Disaster Risk Management: Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management

By Vladimir Cvetković

The textbook is intended for students of basic and master academic studies, as well as to a wider professional audience (members of the emergency services, etc.), who are increasingly faced with the need for a more thorough understanding of the problem of a multidisciplinary approach in the identification process, disaster risk analysis and treatment. The content of the textbook is in line with the curriculum of the subject “Disaster Risk Management”, which is taught in the third year of basic academic studies of the Faculty of Security. In the writing of the textbooks, great attention was paid to meeting high standards in terms of scientific and professional and pedagogical and didactic requirements, and extensive scientific and professional material of all relevant foreign and domestic authors was used. Besides, the author used a fair treasure trove of his scholarly and professional papers, which have been scientifically verified by numerous international and national reviewers. Also, the author incorporated most of his research findings in the country and abroad into the text of the textbook to enrich it with scientifically verified facts. Also, invaluable experience in working with students has helped to release the textbook from the additional scientific reflection that would make it difficult to acquire basic knowledge in the field of disaster risk management. The first edition of the textbook also has its limitations, which are reflected in the insufficient theoretical development of the scientific discipline, which is relatively young and should contribute to creating additional conditions for the construction of the theory. I would like to emphasize that the textbook represents the first such publication published in the Serbian language in our region, which will greatly improve the knowledge and professional competencies of the general professional public.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BadPress
• Release date: Apr 25, 2024
• ISBN: 9781667473376

Book preview

PREFACE

––––––––

The hazards that cause disasters will be even more complex and serious in the future. People must not be passive, but must actively engage in proactive mitigation, i.e., eliminating the

consequences of future disasters.

Vladimir M. Cvetkovic

––––––––

After ten years of doing research in the field of disaster studies at the Criminalistics and Police University and at the Faculty of Security of the University of Belgrade, the scientific and pedagogical conditions were met to write a textbook that represents a synthesis of all the different segments of theoretical achievements in the field of modern disaster risk management. It is a relatively young scientific discipline in this region and the first part in which all the measures and activities that modern disaster risk managers must undertake in different phases (mitigation, preparation, response and recovery) of modern disaster management are systematically and comprehensively elaborated, in order to prevent or reduce the negative consequences of increasingly frequent natural and technical-technological hazards.

The textbook is intended for students of basic and master's academic studies at the Faculty of Security at the University of Belgrade and at the Criminalistics and Police University, but also for a wider, professional readership (members of emergency and rescue services, etc.) who are increasingly realizing the necessity of a more detailed understanding of a multidisciplinary approach to identification, analysis and disaster risk management. The content of the textbook is aligned with the curriculum of the subject Risk Management in Emergency Situations, which is studied in the third year of basic academic studies at the Faculty of Security. When writing the textbook, particular care was taken to meet the standards related to scientific-professional and pedagogical-didactic requirements, which is why the extensive scientific-professional material of all relevant foreign and domestic authors was used. In addition, in writing the textbook, the author used a veritable trove of his scientific and professional works, which were scientifically verified by numerous international and domestic reviewers. In addition, most of the results of the research that I conducted in the country and abroad were incorporated into the textbook with the aim of enriching it with scientifically verified facts. Invaluable experience in working with students made it possible to free the text from additional scientific thinking that would make it difficult to acquire basic knowledge in the field of disaster risk management.

The first edition of the textbook also has certain limitations as a consequence of the insufficient theoretical development of the scientific discipline and has yet to contribute to the creation of the conditions for theory building. I would especially emphasize that the textbook represents the first such reading published in the Serbian language in our region. This publication will significantly improve the knowledge and professional competences of the wider professional public. The textbook was created under the great influence of prof. Dr. Vladimir Jakovljević, Head of the Department of Emergency Situations Management and Environmental Security Studies at the Faculty of Security, University of Belgrade, as well as prof. Dr. Dragan Mlađan and Prof. Dr. Boban Milojković from the Criminalistics and Police University, who selflessly and enthusiastically introduced me to the world of research in the field of disaster studies.

I especially thank the reviewers Prof. Dr. Vladimir Jakovljević, prof. Dr. Slavoljub Dragićević, prof. Dr. Boban Milojković and Prof. Dr. Dragan Mlađan, as well as editors prof. Dr. Želimir Kešetović and Prof. Dr. Srđan Milašinović, who greatly contributed to the modernity and improvement of the structure and content of the textbook. I would also like to thank the other professors and scientific researchers who, with their scientific works, directly or indirectly contributed to the development of disaster risk management as an important scientific discipline, and above all Prof. Dr. Stanimir Kostadinov, prof. Dr. Jasmini Gačić, prof. Dr. Slobodan Miladinović, prof. Dr. Aleksandra Ljuština, prof. Dr. Dejan Bošković and Assoc. Dr. Ivan Novković. Of course,  I am also grateful to the members of the Scientific-Professional Society for Risk Management in Emergency Situations, as well as to my students, future disaster risk managers, for their invaluable support. They awakened the best and strongest in me with their professional polemics, suggestions and ideas and encouraged me to find the strength, patience and energy to write my first textbook. Finally, I sincerely thank my family and friends for the understanding, love and support they gave me every day during my writing.

Belgrade, 2020.  Author

​Prof. dr Vladimir M. Cvetković

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Security Studies

Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management

CHAPTER  I − METHODOLOGICAL BASIS

Chapter Summary

The first chapter of the textbook presents the conceptual foundations and characteristics of disaster risk management as a teaching and scientific discipline. The roots of the origin and the conditions of development of this relatively young scientific discipline in our region, which was actualized and stemmed from civil protection, are explained. Special attention is paid to describing the subject of the scientific discipline and its demarcation from other, related disciplines.

At the same time, the areas of scientific knowledge that are important for the management of disaster risks are described in particular: the etiology of endangering people's safety by the risks of disasters caused by natural or anthropogenic factors; methodological issues in the field of disasters; phenomenology of disasters and hazards; vulnerability and resilience to disasters; integrated disaster risk management; disaster risk prevention and mitigation; disaster risk preparedness; disaster risk response; disaster recovery; information systems and disaster risk management; international cooperation in disaster risk reduction and disaster risk reduction legal frameworks. After a thorough consideration of the subject of the scientific discipline, an overview of the nature and characteristics of the theoretical evolution of scientific research methods in the field of disasters is given.

It points out certain specificities and key characteristics of the circumstances that contributed to further specialization and improvement of methodological frameworks of numerous and decades-long research. Furthermore, a deeper review of the quantitative and qualitative research tradition in the field of disasters is given here. Guided by the importance of the scientific discipline, the heuristic approach and future research on disasters, which are increasingly current and developed, are elaborated.

The current challenges and opportunities for the development of the scientific discipline are comprehensively reviewed and described. It is especially emphasized that social units have never been protected from various manifestations of natural or technical-technological risks. Bearing in mind that the textbook will be used by students of master's and doctoral academic studies, as well as other interested scientists or researchers, the most important theoretical frameworks of disaster studies have been interpreted through careful selection, in short but sufficient outlines for general familiarization with: theories of preparedness, vulnerability, resilience, complex systems, planned behavior, urgent norms, decision-making, symbolic interactionism, etc. At the end of the chapter, the paradigms that crystallized in disaster research and that represent some of the basic assumptions or rules for understanding the reality of the multidimensional nature of disasters are critically reviewed.

Keywords: risk management; teaching-scientific discipline; evolution of research methods; theoretical frameworks of research; research tradition; the future of disaster research; challenges and opportunities of the scientific discipline; data sources; paradigms.

Objectives of the study

  Understanding disaster risk management as a teaching-scientific discipline.

  Familiarization with the subject of disaster risk management in a broader and narrower sense.

  Comprehensive overview and understanding of disaster research methods.

  Acquiring knowledge about the most important theoretical frameworks for studying disasters: theories of preparedness, vulnerability, resilience, complex systems, planned behavior, emergency norms, decision-making, symbolic interactionism, etc.

  Getting to know the basic paradigms and their development in disaster research - paradigms of engineering, behavior, development and complexity.

  Obtaining information about the theoretical evolution of the scientific discipline and its demarcation from other, related disciplines and concepts.

1. Risk Management in Emergency Situations as a Teaching-Scientific Discipline

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will  advance more in the next ten years than in all the previous centuries

of its history.

Nikola Tesla

––––––––

Risk management in emergency situations is a relatively young teaching-scientific discipline in our region, bearing in mind that it has been actualized and originated from civil protection, which has existed in Serbian academic circles for years. Certain changes in strategic orientations, from reactive to proactive patterns of people's actions and behavior, caused changes in the given area of intellectual research and social practice, which contributed to the design and introduction of educational and scientific content in the field of disaster risk management at the Faculty of Security, University of Belgrade and at the Criminal Police University.

By separating them from civil protection, as a proactive component that deals with reducing the risk of the occurrence of events that condition the taking of civil protection measures, they gradually become independent and are built as autonomous and special scientific disciplines. In parallel with the development of disaster theory, scientific knowledge about all the different phases of integrated disaster risk management, such as mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery from disasters, has been advanced. Today, disaster risk management studies are especially topical, bearing in mind the increasingly frequent disasters that constantly complicate the functioning of social units. Thanks to the comprehensive efforts of scientists and practitioners in this field, a high level of academic and empirical scientific knowledge has been reached, which directly affects disaster risk mitigation. As an independent teaching-scientific discipline, its field of research is continuously improved and expanded thanks to the multidisciplinary approaches of scientists and researchers from different fields.

With the establishment of the Scientific-Expert Society for Risk Management in Emergency Situations (upravlenje-rizicima.com) in 2018, intensive activities were initiated to gather, connect and improve mutual commitment among scientists and practitioners. The aim is to enhance the theoretical and empirical knowledge base in the field of integrated disaster risk management.

2. The Subject of Disaster Risk Management

If  the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.

Albert Einstein

The subject of the scientific discipline of disaster risk management is represented by areas of knowledge related to:

a)  the etiology of threats to people's safety by the risks of disasters caused by natural or anthropogenic factors (natural disasters - lithospheric, hydrospheric, atmospheric, biospheric and extraterrestrial; technical-technological - nuclear and radiological, industrial, transport, infrastructural, caused by dangerous substances, war destruction and terrorist attacks);

b) methodological issues in the field of disaster risk management (theory of disasters, research methods - quantitative and qualitative research tradition in the field of disasters, theoretical frameworks of disaster research - theories of preparedness, vulnerability, resilience, complex systems, planned behavior, emergency norms, decision-making, symbolic interactionism, etc., paradigms in disaster research: engineering, behavior, development and complexity;

c) the phenomenology of disasters and hazards (conceptual definitions and characteristics; nature and characteristics of hazards - physical characteristics: international scales of hazard intensity, frequency and duration; classification of hazards and disasters; direct and indirect consequences of disasters; current issues and issues related to tendencies, myths and other ethical issues in the field of disasters;

d) disaster vulnerability and resilience (conceptual issues and characteristics; different perspectives and dimensions – individual, physical, environmental and economic vulnerability of critical infrastructure); measurement methods and vulnerability indicators; dimensions of resilience - citizens, households and local communities, engineering, institutional and environmental resilience of organizations; global and local disaster resilience indicators; resistance components;

e) integrated disaster risk management (defining risk and uncertainty; sources of disaster risk; types of risk; impact of risk; defining probability; concept, function and objectives of risk management; identifying context, identifying hazards, assessing hazard risk, hazard sorting, risk analysis of individual hazards, grouping and prioritization, process and tools of informing the public about risks; risk assessment methods and models; risk assessment methodology; risk mapping; protection and rescue plans; disaster risk management indicators; risk assessment methodology and public information about risks);

f) disaster risk prevention and mitigation (term definitions; risk mitigation strategies and measures - structural and non-structural risk mitigation; risk mitigation functions - reduction of probability and consequences, avoidance, transfer, acceptance; disaster risk mitigation caused by natural and technical-technological hazards);

g) preparedness for responding to disasters (term definitions; types and characteristics of preparedness - individual, preparedness of households, local communities and the state; education and training - education in schools and family; factors influencing preparedness; concrete measures of preparedness for natural and technical-technological disasters; disaster planning in the conditions of disaster; disaster equipment and supplies);

h) esponding to disaster risks (planning and measures of responding to risks; organization and responsibilities of intervention and rescue services; specifics and characteristics of responding to disasters; volunteering in disaster conditions; international standards when responding; media and disaster reporting;

i) disaster recovery (concept and stages of disaster recovery - relief, renovation and reconstruction; restoration, rehabilitation and redevelopment; dimensions and challenges of disaster recovery - environmental recovery, socio-psychological recovery, restoration of services, recovery of critical infrastructure; recovery planning from disaster - short-term, long-term and principles; complexities of recovery and donations; waste management; post-disaster challenges and prospects; recovery models);

j) information systems and disaster risk management (disaster risk databases - international and national databases; Copernicus risk management service; advanced fire information system; satellite remote reading; smart disaster response system; Global Fire Monitoring Center Monitoring Center – GFMC); geographic information systems and risk reduction, etc.;

k)  international cooperation in the field of disaster risk reduction (institutional and legal bases of international cooperation; international and regional organizations that are important for risk reduction; international cooperation in practice) and

l) ) legal frameworks for disaster risk reduction (international legal frameworks for risk reduction - the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in the period 2015-2030, the Hyogo Framework for Action, the International Strategy for Risk Reduction, the Initiative for Prevention and Preparedness for disasters and the Geneva Conventions; national legal framework).

3. Disaster Research Methods

There are no worse people than those who oppose the enlightenment and education of the people. If they could, they would put even the sun out.

Dositej Obradović

More serious systematic studies of disasters and the possibilities of managing their consequences started approximately half a century ago. It is not surprising if one takes into account that the social sciences as a whole date back to about a hundred years ago. The history of disaster research, from the beginning to the present, has been elaborated to the smallest detail, as evidenced by numerous works (Fritz, 1961: 13; Kreps, 1984; Quarantelli, 1988, 1999; Schorr, 1987; Wright & Rossi, 1981). There have always been organized attempts for human societies to resist the negative impacts of natural disasters (Alexander, 2000; Brown, 1979; Chapman, 1999b; Coppola, 2006; Edward, 2005; Lindell, Tierney, & Perry, 2001; Mileti, 1999; Paul, 2011; Perry, 2007; Simonović, 2011). The first article on disasters, published in the prestigious Annual Review of Sociology, written by Quarantelli & Dynes (1977: 2), provided a useful programmatic overview of sociological research conducted after World War II and specifically noted the growing involvement social researchers after 1970.

One of the basic features of disaster research is interdisciplinarity, which requires the use of methods from different scientific disciplines. Exactly  for this reason,  in the literature dealing with disasters there is an increasing number of  theories, relevant to the realization of research in the mentioned area (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 1998; Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992; Oetting, Jumper-Thurman, Plested, & Edwards, 2001; Rogers, 1975; Cvetkovic, 2017a). Starting from the multidisciplinarity of disaster research, researchers can use different theories from psychology, organizational sciences, economics, etc. (Cvetković, Filipović, & Gačić, 2018: 545).

In considering hazards, researchers often resort to historical analyses, while in post-disaster research five phases are distinguished (Challenges & Opportunities, 2006): 1) early reconnaissance (up to several weeks); 2) response and early recovery (several months); 3) short-term recovery (up to two years); 4) long-term recovery and reconstruction (two to ten years) and 5) returning to the disaster area to document the long-term consequences (five to ten years).

Despite the basic methodological problems accompanying the study of disasters (Drabek, 1970), the most rigorous techniques and designs available within the social sciences were used. At the same time, alternative forms of association were identified, which relate to different areas of social action before, during and after the disaster. Elaborate demographic models of the impact and their long-term consequences were produced.

Sophisticated decision-making models have been developed, that show how people respond to immediate and long-term disaster hazards. The concept of social action was reworked by recording its social patterns. In all cases, fact and conjecture were separated by a more precise description of events, impacts, social units and responses.

In this way, disaster researchers offered numerous suggestions to risk managers on how to deal with the symptoms, if not with the social causes of disasters too (Cvetković et al., 2018: 545; Dynes & Aguirre, 1979). In the beginning, the study of disasters was in the domain of sociology. Today it attracts researchers across the social and natural sciences, and is formally defined (for example, by the National Science Foundation) as a multidisciplinary and applied field. Moreover, the idea that research should, at some point, meet the practical needs of risk managers, has been strongly emphasized over the last 10–15 years (Kreps, 1984).

The first empirical research on disasters was conducted on the occasion of the collision of two ships near the port of Halifax in Canada in 1917 (Cvetković, 2017a: 63). The explosion that erupted then awakened the interest of social sciences in disasters and hazards and their connection with risks. The freighter was loaded with ammunition which, after exploding, completely destroyed approximately two square kilometers of the northern part of Halifax. More than 2,000 people were killed by the explosion or disappeared in the tsunami that followed, flooding the First Nation community in the cove located upstream. There were thousands of injured. That unique event inspired a doctoral student in sociology, Samuel Prince, to write a dissertation on the collective behavior of a community in response to disasters (Prince, 1925).

3.1. Review of Research Traditions in the Field of Disaster Studies

In discussions about global problems (security challenges and threats), new, global issues (problems) that influence the expansion of the security research focus are increasingly important. According to the opinion of some scientists, hazards, such as earthquakes, collective violence, floods, volcanic eruptions and cyclones are considered today as triggers of a possible global threat to security. The same point of view is represented by official Russian policy, according to which, global problems and threats to security are demographic problems, which arise due to overpopulation, migration and aging of the population; environmental, conditioned by numerous factors, including global climate change; problems of war and peace; problems of natural and technical-technological disasters; energy problems and the problem of possible exhaustion of natural, non-renewable resources; social problems such as poverty, unemployment, lack of food or hunger, organized crime, religious intolerance, inter-ethnic conflicts, terrorism, information security, the emergence of new diseases, health care, genetic safety, drug addiction, education, spiritual and natural degradation (Hyndman & Hyndman, 2010). 

At the beginning of the eighties of the XX century, the first voices calling for the expansion of the concept of security to environmental problems could be heard in academic security studies (Ullman, 1983). Two particular disasters from the eighties of the XX century - the industrial disaster in Bhopal, in India in 1984 and the nuclear disaster in the USSR in 1986 - specially influenced the additional securitization of environmental issues. After the end of the Cold War and with the cessation of competition between the superpowers, the intensity of military securitization began to decline, while the intensity of environmental securitization began to increase. 

International conferences on environmental protection held under the auspices of the United Nations in Rio in 1992, Johannesburg in 2002 and Copenhagen in 2009 testify to this. Precisely because of the importance that the environment has gained in the security discourse and in practice, more and more people are talking about the environmental sector of security. Nevertheless, even in modern security studies, disasters are recognized as a serious threat to the national security of countries around the world. The specifics of natural disasters require a comprehensive reorganization of the national security system, where special emphasis will be placed on this type of security threat.

3.1.1. Quantitative Research Tradition

Disaster studies abound in scientific research works that can be classified in the quantitative research tradition, in accordance with their nature, methodological framework and characteristics. All research that is designed and implemented in the field of disaster studies and that is based on the theory of probability is called quantitative research. A key feature of such research is pre-defined and established hypotheses (for example, the evacuation of citizens during disasters caused by fires depends on the physiological and psychological predispositions of people), which are later statistically tested in order to clearly identify cause-effect relationships.

They are very valuable for the development of disaster studies, as they contain a rich trove of data on individuals, households and local communities in disasters (Cvetković, 2017c; Given, 2008).  Conducting quantitative research in the field of disasters also has certain specificities: difficult conditions for the work of researchers in the field in the periods before, during and after disasters, when it is the best time to collect an abundance of data; the researchers' confusion and lack of time to quickly go out into the field and carry out the research; low interest rate of respondents to participate in the research, etc.

Conceptually, all quantitative research in the field of disaster studies to date can be grouped according to their subject of interest:

a) preparedness for responding to various natural and technical-technological risks from disasters - of individuals, households, local and regional communities, the state, the level of their education and training, etc.;

b) resilience to the consequences of disasters - dimensions, indicators, indices, etc.;

c) vulnerability to disasters - different perspectives, dimensions, methods and indicators;

d) prevention and mitigation of disaster risks - strategies and measures, functions, mitigation of particular natural and technical-technological risks;

e) response (reaction) to disaster risks - planning and response measures, organization and competencies, specifics of response; volunteering etc.;

f) recovery from disasters - stages, challenges, planning, models - short-term and long-term, waste management, etc.;

g) information systems and disaster risk management - databases, information systems, etc.;

h) international cooperation in the field of disasters and

i) institutional-legal framework for disaster risk reduction.

All mentioned research dimensions are realized at different levels (individual, household, community and state level). The continuous implementation of research in the field of disaster risk management is essential to enhance both theoretical and empirical fund of scientific knowledge and create conditions for the development of disaster theory.

3.1.2. Qualitative Research Tradition

Qualitative research in the field of disaster studies is very important because it contributes to the improvement of the theoretical knowledge base on various aspects of disaster risk management. Within that tradition, interdisciplinary approaches conditioned by the methodological and theoretical assumptions on which they are based are used more. In order to collect data, three basic techniques are used: a) observation; b) interview (conversation) and c) various analyses of written documents (Cvetković, 2017c; Schram, 2003).

The above-mentioned researches are carried out in order to take a broader view of the research problem and the way in which certain people notice and experience certain phenomena, processes and situations in disasters. The methodological frameworks of such research are poorly structured, but they are more intensive than the survey questionnaire, and they are characterized by a longer relationship with the respondents, which contributes to the collection of more comprehensive data.

All research in the field of disaster studies, that belong to the qualitative research tradition, is based on the following principles: strengthening the subjective relationship in research (as the subject of qualitative research is always people, that is, persons, so they are both the starting point and the goal of research); emphasis on clear and comprehensive descriptions and interpretations in research results (always starting from the study of an individual case, in order to formulate hypotheses and general theories about the studied problem); advocacy of the principle of openness in research (the researcher possesses and develops sensitivity for unexpected and side effects); emphasizing the naturalistic interpretative approach to the research subjects (qualitative research is conducted in the family, the social group to which the subjects belong, the organization where they work or in the local community where they live), and the analysis of the entire research process (the generalization of the research results does not come after the final analysis, but rather established by induction based on an individual case) (Cvetković, 2017c; Halmi, 2005). When conducting qualitative research, one should keep in mind their invaluable importance for a more comprehensive overview and understanding of the considered issues in the field of disaster studies. It is recommended to conduct qualitative research after quantitative research, in order to better interpret and understand the obtained results.

3.2. Heuristic Approach and Prospects for Disaster Risk

Management Research

The characteristics of disaster events make it difficult to carry out detailed research. All this influences researchers to use heuristic methods, i.e., methods based on experience that can speed up the identification and selection of appropriate solutions for identified problems. It is very difficult to predict when, where and what kind of disaster will occur, so that researchers can prepare for the realization of comprehensive and detailed research.

Future research in the field of disaster risk management should refer to: studying the connection of people in the community with the risks of the occurrence of various hazards; research on different types of hazards; examining the perceptions of the population living in the risk area; examining the level of assumed responsibility of the population, as well as the responsibility assumed by the state; assessment of the degree to which the specifics of the event affect the physical and social characteristics of disasters and, therefore, mitigation of hazards and strengthening of preparedness for disaster response and recovery; identifying better intervention mechanisms according to vulnerability; identifying factors that promote the adoption of effective hazard mitigation measures at the community level; research that evaluates the effectiveness of hazard mitigation programs, in order to identify factors that promote the adaptation of effective emergency preparedness measures; research to assess the extent to which disaster research findings are incorporated into local operational plans, procedures and training for emergency situations; identifying factors that promote strengthening preparedness for disaster recovery, in order to design better models for decision-making about protection in disaster conditions; research on disaster response training and exercise, in order to develop better models of adaptation of social organizations to hazards; the continuing need for further research in the field of hazard insurance, etc.

​There are numerous needs for further research in the areas of disaster risk mitigation at the household level, which include the following: a) comprehensive hazard prevention; b) characteristics of perceived dangers; c) characteristics of prevention; d) household characteristics and d) past experiences and social influences (Lindell & Perry, 2000). Board on Disaster Research in the Social Sciences (DRSS) in the United States (Challenges & Opportunities, 2006: 3) gave clear recommendations for the further improvement of disaster studies. Some of these recommendations relate to the development of integrated strategies to improve the capacity of social science researchers to conduct research.

The importance of increasing the number of disaster researchers and utilizing the capacities for conducting the necessary disciplinary, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research into the basic problems related to disasters is pointed out. There are four general factors that greatly encourage researchers to design and implement interdisciplinary research (Challenges & Opportunities, 2006): 1) the inherent complexity of society and nature; 2) the need to research problems that do not belong to only one scientific discipline; 3) the necessity of solving social problems and 4) the social and scientific power of the latest technologies.

––––––––

3.3. Current Challenges and Opportunities for the Development of the Scientific Discipline

Social units have never been protected from various manifestations of natural or technical-technological risks. Nevertheless, the complexity of those risks progressively grew and complicated their already complex nature. Sometimes it is justified to say that people have greatly contributed to the creation of new and more dangerous risks for themselves, their material possessions and their environment. Even in prehistoric times, people did not helplessly await various dangers, but directed all their capacities towards overcoming difficult existential situations.

In the beginning, their reactions were not organized or systematically directed, but rather depended on a combination of various external and internal circumstances typical of the given period. Over time, ideas, knowledge and technical solutions appear that, in an increasingly harsh natural environment, begin to make people's lives easier. Nature has never been kind to humans and their survival. However, today we are witnessing the increasing interdependence of technological development and natural systems, which is why disaster risk management requires the engagement of multidisciplinary teams of researchers, who will be able to clarify the complex phenomenology of their causes and consequences.

In general, the current challenges in the area of disaster risk management could be identified as follows:

- the absence of fully developed and specific research methods, which minimize the difficulties of their implementation in a dangerous environment;

- diversification and inconsistent use of different terms, which contributes to terminological confusion;

- insufficient construction of theoretical frameworks for understanding and explaining different phenomenological dimensions and correlations within disaster risk management studies;

- excessive reliance on the theoretical viewpoints of various scientific disciplines in the field of natural and social sciences without the necessary critical consideration of their importance and relativity within the given field;

- insufficient expertise and lack of competence of scientific research and professional staff for objective risk assessment and management;

- excessive theoretical generalization without carrying out concrete research in which the offered theoretical achievements would be checked;

- hasty and inappropriate adoption of international standards without adapting them to the existing scientific, social, political, economic, societal and cultural environment in the Republic of Serbia;

- commercialization of projects on disaster risk assessment and protection and rescue plans, which leads to irrational spending of budget funds, but also to easy obtaining of licenses for the implementation of such activities, which all together contributes to a decline in quality and standards;

- lack of sufficient critical, scientific mass, which continuously and directly improves the theoretical and empirical fund of knowledge in the field of disaster studies;

- insufficient support from the competent state authorities of the Republic of Serbia in the implementation of national research and training of the population to react in such situations;

- unnecessary and frequent changes to national methodologies for disaster risk assessment and preparation of protection and rescue plans, which results in insufficient legal certainty and the absence of the necessary level of expertise and quality during the preparation itself, etc.

The possibilities for the development of the scientific discipline are directly related to the strengthening of the scientific youth in the field of disaster risk management, which will further accelerate the elucidation of the complex phenomenology of natural and technical-technological risks. In addition to strengthening the scientific staff, it is necessary to invest more in scientific research that will allow to identify all innovative solutions related to the different phases of disaster risk management (mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery).

4. Sources of Data on Disaster Risk Management

Learning is not the product of teaching.

Learning is the product of the activity of learners.

John Holt

––––––––

Data sources on disaster risk management can be broadly classified into two groups: 1) existing data sources and 2) data generated during the implementation of a research. Existing data sources on various aspects of integrated disaster risk management derive from the following:

a) international and national legal regulations in the field of natural and technical-technological disasters, but also from other regulations that indirectly relate to the field of disaster studies, including by-laws, orders, instructions, regulations, etc.;

b) extensive foreign and domestic scientific and professional literature, which deal with multifaceted issues in the field of disaster studies;

c) a wide range of print and electronic media that report on various aspects of disasters, with a special focus on investigative journalism;

d) various institutional data, which refer to: reports on institutional-organizational and material-technical issues, human resources, cooperation and coordination in disaster conditions; statistical reports of competent state bodies that are important in the area of disaster risk reduction (Republic Seismological Institute, Republic Hydrometeorological Institute, Directorate for Radiation and Nuclear Safety and Security of Serbia, Public Water Company Srbijavode, etc.);

e) various international and national disaster databases (EM-Data, Atlas of Global Hazards, etc.);

f) archival material of all relevant organizations in the field of disaster risk management i

g) international and national projects in the field of disaster studies.

The generated data sources derive from a rich treasury of research results conducted within quantitative and qualitative research traditions in different socio-economic and environmental conditions. At the same time, these data refer to different levels of analysis in the field of disaster studies: a) citizens; b) households; c) organizations; g) local communities; d) states, etc.

5. Theoretical Frameworks for Studying Disasters

To ask the proper question is half of knowing.

Roger Bacon

The first article on disasters, written by Quarantelli and Dynes (1977), a review of sociological research, conducted after World War II was presented. The increasing involvement of  social researchers after 1970 was specifically  pointed out. One of the basic characteristics of research in the field of disasters is interdisciplinarity, which implies the use of methods from different scientific disciplines. Thanks to this trend, the literature on disasters increasingly encompasses theories  relevant to conducting research in this field (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 1998; Madden et al., 1992; Oetting et al., 2001; Rogers, 1975; Cvetković, 2017a ). Starting from the multidisciplinarity of disaster studies, researchers can use different theories from psychology, organizational sciences, economics, etc.

In the literature, the term theory means a point of view or a concept, one hypothesis or several hypotheses, or a unique system of laws and hypotheses with explanatory power (Ristić, 1983). As already pointed out in the methodology of scientific research on disasters and risks, the word itself comes from the Greek word theoria, which means consideration.

It can be understood as generalised  knowledge about a phenomenon, that is, as a set of basic scientific concepts that, unlike individual examples from practice, are viewed in general (Cvetković, 2017a). In addition, it is defined as: a part of science that deals with principles and methods, but not with their application; confirmed hypothesis; abstract thinking, assumption (Klajn, Šipka, 2006).  The interdisciplinarity of conducting research requires the application of theoretical frameworks of various scientific disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, geography, etc. Researchers use a variety of theoretical frameworks - theories of rational choice, vulnerability, resilience, planned behavior, symbolic interactionism, preparedness, decision-making, systems, motivational protective theory, etc. Starting from the fact that there are several relevant theoretical frameworks for the realization of research in the field of disasters, it is very important to identify and systematize and then analyze and describe all relevant and existing theoretical frameworks and the possibilities of their application in concrete research in the field of disasters (Cvetković et al., 2018). From the earliest to the most recent research, scholars' attitudes toward the degree to which the responses of social units reflect elementary structuring and restructuring have remained unclear. Therefore, most research points to gaps in disaster prevention and preparedness and states that risk managers need to be more flexible. This means general knowledge about a phenomenon or basic scientific concepts that are viewed in general (Cvetković, 2017a).

All scientific theories that can be used for disaster research can be grouped into several categories. The first category consists of scientific theories related to decision-making, while the second category includes theories related to management (administrative theories).

The third category includes sociological theories. They are very important because the first studies of disasters were carried out by sociologists. Finally, in the fourth category there are economic theories that are important from the aspect of resources necessary for disaster management. It should be noted that the physical characteristics of disasters are not crucially important for the development of a theory. Instead, they should have a certain role, among other things, in the choice of sites by scientists and the development of policy by practitioners. Some scientists also use physical characteristics as parameters in their research, and many citizens and non-scientists think about disasters in phenotypic categories (Cvetković et al., 2018).

There are a large number of theories that researchers use for the purposes of their research, which originate from other scientific disciplines - from psychology, sociology, economics, etc. The paper will present the most important theories to the extent that its scope allows.

5.1. Theory of Readiness

Theory of Readiness (Community Readiness Model) was developed in 1995 by the Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research at the University of Colorado in the USA (Ćitić, Pavlović, 2007, p. 128). It is a theoretical point of view that is used as a framework to explain how the community changes and how it can change in terms of preparedness for prevention. As a model, it was first developed for research purposes for substance abuse prevention planning and was intended for rural communities (Plested, Edwards, & Jumper-Thurman, 2006).  Pentz (Mary Ann Pentz) was the first to use the formulation of community readiness and set the framework for that concept, which implied the following: if the community is not ready, it is unlikely that the prevention program will be initiated, and if the program starts despite the fact that the community is not ready, there is a high probability that his initiation will lead to failure. Like her, the other researchers of the mentioned center came to similar findings based on their own experiences in the realization of two independent research studies.

At the same time, the first study related to the initiation, development and testing of media campaigns that support PAS abuse prevention activities in small communities. Another study involved consultation and training of experts from Mexican-American, American First Nation  and Alaska Territory communities in planning and implementing prevention programs (Plested, Smitham, Jumper-Thurman, Oetting, & Edwards, 1999).  This theoretical model (community readiness) is based on four premises: 1) communities exhibit different levels of readiness to solve specific problems; 2) the level of community readiness can be accurately assessed; 3) communities can progress through a series of stages of developing, implementing, maintaining and improving effective prevention programs and 4) identifying the level of preparedness is key to choosing strategies that will allow the identified level to be improved, which differ from stage to stage. After growing into a generally accepted practical tool for providing assistance to the community in organizing, implementing and maintaining various preventive programs and interventions, the mentioned model began to be successfully used to assess the readiness of the community for the prevention of a whole range of problems (health and social problems, environmental problems and security, etc.) (Edwards, Jumper-Thurman, Plested, Oetting, & Swanson, 2000; Cvetković, 2015a, 2017b)

As scientifically based, the model has been implemented in the official, national platform for prevention planning, created by the Department of Health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the US Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. In general, community readiness includes the awareness, interest, ability and willingness of a particular environment to initiate and support preventive activities related to various social phenomena (CSAP, 2003). At the same time, the success of preventive action on certain social phenomena depends on the alignment of the structure, content and method of application of the program designed with that goal in mind, with the level of community readiness. If there is no compliance, it is more likely that the applied preventive interventions will not be successful. Precisely for this reason, determining the level of preparedness of citizens for responding to a natural disaster caused by a flood, represents the initial link in the chain of prevention of consequences.

There are nine levels or stages of readiness (Oetting et al., 2001; Cvetković, 2015a): a) ignorance (the community does not recognize that the problem exists); b) denial (belief that the problem does not exist or that changes are not possible); c) recognition (awareness of the existence of a problem but without motivation for action); d) pre-planning (recognizing the problem and accepting that something must be done); e) preparation (active planning); f) initiation (implementation of the program); g) institutionalization (continuous implementation of one or two programs); h) confirmation and expansion (recognition of limitations with an effort to improve existing programs) and i) professionalization (sophistication, training and effective evaluation). For each level of community preparedness listed, there is a list of potential strategies for improving preparedness.

Bearing in mind the importance of citizens' readiness to respond to disasters, in some countries, such as the United States of America, national surveys are conducted on citizens' readiness to respond in such situations.The research focus is usually on awareness and attitudes of residents towards disasters, as well as on behaviors that indicate improvement of citizens' preparedness. A model of changing citizens' personal behavior is used to prepare for disasters (Citizen Corps Personal Behavior Change Model for Disaster Preparedness), which describes various factors that can influence the implementation of preparedness activities among citizens. The model itself includes two theoretical models typical of social sciences, which are also applied to risk assessment. It is about the Extended Parallel Process Model and the Stages of Change/Transtheoretical Model, which demonstrate different degrees of readiness of citizens to respond to disasters.

According to the second mentioned model, five levels of readiness of individuals can be distinguished: 1) not thinking (the individual does not intend to change his level of readiness or does not think about such changes in the near future, i.e. in the next six months), 2) thinking (the individual is not ready at the present moment, but intends to undertake certain activities in the next six months ), 3) preparation (the individual considered changing their behavior for the next month), 4) action (the individual recently changed their behavior, but those changes have not yet taken effect) and 5) reflection (the individual has changed their behavior and the changes have taken effect) ​(Citizen preparedness review, 2006; FEMA, 2009b).  The model for changing citizens' personal behavior examines motivational factors and identifies ways to increase readiness precisely in relation to those same motivational factors and perceptions of barriers. According to the conceptual model of changes in the personal behavior of citizens (Citizen corps, 2006:12; Cvetković, 2015), the following individual factors influence the motivation of citizens to increase their readiness to respond: age, gender, ethnicity, language and culture, trust in the state, experience in civil engagement, religiosity, occupation and work environment and subjective norms. The mentioned individual factors affect different threat-effectiveness profiles:  a) is unaware of or dismisses the threat due to low subjective sensitivity, urgency or seriousness - is unreceptive to messages to improve preparedness; b) understands the delicacy and seriousness of the threat, but finds various obstacles to taking preparedness measures - he/she unprepared; c) understands the threat and has high confidence in the effectiveness of the response - he/she is ready. Different forms of social marketing are used to change behaviour, including:

a) risk-based preparedness messages - to educate about the threat and related preparedness measures and expand knowledge about sensitivity to risks, urgency and related preparedness measures, as well as about the seriousness of the risk and related preparedness measures; b) efficiency messages - to expand knowledge about preparedness measures, to increase self-efficacy (belief in one's own abilities to implement measures) and response efficiency (belief in the effectiveness of measures); c) maintaining patterns of behavior and encouraging messages – provide reminders/admonitions regarding preparedness measures.

The results of social marketing include: a) knowledge change - individuals are familiar with the threat of disasters, potential personal impact, urgency and sensitivity to threats of disasters; b) changing attitudes - individuals are personally concerned about the risk of disasters and their potential consequences, so they consider their personal responsibility and the need to react and are aware of the urgency of taking appropriate preparedness measures, and c) changing skills - individuals are able to assess sensitivity, severity and urgency of personal risk etc.

5.2. The Vulnerability Theory

In the 1970s, some researchers (Hewitt, 1983; Cuny, 1983; Wijkman & Timberlake, 1984) began to develop The Vulnerability Theory, which explains the extent to which individual citizens, social groups, organizations, local communities and states are susceptible to losses due to direct or indirect consequences of disasters. The expansion of this theory occurred at the moment when it was realized that the consequences of disasters are becoming more and more numerous despite the fact that their number either continuously decreased or remained at the same or similar level as in previous periods (Anthony Oliver-Smith, 2002; Oliver-Smith & Button, 2005). It was then that the idea of human vulnerability was recognized as a key assumption for reducing the consequences of disasters (Cvetković and Milašinović, 2017).

Researchers in the field of sociology were particularly motivated by Vulnerability Theory for several reasons: first, there are no preventive measures to avoid natural hazards; secondly, vulnerability refers to all dangers and disasters; third, vulnerability implies both positive and negative aspects of social systems; fourth, vulnerability is one of the most frequently investigated variables in many scientific disciplines; fifth, vulnerability is a dynamic and changing category, which should be constantly examined; sixth, different measures can be taken - from mitigation to reconstruction - to reduce the vulnerability of people and their communities (Bonanno & Gupta, 2009; Zakour & Gillespie, 2013).

Vulnerability is a consequence of insufficient security - unsafe locations, unprotected structures and facilities, and insufficient preparedness for disasters. Lower-income households are more vulnerable to the effects of disasters because their members often live in houses or buildings built in unsafe areas. According to The Theory of Vulnerability, several factors influence the vulnerability of individuals from the consequences of disasters (class affiliation, occupation, ethnicity, gender, age, etc.).

In the literature, several directions in theoretical reflections on vulnerability are mentioned. Some studies emphasize people's capacity to protect themselves more than the vulnerability that limits them (more attention is paid to social, economic and political processes that make people vulnerable).

Today, there is an increased interest in quantifying vulnerability as a tool for planning and policy making. Likewise, more and more authors remind us of the cultural, psychosocial and subjective consequences of disasters. The impact of disasters is measured by a whole range of ethical (external) and objectively verified indicators, such as mortality, morbidity, damage to property and physical resources. There is also a departure from simple taxonomies or lists of vulnerable groups when considering the so-called situation of danger. Also, vulnerability refers only to people and not to buildings or economies (Asgary & Halim, 2011; Blaikie, Cannon, Davis, & Wisner, 2014).

Since all theories are based on certain assumptions, the Vulnerability Theory is based on 12 most important assumptions. The first three assumptions relate to vulnerability definition, distribution and dimensionality. The remaining nine assumptions are part of a broader causal framework, which identifies the variables that cause disaster vulnerability. All assumptions are based on theoretical ideas about disasters that can be found in the literature. For example, the first assumption is based on the ideas of political ecology and development ideas (McEntire, 2004).

​Other assumptions (Zakour & Gillespie, 2013) include the following: a) the vulnerability of social systems is reflected in their reduced ability to adapt to certain circumstances in the environment; b) vulnerability is not evenly distributed among people and communities; c) the concept of vulnerability is multidimensional; d) the availability and existence of more resources in the local community reduce its vulnerability and raise the level of resilience; e) vulnerability is a consequence of susceptibility; f) social and demographic characteristics of people are related, but are not the cause of disaster vulnerability; g) an unsafe environment in which people live and work is a social cause of disasters; h) the key causes of disasters are the socio-cultural characteristics of local communities, and i) disasters occur in the interaction between structural pressures that create unsafe environments (Cvetković and Milašinović, 2017, p. 224).

Vulnerability theorists demand a focus on human lives, and especially on high-risk and most vulnerable individuals. In short, the Vulnerability Theory points to the fact that the social distribution of risk is not equal among different groups (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis, & Wisner, 2004; Blaikie et al., 2014), that is, certain groups of people are more exposed to risk than others. The Vulnerability Theory can be used for faster recovery of local communities from the consequences of natural disasters. It directs everyone who is involved in community recovery, to decentralize their activities, involves the community in problem solving and integrates local knowledge to achieve better results. Likewise, it unequivocally indicates the necessity of coexistence with nature. Due to differential vulnerability, disasters are no longer seen as exclusively natural constructs with geophysical phenomena, which serve as exclusive agents of destruction and death (Cvetković and Milašinović, 2017, p. 224). Some authors claim that understanding hazards as natural events is wrong and emphasize the need for a change of vocabulary in order to draw attention to the social dimensions of vulnerability (Kapur, 2010).

5.3. Theory of  Complex Systems

Theory of Systems is based on the assumption that several interacting sectors or systems can produce a disaster – the built environment, the physical environment and the human environment (Mileti, 1999). According to this theory, disasters are the result of system inadequacy. Recovery needs are only generated when hazards in the physical environment cause damage to the built environment, threatening human survival and recovery. Thus, a disaster occurs when the connections between the natural, human and built systems are disrupted. Physical systems include the various dimensions that occur naturally in the environment, including the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. Built systems include buildings, roads, as well as communication, sewage, water, electrical and other networks.

The consequences for human systems depend on many factors. Thus, certain categories of the population are exposed to a greater risk than others. For the population in urban areas, the lack of public transport and procedures for public evacuation can directly affect the consequences (Cvetković et al., 2018; Cvetković, 2017a).

5.4. Theory of Motivation for Protection

The Theory of Motivation for Protection was developed by Rogers (Rogers, 1975) in 1975 as a theoretical framework for understanding the influence of fear. In 1983, a revision of this theory was published, in terms of its expansion by a general explanation of the influence of persuasive information, with an emphasis on cognitive processes that can change behavior (Rogers, 1983). According to this theory, people are motivated to protect themselves from the consequences of disasters when they judge that they are exposed to threats. If they are not aware of the threat, or if this awareness is not at the appropriate level, they will not take measures to protect themselves and their family members. Exposure to threats is conditioned by appraisals derived from theories of stress and coping, but also by appraisals of threats and coping, that lead to responses (Floyd, Prentice‐Dunn, & Rogers, 2000; Lazarus, 2006; Rogers, 1975).

​Undoubtedly, motivation cannot be easily observed, but it can be examined as a behavioral intention (Milne, Sheeran, & Orbell, 2000). In general, the theory assumes a non-linear, parabolic relationship between the level of induced fear and the willingness to take certain actions to protect individuals (Conner & Sparks, 1996; Cvetković et al., 2018; Cvetković, 2017a). In order to examine whether an individual will take certain protective measures, one should first look at and think about his/her personal characteristics, i.e. identify and analyze citizens' beliefs about disasters, experiences related to previous events and consequences, level of education, personality traits and other, adaptive resources.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account environmental factors, among which the most significant are physical signs, socially acceptable behaviors and communication about risk. Without neglecting the importance of the social context, it is necessary to analyze the family context and contacts, community involvement, nationality, age and socioeconomic status. All the mentioned factors influence the decision to take protective measures. In the first phase, the individuals identify the surrounding risks, ie. the individuals think and question whether the threat really exists.

When the existence of a threat is  determined, they approach an analytical assessment of the necessity of protection, i.e. consider whether protection is necessary. Finally, a very important question is raised about the feasibility of protection. If in the answers to the above questions people encounter several obstacles (for example, it is not available on the market, it is expensive, etc.), there is a certain probability that they will give up. Therefore, taking protective measures is conditioned by numerous factors, which should be influenced in order to improve resilience to disasters.

5.5. Theory of the Planned Behavior

Improving citizens' preparedness for disasters is unthinkable without the Theory of Planned Behavior, which explains various motivational variables that influence people's behavior, especially those that give the base on which certain predictions can be made (Madden et al., 1992). People form their attitudes based on certain beliefs about behavior itself. An important factor in explaining behavioral intention is the subjective norm, which indicates whether such behavior is recommendable and justified (Conner & Armitage, 1998). These intentions are influenced by various factors: attitudes towards certain behavior, subjective criteria, cognitive control of behavior, as well as assumptions about mutual interaction (Ajzen, 1991, 2002, 2011; Armitage & Conner, 2001).  Ajzen's opinion should be noted (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 1998; Madden et al., 1992), that the Theory itself is very flexible and strechy.  It is also very adaptable for the inclusion of other variables, but on the condition that they are all correctly interpreted and that they affect the improvement of predictive abilities.

Although the predictive power of the theory is at a high level, some scientists (Conner & Armitage, 1998; Heath & Gifford, 2002; Sparks, Shepherd, & Frewer, 1995) indicate that the theory of planned behavior is extended by various variables, such as: previous experience, different habits, self-identity, knowledge of behaviors, etc. The Тheory consists of two interrelated elements: perception of the possibility of controlling behavior and self-confidence in one's abilities (Cvetković et al., 2018; Cvetković, 2017a).

5.6. Sociopolitical and Ecological Theory

Sociopolitical and ecological theory offers an interpretation of the interactions between the three systems. It focuses on the understanding of the interactions that occur within the social system that makes up the human community and provides the initial explanation that disasters are events that disrupt the interactions within the social system. Different social entities within that social system, after disturbances or disasters, do everything to establish normal functioning. As specific and not so frequent events, disasters disrupt the normal functioning of households, which seek help from other, larger social entities for faster recovery.

In that specific process, certain difficulties appear in the distribution and allocation of resources necessary to reach minimum values on the scale of normal functioning of society. This actually means that some competition will also appear because, for example, households with lower incomes will have much more problems to reach the appropriate level of recovery. The poor will be forced to build and buy houses in parts of local communities that are threatened by various hazards due to a lack of resources. Smaller organizations will be more exposed to external shocks and will have to unite in order to survive such events (Peacock & Ragsdale, 1997; Phillips, 2015). It is stated (Cvetković, 2017c: 138) that the theory is based on the following assumptions: disasters disrupt social interactions; interaction with social systems affects the way people recover; people need resources to recover, and these resources are limited; the recovery time of local communities is often prolonged due to resource shortages and it is crucial that all people affected by the disaster participate in the recovery.

5.7. Emergent (Urgent) Norms Theory

The Emergent Norm Theory is used to explain collective behavior, which involves the spontaneous behavior of many people and which often deviates from accepted social norms (Aguirre, Wenger, & Vigo, 1998; Dynes, Tierney, & Societal Organization, 1994). People are forced to behave beyond socially acceptable norms, bearing in mind that they are applied in regular circumstances, which certainly do not include disasters. During disasters, it becomes clear to everyone that there are no norms that can regulate all possible situations in which people will find themselves.

It is then that new norms appear in the context of social interactions, in which there are various guidelines for people's behavior. The theory is based on the assumption that collective behavior is not irrational but is socially normed and offers a symbolic interactionist explanation of collective behavior. Its special contribution is reflected in the explanation of the transformation of normative structures of society under the influence of danger. The theory motivated researchers in the field of disaster studies to develop a model of emergency human resources, which explains at a conceptual level that disasters destabilize or prevent the normal functioning of bureaucratic structures. Namely, developed bureaucratic procedures are designed to regulate social relations in regular circumstances. When disaster occurs, the environment changes and they actually stop functioning at the expected level. On that occasion, the unexpected needs of people who are affected by the disaster in different ways, are created. According to Emergent Norm Theory, it is very likely that bureaucratic structures will not fully take into account the full range of needs and services that will develop during recovery. People behave differently: a) in a crowd, b) in public places and c) in social movements.

This theory is related to many other theories, such as Hamilton's selfish herd theory, according to which the characteristics of panic flight include the following:

- faster movement of individuals than normal;

– different physical interactions between individuals;

– exits that are protruding and blocked;

- very frequent falls of an individual or individuals, which slows down the escape of others;

- copying the behavior of other individuals;

- predictability of alternative outputs (Altshuler et al., 2005; Hamilton, 1971).

5.8. Decision Theory

Integrated disaster management is unimaginable without decision-making theory, which enables decision-makers to understand how people make decisions about: agreeing to evacuate, taking preventive protection measures, applying certain safety procedures, etc. Decision-making itself is a very complicated process of an interdisciplinary nature (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981). Starting from the rationalist approach, which emphasizes that decision-making is conditioned by rational procedures, the behaviorist approach is directed towards the very way in which people make decisions (Peterson, 2017). When it comes to the decision-making process, there are two theoretical directions: rationalist (based on the  establishing of rational decision-making procedures) and behaviorist (based on the ways in which people make decisions regardless of rational or irrational grounds).

To solve complex problems, the quantitative decision-making process involves the following steps: defining the system and its parameters, establishing criteria for decision-making, formulating phases between parameters and criteria; generating activities and selecting activities that largely meet the set criteria. Therefore, by using decision-making techniques, rules and skills, one activity is selected from a set of possible activities (Cvetković et al., 2018; Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1977; Cvetković, 2017a).

5.9.  The Symbolic Interactionism Theory

In 1937, Blumer was the first to use the formulation Symbolic Interactionism in order to indicate certain abilities to interpret or define the activities that arise in the mutual interactions of people. The theory is based on the assumption that the attitude of people towards certain phenomena, processes and states is conditioned by the very meaning they have. At the same time, the very meaning of phenomena, processes and conditions is derived or emerges from the existing social interaction.

By using an individual's interpretive process towards phenomena, processes or states, meanings are processed or modified (Blumer, 1986; Snow, 2001). According to this theory, the basic starting point is not the individual, but social processes that are elaborated from the point of view of mutual and complex activities. This is precisely why individuals learn and adopt behavior patterns from their society, but also modify social processes (Cvetković et al., 2018; Cvetković, 2017a).