The monograph represents the result of a quantitative study of citizens' awareness of natural emergencies caused by floods (hereinafter referred to as emergencies). The subject of the study lies in examining the population's familiarity with natural emergencies, perception of the likelihood of their occurrence, awareness of vulnerability, and the importance of household flood insurance. Additionally, the authors investigate the influence of demographic (gender, age, level of education, high school performance), socioeconomic (employment, income level, marital status, distance of residence from the river), and psychological factors (fear, previous experience, motivation, level of religiosity) on the respondents' awareness and perception of the risk of natural emergencies caused by floods. For the purpose of conducting the research, local communities in the Republic of Serbia with high and low flood risk were stratified using statistical and experiential generalization methods. This resulted in a stratum or population consisting of all adult residents of local communities where floods occurred or where there is a risk of their occurrence. From this stratum, 19 out of a total of 150 local communities from all regions of Serbia, indicated as vulnerable or potentially vulnerable to floods, were selected using random sampling: Obrenovac, Šabac, Kruševac, Kragujevac, Sremska Mitrovica, Priboj, Batočina, Svilajnac, Lapovo, Paraćin, Smederevska Palanka, Jaša Tomić, Loznica, Bajina Bašta, Smederevo, Novi Sad, Kralјevo, Rekovac, and Užice. The sample size was adjusted according to the geographical and demographic size of the community. The research results showed that respondents with the most knowledge about flood risks were male, aged 18-28, with medium (four-year) education and very good performance, married and employed with income up to 50,000 dinars, residing within two kilometers from the river, fearing flood risks, without previous experience, and highly motivated individuals with neutral religiosity. Furthermore, the probability of flood occurrence is best perceived by males aged 18-28, with very good performance in secondary (four-year) school, employed with income up to 50,000 dinars, married, residing within two kilometers from the river, fearing floods without prior experience, and neutral in terms of motivation and religiosity. Vulnerability to flooding is best understood by male respondents aged 18-28, with medium (four-year) education and very good performance, employed with income up to 50,000 dinars, married, residing within two kilometers from the river, fearing floods but without previous experience, and neutral in terms of motivation and religiosity. Finally, home insurance against the effects of emergencies is most commonly paid by male respondents aged 29-38, with medium (four-year) education and excellent performance, employed with income up to 50,000 dinars, married, residing within two kilometers from the river, fearing flood occurrence without previous experience, and neutral in terms of motivation and religiosity. Based on the data collected through the survey questionnaire, their organization, processing, analysis, and presentation, as well as their description, statistically significant data were obtained describing the degree and strength of the correlation between certain demographic factors (gender, age, education level, high school performance), socio-economic factors (employment, income level, marital status, and distance of home/apartment from the river), and psychological characteristics of citizens (fear, previous experience, motivation, and level of religiosity) with certain dimensions of awareness and risk perception of natural emergencies caused by floods, perception of flood wave threat, and home insurance against the consequences of emergencies. Awareness of the population about the risks of flooding, as well as the ability of organizations, communities, and regions to recognize their vulnerability and take steps to reduce the impact, is key in the hazard analysis process. To minimize the consequences of natural disasters and be prepared to respond to emergencies, residents of vulnerable areas must be well-informed about the geographical, hydrometeorological, biological, and ecological conditions of their environment. People's daily activities affect their environment, changing it and thus endangering their survival. The depletion of natural resources, destruction of forests, and fertile soil have caused intense and dramatic threats to nature, calling into question the survival of humanity on Earth. Damage to the ozone layer, climate change and global warming, soil, air, and water pollution, extinction of species, and reduction of biodiversity are the main causes of the global environmental crisis. As a consequence of the environmental crisis, natural disasters (floods, landslides, hurricanes) are becoming more frequent, indicating the necessity for better citizen preparedness for responding to such disasters. In the first set of questions, the correlation between certain factors (gender, age, education, school performance, employment and income level, marital status, distance from the river, fear and previous experience, motivation, and religiosity) and awareness of the risks of flooding was examined. Male respondents were more informed about the risks of flooding than female respondents. Furthermore, the most informed about the risks of flooding were respondents aged 18 to 28; followed by respondents aged 39 to 48; then respondents aged 49 to 58; respondents aged 29 to 38; while respondents over 59 were the least informed about flood risks. The most informed about flood risks were respondents with secondary/four-year education, followed by those with secondary/three-year education, then higher education, and vocational education, while respondents with elementary education were the least informed about flood risks. In this context, the best-informed respondents about flood risks were those with very good academic performance. They were followed by respondents with excellent performance, then good performance, while those with insufficient performance were the least informed about flood risks. Employed respondents were more informed about flood risks compared to unemployed respondents. Accordingly, it was observed that respondents with an income of up to 50,000 dinars were the best informed about flood risks, followed by those with incomes up to 25,000 dinars, then those with incomes up to 75,000 dinars, while respondents with incomes above 75,000 dinars were the least informed. Additionally, it was concluded that married respondents were the best informed about flood risks, followed by respondents who were not in a relationship, those in a relationship, divorced respondents, and fiancées/fiancés, while widowed respondents were the least informed about flood risks. The respondents who lived within 2 kilometers of a river were the best informed about flood risks, followed by those whose homes were 3 to 5 kilometers from the river, while respondents whose homes were over 10 kilometers from a river were the least informed. Moreover, the most informed about flood risks were those respondents who felt fear of the risk, followed by those who did not feel fear, while respondents unsure if they felt fear were the least informed. Interestingly, respondents with no previous experience were more informed about flood risks compared to those with prior experience. The most informed respondents about flood risks were those who were fully motivated. They were followed by respondents who were somewhat motivated, then those who were neither motivated nor unmotivated, somewhat unmotivated, while the least informed about flood risks were those who were fully unmotivated. Finally, respondents who were neither religious nor non-religious were the best informed about flood risks. They were followed by respondents who were somewhat religious, fully religious, somewhat non-religious, while the least informed about flood risks were those who were fully non-religious. Based on the presented data, we can say that the best-informed respondents about flood risks were male, aged between 18 and 28, with secondary/four-year education, very good school performance, employed with incomes up to 50,000 dinars, married, living within 2 kilometers of a river, feeling fear but having no previous experience, fully motivated, and neither religious nor non-religious. Low risk perception among residents living in flood-prone areas is considered one of the main causes of their weak preparedness, which in turn generates an inadequate response to emergencies. The concept of disaster risk is key to risk perception and is defined as the complexity of the interaction between hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Risk represents the latent danger of natural origin that turns into a disaster, creating vulnerability. The damage and losses from disasters depend on the degree of exposure of societal elements and their vulnerability. Disaster risk is multifaceted, as to have disaster risk, all three components must be present—hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. All risks and their consequences must be assessed accurately, without bias. On the other hand, there is a subjective view of risk, where individuals determine the level of risk based on personal experience, without scientific validation of the results. Practitioners consciously strive to exclude all emotional aspects related to personal preferences in order to achieve valid, reproducible results. Subjective risk assessment, on the other hand, is not the result of a formalized process and depends on personal experience. Hazard identification is the discovery and precise description of all sources of danger and scenarios of their realization. The result of hazard identification is the prevention of undesirable events; description of sources of danger, risk factors, conditions for the occurrence and development of undesirable events; and preliminary hazard and risk assessment. In the second set of questions in the paper, the correlation between certain factors (gender, age, education, school performance, employment and income level, marital status, distance from the river, fear, and previous experience, motivation, and religiosity) and flood risk perception was examined. Male respondents better perceived the probability of flood occurrence compared to female respondents. Furthermore, respondents aged 18 to 28 had the best perception of flood risk probability. They were followed by respondents aged 29 to 38, 39 to 48, 49 to 58, while respondents over 59 had the lowest perception of flood risk. Additionally, respondents with secondary/four-year education had the best perception of flood risk probability. They were followed by respondents with secondary/three-year education, higher education, vocational education, elementary education, master's degrees, while respondents with doctoral degrees had the lowest perception of flood risk. In this regard, respondents with very good school performance had the best perception of flood risk probability. They were followed by respondents with excellent performance, then good performance, while respondents with sufficient performance had the lowest perception of flood risk. Employed respondents better perceived flood risk probability compared to unemployed respondents. Furthermore, respondents with incomes up to 50,000 dinars had the best perception of flood risk probability, followed by those with incomes up to 25,000 dinars, then those with incomes up to 75,000 dinars, while respondents with incomes over 90,000 dinars had the lowest perception of flood risk. Married respondents had the best perception of flood risk probability. They were followed by those who were not in a relationship, those in a relationship, widowed respondents, while engaged respondents had the lowest perception of flood risk. Respondents living within 2 kilometers of a river had the best perception of flood risk probability, followed by those living 2 to 5 kilometers away, while respondents living over 10 kilometers away had the lowest perception of flood risk. Respondents who felt fear of floods had the best perception of flood risk probability, followed by respondents unsure if they felt fear, while those who did not feel fear had the lowest perception of flood risk. Interestingly, respondents with no previous experience had a better perception of flood risk probability compared to those with previous experience. The best perception of flood risk probability was among respondents who were neither motivated nor unmotivated. They were followed by respondents who were fully motivated, somewhat motivated, somewhat unmotivated, while fully unmotivated respondents had the lowest perception of flood risk. Finally, respondents who were neither religious nor non-religious had the best perception of flood risk probability. They were followed by somewhat religious respondents, somewhat non-religious respondents, fully religious respondents, while fully non-religious respondents had the lowest perception of flood risk. Based on the presented data, we can say that the best perception of flood risk probability was among male respondents, aged between 18 and 28, with secondary/four-year education and very good school performance, employed with incomes up to 50,000 dinars, married, living within 2 kilometers of a river, feeling fear of flood but having no previous experience, and neither motivated nor unmotivated, neither religious nor non-religious. Identifying hazards provides specific information about the nature and characteristics of hazards and the community. It examines the potential of hazards to cause injury or damage to property and the environment and represents the first step in the risk management process, including a community description and analysis through ecological modeling of the threat's nature. Hazard identification involves describing hazards in their local context and provides a description and historical background of potential environmental hazards that could affect the community. Comprehensive historical data on all hazards are key to understanding which hazards have affected the community in the past and the likelihood of their recurrence in the future. The hazard identification process thus involves examining past disasters and the possibilities for future emergencies in the community. The third set of questions relates to the correlation between certain factors (gender, age, education, school performance, employment and income level, marital status, distance from the river, fear, previous experience, motivation, and religiosity) and the perception of flood wave threat. Testing the influence of gender on threat perception shows that male respondents better perceived the threat of a flood wave compared to female respondents. The highest perception of flood wave threat was among respondents aged 18 to 28. They were followed by respondents aged 29 to 38, 39 to 48, 49 to 58, while respondents over 59 had the lowest perception of flood wave threat. Respondents with secondary/four-year education had the best perception of flood wave threat. They were followed by respondents with secondary/three-year education, higher education, vocational education, while those with doctorates had the lowest perception of flood wave threat. Respondents with very good school performance had the best perception of flood wave threat. According to further analyses, employed respondents better perceived flood wave threat compared to unemployed respondents. Furthermore, respondents with incomes up to 50,000 dinars had the best perception of flood wave threat, followed by respondents with incomes up to 25,000 dinars, then those with incomes up to 75,000 dinars, while respondents with incomes over 90,000 dinars had the lowest perception. Married respondents had the best perception of flood wave threat. They were followed by respondents who were not in a relationship, those in a relationship, widowed respondents, while divorced respondents had the lowest perception. As expected, respondents living within 2 kilometers of a river had the best perception of flood wave threat. They were followed by respondents living 2 to 5 kilometers away, while those living over 10 kilometers away had the lowest perception. Respondents who felt fear had the best perception of flood wave threat, followed by those unsure if they felt fear, while respondents who did not feel fear had the lowest perception. On the other hand, respondents with no previous experience had the best perception of flood wave threat compared to those with prior experience. Interestingly, respondents who were neither motivated nor unmotivated had the best perception of flood wave threat. They were followed by fully motivated respondents, somewhat motivated respondents, somewhat unmotivated respondents, while fully unmotivated respondents had the lowest perception of flood wave threat. Finally, respondents who were neither religious nor non-religious had the best perception of flood wave threat. They were followed by somewhat religious respondents, somewhat non-religious respondents, fully religious respondents, while fully non-religious respondents had the lowest perception. Based on the presented data, we can say that the best perception of flood wave threat was among male respondents, aged between 18 and 28, with secondary/four-year education and very good school performance, employed with incomes up to 50,000 dinars, married, living within 2 kilometers of a river, feeling fear of flood but having no previous experience, neither motivated nor unmotivated, and neither religious nor non-religious. Effective risk reduction from emergencies requires a full understanding of the costs of natural hazards. Current methods for assessing these costs use varied terminology and approaches for different types of emergencies and sectors. This can hinder efforts toward comprehensive cost data analysis. Weather-related emergencies have far-reaching economic consequences and result in numerous human casualties. Managing the consequences of floods and compensating for material damage affects the material condition of society, while numerous human casualties lead to various social problems. Many studies deal with assessing material and economic damage, offering protection models and strategies for managing consequences. However, in recent decades, there has been a significant gap between the total economic damage caused by emergencies and insurance (home and life). This is partly due to the inability to pay for insurance, but also due to the participation of genuinely at-risk properties in the overall fund of real estate exposed to natural disasters. On the other hand, there is a negative public attitude towards the need for insurance against weather-related disasters. There is an ingrained need in people's minds to predict future events, including weather, and today there are more or less reliable methods for predicting weather conditions. The fourth and final set of questions relates to the correlation between certain factors (gender, age, education, school performance, employment and income level, marital status, distance from the river, fear, previous experience, motivation, and religiosity) and home insurance against the consequences of floods. Male respondents were more likely to insure their homes against emergency consequences compared to female respondents. Respondents aged 29 to 38 were the most likely to insure their homes against emergency consequences. They were followed by respondents aged 18 to 28, 49 to 58, 39 to 48, while respondents aged 59 and above were the least likely to insure their homes. Respondents with secondary/four-year education were the most likely to pay for home insurance. They were followed by those with higher education, vocational education, secondary/three-year education, elementary education, and master's degrees, while respondents with doctoral degrees were the least likely to pay for home insurance. In this regard, respondents with excellent school performance were the most likely to pay for home insurance. They were followed by those with very good performance, then good performance, while respondents with sufficient performance were the least likely to pay for home insurance. Employed respondents were more likely to pay for home insurance compared to unemployed respondents. Furthermore, respondents with incomes up to 50,000 dinars were the most likely to pay for home insurance, followed by respondents with incomes up to 25,000 dinars, up to 75,000 dinars, while those with incomes over 90,000 dinars were the least likely to pay for home insurance. Married respondents were the most likely to pay for home insurance. They were followed by respondents who were not in a relationship, those in a relationship, divorced respondents, engaged respondents, while widowed respondents were the least likely to pay for home insurance. Respondents living within 2 kilometers of a river were the most likely to pay for home insurance, followed by those living 2 to 5 kilometers away, while those living over 10 kilometers away were the least likely to pay for home insurance. As expected, respondents who felt fear of emergencies were the most likely to pay for home insurance. They were followed by respondents who did not feel fear, while those unsure if they felt fear were the least likely to pay for home insurance. On the other hand, respondents with no previous experience were more likely to pay for home insurance compared to those with prior experience. Respondents who were neither motivated nor unmotivated were the most likely to pay for home insurance. They were followed by somewhat motivated respondents, fully motivated respondents, somewhat unmotivated respondents, while fully unmotivated respondents were the least likely to pay for home insurance. Finally, respondents who were neither religious nor non-religious were the most likely to pay for home insurance. They were followed by somewhat religious respondents, somewhat non-religious respondents, fully religious respondents, while fully non-religious respondents were the least likely to pay for home insurance. Based on the presented data, we can say that the respondents most likely to pay for home insurance against emergency consequences were male, aged between 29 and 38, with secondary/four-year education and excellent school performance, employed with incomes up to 50,000 dinars, married, living within 2 kilometers of a river, feeling fear of emergencies but having no previous experience, neither motivated nor unmotivated, and neither religious nor non-religious. Awareness of flood risks, perception of the flood wave threat, and perception of vulnerability are key in the hazard analysis process and in preparing for emergency response. The results of the quantitative research presented in the scientific monograph represent an indicator of citizens' awareness of emergencies and their perception of vulnerability. Considering Serbia's experience with floods, the consequences they have left behind, and the difficulties that emergency services faced in dealing with the natural disaster, emergency management, and recovery, the results of the quantitative research presented in the scientific monograph not only contribute valuable material to the science and study of this field but also provide critical information for decision-makers, improving emergency management and having significant implications for crisis management. Based on the presented data, flood maps and plans for protection, emergency management, and effective recovery can be created. Referenca: Cvetković, V., Bošković, D., Janković, B., & Andrić, S. (2019). Percepcija rizika od vanrednih situacija. Beograd: Kriminalističko-policijski univerzitet.