical evidence from Fiji, Ghana, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 38, 153–170. [CrossRef]
14. Bollettino, V.; Alcayna-Stevens, T.; Sharma, M.; Dy, P.; Pham, P.; Vinck, P. Public perception of climate change and disaster preparedness: Evidence from the Philippines. Clim. Risk Manag. 2020, 30, 100250. [CrossRef]
15. Bronfman, N.C.; Castañeda, J.V.; Guerrero, N.F.; Cisternas, P.; Repetto, P.B.; Martínez, C.; Chamorro, A. A Community Disaster Resilience Index for Chile. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6891. [CrossRef]
16. Buckle, P. Assessing social resilience. Disaster resilience: An integrated approach 2006, 88, 104.
17. Burman, B., & Margolin, G. Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: an interactional perspective. Psychological bulletin 1992, 112, 39.
18. Cannoodt, L., Mock, C., & Bucagu, M. Identifying barriers to emergency care services. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management 2012, 27, e104-e120.
19. Chevalier, A., Harmon, C., O’Sullivan, V., & Walker, I. The impact of parental income and education on the schooling of their children. IZA Journal of Labor Economics 2013, 2, 1-22.
20. Cohen, O.; Geva, D.; Lahad, M.; Bolotin, A.; Leykin, D.; Goldberg, A.; Aharonson-Daniel, L. Community Resilience throughout the Lifespan – The Potential Contribution of Healthy Elders. PLOS ONE 2016, 11, e0148125. [CrossRef]
21. Combs, J.P.; Slate, J.R.; Moore, G.W.; Bustamante, R.M.; Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Edmonson, S.L. Gender Differences in College Preparedness: A Statewide Study. Urban Rev. 2009, 42, 441–457. [CrossRef]
22. Contoyannis, P.; Jones, A.M.; Rice, N. Simulation-based inference in dynamic panel probit models: An application to health. Empir. Econ. 2004, 29, 49–77. [CrossRef]
23. Cotten, S.R. Marital Status and Mental Health Revisited: Examining the Importance of Risk Factors and Resources. Fam. Relations 1999, 48, 225. [CrossRef]
24. Cui, K.; Han, Z.; Wang, D. Resilience of an Earthquake-Stricken Rural Community in Southwest China: Correlation with Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2018, 15, 407. [CrossRef]
25. Cutter, S.L.; Ash, K.D.; Emrich, C.T. The geographies of community disaster resilience. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 65–77. [CrossRef]
26. Cvetković, V.M. Influence of employment status on citizen preparedness for response to natural disasters. Nauk. Bezb. Polic. 2016, 21, 49–94. [CrossRef]
27. Cvetković, V.M. A Predictive Model of Community Disaster Resilience Based on Social Identity Influences (MODERSI). Int. J. Disaster Risk Manag. 2023, 5, 57–80. [CrossRef]
28. Cvetkovic, V.M.; Boškovic, N.; Öcal, A. Individual citizens’ resilience to disasters caused by floods: a case study of Belgrade. Acad. Perspect. Procedia 2021, 4, 9–20. [CrossRef]
29. Cvetković, V.M.; Ronan, K.; Shaw, R.; Filipović, M.; Mano, R.; Gačić, J.; Jakovljević, V. Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities. Acta Geogr. Slov. 2019, 59, 27–42. [CrossRef]
30. Cvetković, V.M.; Nikolić, N.; Nenadić, U.R.; Öcal, A.; Noji, E.K.; Zečević, M. Preparedness and Preventive Behaviors for a Pandemic Disaster Caused by COVID-19 in Serbia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2020, 17, 4124. [CrossRef]
31. Cvetković, V., Öcal, A., & Ivanov, A. Young adults’ fear of disasters: A case study of residents from Turkey, Serbia and Macedonia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2019, 101095.
32. Cvetković, V.M.; Romanić, S.; Beriša, H. Religion Influence on Disaster Risk Reduction: A Case Study of Serbia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Manag. 2023, 5, 67–81. [CrossRef]
33. Cvetković, V.M., Tanasić, J.; Ocal, A., Živković-Šulović, M., Ćurić, N., Milojević, S., Knežević, S. The Assessment of Public Health Capacities at Local Self-Governments in Serbia. Lex localis – Journal of Local Self Government 2023, 21, 1201-1234.
34. Cvetković, V.M.; Dragašević, A.; Protić, D.; Janković, B.; Nikolić, N.; Milošević, P. Fire safety behavior model for residential buildings: Implications for disaster risk reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 76. [CrossRef]
35. Cvetković, V.M.; Tanasić, J.; Ocal, A.; Kešetović,.; Nikolić, N.; Dragašević, A. Capacity Development of Local Self-Governments for Disaster Risk Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2021, 18, 10406. [CrossRef]
36. Cvetković, V.M.; Stanisic, J. Relationship between demographic and environmental factors and knowledge of secondary school students on natural disasters. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijic, SASA 2015, 65, 323–340. [CrossRef]
37. Cvetković, V. Research Methodology of Disasters and Risks: Theories, Concepts, and Methods ( Metodologija istraživanja katastrofa i rizika: teorije, koncepti i metode). Beograd: Zadužbina Andrejević. 2017.
38. Davidson, D. J., & Freidenburg, W. R. Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 28 1996, 302-339.
39. Deria, A.; Ghannad, P.; Lee, Y.-C. Evaluating implications of flood vulnerability factors with respect to income levels for building long-term disaster resilience of low-income communities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 48, 101608. [CrossRef]
40. Dovers, S. R., & Handmer, J. W. Uncertainty, sustainability and change. Global environmental change 1992, 2, 262-276.
41. Drabek, T. E. Social processes in disaster: Family evacuation. Social problems 1969, 16, 336-349.
42. Drzewiecki, D.M.; Wavering, H.M.; Milbrath, G.R.; Freeman, V.L.; Lin, J.Y. The association between educational attainment and resilience to natural hazard-induced disasters in the West Indies: St. Kitts & Nevis. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 47. [CrossRef]
43. Durkin, M., Aroni, S., & Coulson, A. Injuries in the Coalinga earthquake. The Coalinga earthquake of May 1983, 2.
44. Feng, S.; Hossain, L.; Paton, D. Harnessing informal education for community resilience. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2018, 27, 43–59. [CrossRef]
45. Foster, C.E.; Horwitz, A.; Thomas, A.; Opperman, K.; Gipson, P.; Burnside, A.; Stone, D.M.; King, C.A. Connectedness to family, school, peers, and community in socially vulnerable adolescents. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2017, 81, 321–331. [CrossRef]
46. Foster, K. A. A case study approach to understanding regional resilience. UC Berkeley, IURD Working Paper Series. 2007.
47. Fuchs, S., & Thaler, T. Vulnerability and resilience to natural hazard; Cambridge University Press: 2018.
48. Goyal, N. Disaster Governance and Community Resilience: The Law and the Role of SDMAs. Int. J. Disaster Risk Manag. 2019, 1, 61–75. [CrossRef]
49. Hamiel, D., Wolmer, L., Spirman, S., & Laor, N. (2013). Comprehensive child-oriented preventive resilience program in Israel based on lessons learned from communities exposed to war, terrorism and disaster. In Child & Youth Care Forum (Vol. 42, pp. 261-274). Springer US. [CrossRef]
50. Hochrainer-Stigler, S.; Velev, S.; Laurien, F.; Campbell, K.; Czajkowski, J.; Keating, A.; Mechler, R. Differences in the dynamics of community disaster resilience across the globe. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1–12. [CrossRef]
51. Hoffmann, R., & Muttarak, R. Learn from the past, prepare for the future: Impacts of education and experience on disaster preparedness in the Philippines and Thailand. World Development 2017, 96, 32-51.
52. Holling, C.S. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23, doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.
53. Huerta, F.; Horton, R. Coping Behavior of Elderly Flood Victims. Gerontol. 1978, 18, 541–546. [CrossRef]
54. Hung, L.-S. Married couples’ decision-making about household natural hazard preparedness: a case study of hurricane hazards in Sarasota County, Florida. Nat. Hazards 2017, 87, 1057–1081. [CrossRef]
55. Ikeda, K. Gender Differences in Human Loss and Vulnerability in Natural Disasters: A Case Study from Bangladesh. Indian J. Gend. Stud. 1995, 2, 171–193. [CrossRef]
56. Inal, E.; Altıntaş, K.H.; Doğan, N. General disaster preparedness beliefs and related sociodemographic characteristics: The example of Yalova University, Turkey. 2019, 17, 1–15. [CrossRef]
57. Jaiye, D. J., & Benjamine, O. Building resilience through local and international partnerships, Nigeria experiences. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 2021, 3, 11-24.
58. Johnson, R., Johnston, M., & Peters, E. At a competitive disadvantage? The fate of the elderly in collective flight. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North Central Sociological Association, Akron, OH, 1989.
59. Jones, L., & Samman, E. Measuring subjective household resilience: insights from Tanzania; Overseas Development Institute (ODI): London, UK, 2016.
60. Kabir, M. H., Hossain, T., & Haque, M. W. Resilience to natural disasters: A case study on the southwestern region of coastal Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 2022, 4, 91-105.
61. Kennedy, S.; Linnenluecke, M.K. Circular economy and resilience: A research agenda. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2022, 31, 2754–2765. [CrossRef]
62. Khan, M.T.I.; Anwar, S.; Sarkodie, S.A.; Yaseen, M.R.; Nadeem, A.M.; Ali, Q. Comprehensive disaster resilience index: Pathway towards risk-informed sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 366. [CrossRef]
63. Kim, Y., & Lee, E. Factors influencing preparedness for bioterrorism among Koreans. International journal of environmental research and public health 2021, 18, 5401.
64. Kroll, L. E., & Lampert, T. Unemployment, social support and health problems: results of the GEDA study in Germany 2011, 2009. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 108, 47.
65. Kumar, J., & Kumar, V. Drivers of brand community engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2020, 54, 101949.
66. Kusumastuti, R.D.; Arviansyah, A.; Nurmala, N.; Wibowo, S.S. Knowledge management and natural disaster preparedness: A systematic literature review and a case study of East Lombok, Indonesia. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 58, 102223. [CrossRef]
67. Leykin, D., Lahad, M., Cohen, O., Goldberg, A., & Aharonson-Daniel, L. Conjoint community resiliency assessment measure-28/10 items (CCRAM28 and CCRAM10): A self-report tool for assessing community resilience. American journal of community psychology 2013, 52, 313-323.
68. Li, W. Family background, financial constraints and higher education attendance in China. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2007, 26, 724–734. [CrossRef]
69. Liddell, J.; Ferreira, R.J. Predictors of Individual Resilience Characteristics Among Individuals Ages 65 and Older in Post-Disaster Settings. Disaster Med. Public Heal. Prep. 2018, 13, 256–264. [CrossRef]
70. Lim, C.; Sander, T. Does misery love company? Civic engagement in economic hard times. Soc. Sci. Res. 2013, 42, 14–30. [CrossRef]
71. Logan, J. R. The impact of Katrina: Race and class in storm-damaged neighbourhoods. New York public library system. 2006.
72. Ma, Z.; Zhou, W.; Deng, X.; Xu, D. Community Disaster Resilience and Risk Perception in Earthquake-Stricken Areas of China. Disaster Med. Public Heal. Prep. 2022, 17, 1–11. [CrossRef]
73. Maguire, B.; Hagan, P. Disasters and communities: Understanding social resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management 2007, 22, 16-20.
74. Mano-Negrin, R.; Sheaffer, Z. Are women “cooler” than men during crises? Exploring gender differences in perceiving organisational crisis preparedness proneness. Women Manag. Rev. 2004, 19, 109–122. [CrossRef]
75. Marović, M.; Djoković, I.; Pešić, L.; Radovanović, S.; Toljić, M.; Gerzina, N. Neotectonics and seismicity of the southern margin of the Pannonian basin in Serbia. Stephan Mueller Spec. Publ. Ser. 2002, 3, 277–295. [CrossRef]
76. Mayunga, J. S. Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: a capital-based approach. Summer academy for social vulnerability and resilience building 2007, 1, 1-16.
77. McCubbin, L. Challenges to the Definition of Resilience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (109th, San Francisco, CA, August 24-28, 2001).
78. Mehta, M. Gender matters: Lessons for disaster risk reduction in South Asia. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). 2007.
79. Melick, M.E.; Logue, J.N. The Effect of Disaster on the Health and Well-Being of Older Women. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 1986, 21, 27–38. [CrossRef]
80. Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States: Joseph Henry Press.
81. Mulilis, J.P. Gender and Earthquake Preparedness: A Research Study of Gender Issues in Disaster Management: Differences in Earthquake Preparedness Due to Traditional Stereotyping or Cognitive Appraisal of Threat? Australian Journal of Emergency Management 1999, 14.
82. Murphy, R. (1994). Rationality and Nature: A Sociological Inquiry into a Changing Relationship. New York: Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
83. Murrell, S.A.; Norris, F.H. Resources, life events, and changes in positive affect and depression in older adults. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1984, 12, 445–464. [CrossRef]
84. Myers, M. ‘Women and children first’ Introducing a gender strategy into disaster preparedness. Gender & Development 1994, 2, 14-16.
85. Najafi, M., Ardalan, A., Akbarisari, A., Noorbala, A. A., & Jabbari, H. Demographic determinants of disaster preparedness behaviours amongst Tehran inhabitants, Iran. PLoS Currents 2015, 7.
86. Nifa, F. A. A., Abbas, S. R., Lin, C. K., & Othman, S. N. (2017). Developing a disaster education program for community safety and resilience: The preliminary phase.
87. Norris, F. H. Epidemiology of trauma: frequency and impact of different potentially traumatic events on different demographic groups. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 1992, 60, 409.
88. Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American journal of community psychology 2008, 41, 127-150.
89. Öcal, A.; Cvetković, V.M.; Baytiyeh, H.; Tedim, F.M.S.; Zečević, M. Public reactions to the disaster COVID-19: a comparative study in Italy, Lebanon, Portugal, and Serbia. Geomatics, Nat. Hazards Risk 2020, 11, 1864–1885. [CrossRef]
90. Ostadtaghizadeh, A.; Ardalan, A.; Paton, D.; Jabbari, H.; Khankeh, H.R. Community Disaster Resilience: a Systematic Review on Assessment Models and Tools. PLoS Curr. 2015, 7. [CrossRef]
91. Palm, R. (1995). Communicating to a diverse population. Paper presented at the National Science and Technology Conference on Risk Assessment and Decision Making for Natural Hazards, Wash. C.
92. Parker, D. J. (2020). Disaster resilience–a challenged science. In (Vol. 19, pp. 1-9): Taylor & Francis.
93. Pereira, M.; Oliveira, A.M. Poverty and food insecurity may increase as the threat of COVID-19 spreads. PhotoniX 2020, 23, 3236–3240. [CrossRef]
94. Perrings, C. Resilience in the Dynamics of Economy-Environment Systems. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 11, 503–520. [CrossRef]
95. Pfefferbaum, R.L.; Pfefferbaum, B.; Zhao, Y.D.; Van Horn, R.L.; McCarter, G.S..; Leonard, M.B. Assessing community resilience: A CART survey application in an impoverished urban community. Disaster Heal. 2016, 3, 45–56. [CrossRef]
96. Qasim, S., Qasim, M., Shrestha, R. P., Khan, A. N., Tun, K., & Ashraf, M. Community resilience to flood hazards in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2016, 18, 100-106.
97. Renschler, C. S., Frazier, A. E., Arendt, L. A., Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., & Bruneau, M. (2010). A framework for defining and measuring resilience at the community scale: The PEOPLES resilience framework: MCEER Buffalo.
98. Riad, J.K.; Norris, F.H.; Ruback, R.B. Predicting Evacuation in Two Major Disasters: Risk Perception, Social Influence, and Access to Resources¹. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29, 918–934. [CrossRef]
99. Rodríguez, H., Kennedy, P., Quarantelli, E. L., Ressler, E., & Dynes, R. (2009). Handbook of disaster research: Springer Science & Business Media.
100. Ross, C.E. Reconceptualizing Marital Status as a Continuum of Social Attachment. J. Marriage Fam. 1995, 57, 129. [CrossRef]
101. Rüstemli, A., & Karanci, A. N. Correlates of earthquake cognitions and preparedness behaviour in a victimized population. The Journal of Social Psychology 1999, 139, 91-101.
102. Saja, A.A.; Teo, M.; Goonetilleke, A.; Ziyath, A.M. An inclusive and adaptive framework for measuring social resilience to disasters. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 28, 862–873. [CrossRef]
103. Sakurai, A.; Sato, T. Promoting Education for Disaster Resilience and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. J. Disaster Res. 2016, 11, 402–412. [CrossRef]
104. Sattler, D.N.; Kaiser, C.F.; Hittner, J.B. Disaster Preparedness: Relationships Among Prior Experience, Personal Characteristics, and Distress¹. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 30, 1396–1420. [CrossRef]
105. Scheid, T.L. An Investigation of Work and Unemployment among Psychiatric Clients. Int. J. Heal. Serv. 1993, 23, 763–782. [CrossRef]
106. Sheikhi, R.A.; Seyedin, H.; Qanizadeh, G.; Jahangiri, K. Role of Religious Institutions in Disaster Risk Management: A Systematic Review. Disaster Med. Public Heal. Prep. 2020, 15, 239–254. [CrossRef]
107. Solomon, S. D., Bravo, M., Rubio-Stipec, M., & Canino, G. Effect of family role on response to disaster. Journal of Traumatic Stress 1993, 6, 255-269.
108. Szalay, L. B., Inn, A., Vilov, S. K., & Strohl, J. B. (1996). Regional and Demographic Variations in Public Perceptions Related to Emergency Preparedness. Bethesda. Md.: Institute for Comparative Social and Cultural Studies Inc.
109. Tariq, H.; Pathirage, C.; Fernando, T. Measuring community disaster resilience at local levels: An adaptable resilience framework. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021, 62, 102358. [CrossRef]
110. Timalsina, R.; Songwathana, P. Factors enhancing resilience among older adults experiencing disaster: A systematic review. Australas. Emerg. Care 2020, 23, 11–22. [CrossRef]
111. Tobin, G. A. Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazard planning? Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 1999, 1, 13-25.
112. Tohan, M.M.; Kabir, A.; Hoque, Z.; Roy, T. Demographic predictors of disaster preparedness behaviour: Sylhet and Sunamganj, Bangladesh. Environ. Hazards 2023, 1–19. [CrossRef]
113. Tomio, J.; Sato, H.; Matsuda, Y.; Koga, T.; Mizumura, H. Household and Community Disaster Preparedness in Japanese Provincial City: A Population-Based Household Survey. Adv. Anthr. 2014, 04, 68–77. [CrossRef]
114. Turner, R. H., Nigg, J. M., & Young, B. S. (1981). Community response to earthquake threat in southern California. Los Angeles: Institute for Social Science Research. University of California.
115. Ur Rahman, I., Jian, D., Junrong, L., & Shafi, M. Socio-economic status, resilience, and vulnerability of households under COVID-19: Case of village-level data in Sichuan province. PloS one 2021, 16, e0249270.
116. Van Breda, A. D. (2001). Resilience theory: A literature review. Pretoria, South Africa: South African Military Health Service.
117. van Rijsbergen, N.; Jaworska, K.; Rousselet, G.A.; Schyns, P.G. With Age Comes Representational Wisdom in Social Signals. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24, 2792–2796. [CrossRef]
118. Wagnild, G. (2003). Resilience and successful ageing: Comparison among low and high income older adults. In (Vol. 29, pp. 42-49): SLACK Incorporated Thorofare, NJ. [CrossRef]
119. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and society 2004, 9.
120. Wanberg, C.R. The Individual Experience of Unemployment. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 369–396. [CrossRef]
121. Wirtz, P. W., & Rohrbeck, C. A. The dynamic role of perceived threat and self-efficacy in motivating terrorism preparedness behaviours. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2018, 27, 366-372.
122. Zhang, N.; Huang, H. Resilience Analysis of Countries under Disasters Based on Multisource Data. Risk Anal. 2017, 38, 31–42. [CrossRef]
123. Zhou, H.; Wang, J.; Wan, J.; Jia, H. Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic perspective. Nat. Hazards 2009, 53, 21–41. [CrossRef]