![Elevation map of the study area in Serbia with highlighted capital (a) and geographic position in Europe (b). Integral vulnerability map of the natural hazards in the territory of Serbia (according to Dragicevic et al. [123]) is presented on panel (c).](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vladimir-Cvetkovic-4/publication/387659128/figure/fig3/AS:11431281300983450@1735813188033/Elevation-map-of-the-study-area-in-Serbia-with-highlighted-capital-a-and-geographic_Q320.jpg)
Access to this full-text is provided by De Gruyter.
Content available from Open Geosciences
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Research Article
Vladimir M. Cvetković*, Stefan Gole, Renate Renner, Vladimir Jakovljević, and Tin Lukić
Qualitative insights into cultural heritage
protection in Serbia: Addressing legal and
institutional gaps for disaster risk resilience
https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2022-0755
received November 18, 2024; accepted December 07, 2024
Abstract: This research is dedicated to a comprehensive
exploration of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in
the legal and institutional measures established to safe-
guard cultural heritage in the Republic of Serbia against
the adverse effects of disasters, including earthquakes,
landslides, rockfalls, floods, torrents, storms, hail, and
forest fires. The study seeks to identify key challenges
and shortcomings within the existing legal and institu-
tional framework while also highlighting and analyzing
best practices and potential avenues for improvement in
the protection system. The research posits a preliminary
hypothesis suggesting that significant challenges exist
within the current framework, potentially hindering
effective response and recovery efforts following natural
hazards. Data collection involved semi-structured inter-
views with field experts and an in-depth analysis of
existing documentation. These methods were aimed at
gathering critical data and insights to enhance the under-
standing of systemic issues and contribute to developing
practical, viable solutions. The analysis and processing of
the collected data were conducted using ATLAS. ti soft-
ware, enabling a detailed and systematic examination of
qualitative information. Moreover, assessing the current
capacity of institutions to respond swiftly and effectively
to natural hazards that threaten cultural heritage formed
a central aspect of this study. The findings reveal notable
deficiencies in the legal framework, inadequate institutional
capacities, limited resources, and insufficient training for
disaster response. The results underscore the pressing
need for improved inter-institutional cooperation and
the development of technical and logistical capabilities.
To address these issues, the study recommends aligning
legal frameworks with international standards, securing
increased funding for technical resources, and imple-
menting specialized training programs for institutional
staff. This article makes a significant contribution to
advancing the understanding and enhancement of the
cultural heritage protection system in Serbia, offering
actionable insights and a robust foundation for further
research and strategic development in this critical area.
Keywords: disasters, hazards, cultural heritage, protecting,
qualitative research, interview, Serbia
1 Introduction
Cultural heritage represents a collection of tangible and
intangible assets acquired and passed down by a commu-
nity through generations [1]. These assets include architec-
tural structures, historical monuments, works of art, as
well as traditions, customs, languages, and knowledge
* Corresponding author: Vladimir M. Cvetković,Department of
Disaster Management and Environmental Security, Faculty of Security
Studies, University of Belgrade, Gospodara Vucica 50, 11040, Belgrade,
Serbia; Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management,
Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia; International Institute for
Disaster Research, Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia; Safety
and Disaster Studies, Chair of Thermal Processing Technology,
Department of Environmental and Energy Process Engineering,
Montanuniversitaet, Leoben, Austria, e-mail: vmc@fb.bg.ac.rs;
vladimir.cvetkovic@unileoben.ac.at
Stefan Gole: Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk
Management, Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia,
e-mail: golestefan@gmail.com
Renate Renner: Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk
Management, Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia; Safety and
Disaster Studies, Chair of Thermal Processing Technology, Department of
Environmental and Energy Process Engineering, Montanuniversitaet,
Leoben, Austria, e-mail: renate.renner@unileoben.ac.at
Vladimir Jakovljević:Department of Disaster Management and
Environmental Security, Faculty of Security Studies, University of
Belgrade, Gospodara Vucica 50, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia,
e-mail: vjakov@fb.bg.ac.rs
Tin Lukić:Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management,
Dimitrija Tucovića 121, 11040, Belgrade, Serbia; Department of
Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences,
University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000, Novi Sad,
Serbia, e-mail: tin.lukic@dgt.uns.ac.rs
Open Geosciences 2024; 16: 20220755
Open Access. © 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
that form part of a collective identity [2]. The preservation
of cultural heritage is not only a sign of respect for the past
but also a responsibility toward future generations, who
will come to understand the historical and cultural roots of
their community through these treasures [3]. A review
of the literature reveals that there is not a universally
accepted definition of cultural heritage, which underscores
how complex and multifaceted the concept is [4,5]. Broadly
speaking, cultural heritage encompasses all the values
passed down from the past that are of special importance
to a specific community or nation [6,7]. These values repre-
sent every aspect of a nation’s cultural and historical iden-
tity, making them unique and irreplaceable [8]. Once lost,
cultural heritage cannot be recreated, emphasizing its
immense significance and irreplaceable nature [9–11].
Immovable cultural heritage includes buildings, monu-
ments, archaeological sites, and other structures that pos-
sess cultural, historical, or artistic value and cannot be relo-
cated [12–14]. This type of heritage is crucial for preserving
specificcommunities’collective memory, cultural identity,
and history. Historical monuments represent tangible evi-
dence of historical events, figures, and periods [15]. They
hold immense significance for historical memory and cul-
tural identity. For example, the Colosseum in Rome, Italy, is
one of the most famous historical monuments, symbolizing
ancient Roman civilization and its achievements in architec-
ture and engineering [16]. In addition, monuments such as
the Pyramid of Giza in Egypt and the Statue of Liberty in
New York City [17], United States, are significant symbols of
national history and cultural heritage. The Pyramid of Giza
testifies to the engineering accomplishments of ancient
Egypt and its religious and funerary practices [18].
Conversely, movable cultural heritage includes items that
can be transported and hold cultural, historical, artistic, or
scientificvalue[19
,20]. This encompasses artworks, archaeo-
logical artefacts, historical documents, manuscripts, furniture,
weapons, and other objects that are essential for under-
standing and preserving culture and history [21]. Artworks
such as paintings, sculptures, prints, and photographs form
asignificant part of movable cultural heritage [22]. These
works not only show artistic achievements but also reflect
the cultural context in which they were created.
Intangible cultural heritage refers to the non-material
dimensions of culture, including elements like language,
customs, rituals, folklore, music, dance, crafts, and other
cultural expressions [23]. These aspects of heritage are
typically passed down through generations via oral tradi-
tions and practices. Intangible cultural heritage is vital for
preserving the cultural identity and collective memory of a
community [24]. Language serves as the bedrock of cul-
tural identity and is a core element of intangible cultural
heritage. Oral traditions, such as fairy tales, legends, and
epic poems, are key ways in which cultural narratives are
transmitted across generations [25].
In Serbia, cultural heritage faces significant threats from
natural hazards, including earthquakes, floods, and fires,
compounded by outdated legal frameworks, insufficient insti-
tutional capacities, and limited resources. Despite its rich his-
torical and cultural significance, Serbia’sheritageremains
vulnerable, highlighting the urgent need for targeted research
and interventions to address these challenges. Among the
many forms of cultural heritage at risk, oral tradition stands
out as a vital element in preserving the nation’sculturaliden-
tity, offering invaluable insights into Serbia’s history and tra-
ditions. The collection of Serbian folk songs by Vuk Stefanović
Karadžićin the nineteenth century provides a rich repository
of folk creativity, offering insight into the history and tradi-
tions of the Serbian people [26]. Rituals and customs, which
embody the beliefs and values of a community, also hold an
important place in cultural heritage. A prime example is the
Japanese tea ceremony (Sado or Chado), a highly ritualized
form of tea preparation that reflects the aesthetics of Zen
Buddhism and Japanese culture [27]. In Serbian culture, wed-
ding customs are a significant part of the intangible cultural
tradition. These customs include a series of rituals and cele-
brations spanning preparation, the ceremony, and post-wed-
ding festivities. They reflect the strong ties between family,
community, and religious beliefs, highlighting the social and
cultural values of the region [28,29].
Beyond its historical significance, cultural heritage
offers substantial potential for a community in scientific,
social, and economic areas. It can inspire new research, serve
as a foundation for social cohesion, and act as an economic
resource, particularly through cultural tourism and other
related activities [30]. According to the Law on Cultural Prop-
erty (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, 6/2020), cul-
tural property refers to material and spiritual cultural objects
considered of general interest and thus afforded special pro-
tection. These cultural assets are categorized into three types:
immovable, movable, and intangible cultural goods.
Cultural heritage faces numerous threats, both human-
made (such as looting, devastation, and armed conflicts)
and natural, including disasters like earthquakes, floods,
storms, landslides, and extreme weather events [31,32].
These threats pose significant challenges to the preserva-
tion of cultural heritage, necessitating appropriate protec-
tive and preventive measures [33]. Disasters such as earth-
quakes, floods, fires, storms, and terrorist attacks pose a
serious threat to cultural heritage [34–36]. These disasters
can destroy or significantly damage cultural assets, leaving
communities bereft of important parts of their history and
culture [37,38]. Therefore, it is essential to develop and
2Vladimir M. Cvetkovićet al.
implement protective measures that will safeguard cul-
tural heritage in the face of different natural and man-
made disasters [39–41].
Protecting cultural heritage involves a range of mea-
sures and strategies, which can be divided into structural
and non-structural approaches [42]. Structural measures
include physical interventions, such as the reinforcement
of buildings and the application of modern technologies for
early detection and prevention of damage [43,44]. Non-struc-
tural measures involve legal and institutional frameworks,
public education, and international cooperation [45].
Given the complexity and importance of cultural heritage
to the community, the need for its legal and institutional
protection has become evident [46]. In Serbia (Figure 1), the
legal safeguarding of cultural heritage dates back to 1844,
when the “Decree on the Protection of Ruins of Certain Old
TownsandCastlesinSerbiaasMonumentsofAntiquity”was
enacted, laying the foundation for cultural heritage protection
[47–49]. This decree was a key moment, establishing a frame-
work for the systematic protection of cultural heritage in the
country. At the same time, the institutional protection of cul-
tural heritage was initiated with the founding of the National
Museum of Serbia on May 10, 1844, then known as the Serbian
Museum, which took on the responsibility of preserving anti-
quities for future generations [50].
Several institutions, in Serbia, are tasked with the pro-
tection of cultural heritage [51,52]. The Institutes for the
Protection of Cultural Monuments manage immovable
cultural assets, while museums handle movable ones.
Archives preserve important documents, libraries safe-
guard literary works, and the Yugoslav Film Archive along
with other archives ensures the preservation of film mate-
rials. These institutions play a critical role by addressing
threats that develop slowly and may not become apparent
for decades or even centuries [53]. Alongside them, state
bodies such as emergency response teams, civil protection
Figure 1: Examples of Serbian cultural heritage sites: (a) Studenica Monastery; (b) Church of St. Peter and St. Paul; (c) Felix Romuliana Archaeological
Site; (d) Lepenski Vir Archaeological Site; and (e) Vinča-Belo Brdo Archaeological Site (photographs are the original work of the authors).
Cultural heritage protection in Serbia 3
units, and firefighting services –under the Ministry of the
Interior –work to reduce risks and mitigate the impact of
natural hazards [54,55].
History provides several examples of cultural heritage
damaged or destroyed by natural hazards [56–58]. These
include the Serbian medieval Žiča Monastery, damaged in
the 2010 earthquake [59], the fire that ravaged Hilandar
Monastery [60], the collapse of part of the Vinča–Belo
Brdo archaeological site due to a landslide in 2004 [61],
and the destruction of archival material during the 2014
floods in Obrenovac [62]. On a global scale, notable inci-
dents include the loss of over 90% of the National Museum
of Brazil’s collection in a 2018 fire [63,64], the destruction
of Nepal’s cultural heritage during the 2015 earthquake
[65,66], and the near-destruction of Notre-Dame Cathedral
in a 2019 fire [67]. These cases illustrate that the threat to
cultural heritage from natural hazards is not hypothetical,
but very real.
Protecting cultural heritage in Serbia from different
natural and man-made disasters requires genuine colla-
boration between institutions responsible for heritage pro-
tection and those managing disaster risk reduction (DRR)
[68,69]. Legal and institutional protection remains essential
for preserving cultural heritage. This protection is imple-
mented through various laws and regulations, which outline
the criteria for safeguarding cultural assets, registration pro-
cedures, and protection measures [70,71]. Institutions are
tasked with enforcing these laws, researching and docu-
menting cultural assets, and executing conservation plans.
Moreover, they work to raise public awareness of cultural
heritage’ssignificance. Collaboration between institutions
protecting cultural heritage and those managing disaster
risks is crucial for its continued preservation [33,72]. This
cooperation enables the sharing of knowledge, the coordina-
tion of activities, and the planning and execution of protec-
tive measures. Furthermore, partnerships between these
institutions also allow for more efficient use of resources
and better disaster response. In addition, collaboration
with international organizations provides further support
in protecting cultural heritage.
This research is dedicated to a comprehensive exam-
ination of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the
legal and institutional measures designed to protect cul-
tural heritage in the Republic of Serbia from the adverse
effects of disasters, including earthquakes, landslides,
rockfalls, floods, torrents, storms, hail, and forest fires.
The study aims to identify the primary challenges and
shortcomings within the existing legal and institutional
framework, while also pinpointing and analyzing best
practices and potential improvements for the protection
system.
1.1 Literary review
Numerous studies and expert reports stress that the
increasing frequency of natural hazards poses a serious
threat to the preservation of cultural heritage [73–79].
These works call for the development of strategies to better
protect cultural heritage from such events.
Due to the climate change, the risk of wildland–urban
interface fires [80] is increasing, especially in the cold
season, as winters are becoming less snowy. The vegetation
merging with human infrastructure therefore tends to be
drier and can serve as fire material [81]. In this way, places
where cultural assets are kept can also be more at risk.
Furthermore, in one study, Cacciotti et al. [82] dive into the
increasing dangers tied to the climate change –things like
rising sea levels and extreme weather –that are threa-
tening cultural landscapes and historic sites in Central
Europe. Their research points out how urgent it is to adopt
more flexible and sustainable management practices
to protect these treasures. In contrast, Papakonstantinou
and Papadopoulou [83] propose a cumulative index to eval-
uate how vulnerable these sites are to environmental risks.
Besides that, armed conflicts and urban expansion are also
putting cultural heritage at risk. Bandarin et al. [84] discuss
how cultural sites have been deliberately targeted in war
zones, citing the heartbreaking destruction of monuments
in places like Syria and Iraq. They argue that stronger
international laws and more cooperation between the mili-
tary, humanitarian groups, and heritage experts are cru-
cial to safeguarding cultural property during conflicts. On a
different note, Lattig [76] explores how rapid urban growth
is endangering heritage sites, especially when cities expand
nearby. Lattice calls for better integration of heritage con-
servation into urban planning to avoid irreversible damage.
Global research highlights various strategies for cultural
heritage protection, including legal frameworks, techno-
logical solutions, and community involvement. However,
these findings provide a general foundation, with limited
direct applicability to Serbia’suniquechallenges.
Many studies highlight the importance of developing
risk management frameworks specifically designed to pro-
tect cultural heritage [84–86]. Gizzi and Porrini [87] make a
case for the role that insurance can play in minimizing the
risks from natural and human-made disasters. They delve
into the economic challenges of protecting heritage and
advocate for specialized insurance products tailored to
these sites, instead of relying on standard policies. Also,
they found that public–private partnerships are also seen
as a key to ensuring effective recovery plans are in place
[87]. In Serbia, the existing literature reveals gaps in the
enforcement of cultural heritage protection laws and
4Vladimir M. Cvetkovićet al.
insufficient integration of disaster risk management (DRM)
strategies. Studies focusing on Balkan countries emphasize
the need for region-specific approaches, highlighting par-
allels with Serbia in terms of resource limitations and insti-
tutional capacities.
Also, Jigyasu et al. [40] push for a comprehensive DRM
approach that combines modern tech with traditional
knowledge and actively involves local communities. They
highlight how tricky it is to reduce disaster risks in places
prone to hazards like floods, earthquakes, and fires. Also,
they found that collaboration across various sectors –heri-
tage institutions, governments, and international organiza-
tions –is critical to building long-term resilience [40].
Looking at specific examples, Pastrana-Huguet et al. [88]
focus on Japan’s Bosai culture, which successfully blends
disaster preparedness with heritage conservation. This
model, which mixes cutting-edge technology with tradi-
tional practices, offers useful lessons for other countries
dealing with similar risks. In India, Majumdar and Das
[77] examine how the country’s DRR policies impact heri-
tage buildings. While policies are in place, they found that
poor enforcement and low public awareness hinder proper
protection. They argue that more disaster preparedness
training is needed for both heritage managers and local
communities to shield these assets from both natural and
human-made disasters [77].
Still, managing disaster risks while balancing the pres-
sures of modern development is not easy. Convery et al.
[75] believe that protecting cultural heritage is not just
about physically preserving sites. They argue that heritage
conservation should also focus on the broader societal
values these places hold, like their social, economic, and
spiritual importance. Instead of just focusing on technical
solutions, they push for a more holistic approach that
includes community identity and resilience [75]. Besides
that, Rahman [89] backs this up by emphasizing the need
for cultural sensitivity in disaster recovery efforts. He
stresses that preserving cultural heritage should be a
core part of humanitarian responses to both natural and
human-made disasters [89]. Very important is that experts
express diverse perspectives on whether existing national
and international regulations sufficiently protect cultural
heritage from disasters. While many recognize the value of
legal frameworks like UNESCO conventions and domestic
laws, their enforcement is frequently criticized as inade-
quate [78,90,91]. According to Jigyasu et al. [40], numerous
countries, especially in developing regions, lack the neces-
sary resources or political motivation to implement these
regulations effectively. From another perspective, Majumdar
and Das [78] similarly argue that despite international agree-
ments and national legislation in countries like India,
enforcement remains problematic. This is largely due to
the complexities of coordinating between heritage authori-
ties and emergency response agencies. They recommend
better integration of DRM strategies with cultural heritage
policies to enhance protection. Also, they often criticize the
institutional frameworks for safeguarding cultural heritage
as insufficient [78]. Similarly, Bandarin et al. [84] high-
light structural deficiencies in the collaboration between
cultural institutions and disaster management agencies,
which results in slow emergency responses. This issue is
particularly concerning in areas with limited disaster
response capacity, leaving cultural heritage sites espe-
cially vulnerable.
Another significant challenge experts emphasize is the
shortage of DRM professionals within cultural heritage
organizations. Lattig [76] notes that many institutions
lack the expertise and resources required to conduct thor-
ough risk assessments or develop effective emergency
response plans, rendering them poorly equipped for major
disasters. Training among staffat cultural institutions is
also a critical concern. Conversely, Rahman [89] points
out that many cultural heritage workers receive insuffi-
cient training in disaster preparedness, which undermines
the resilience of heritage sites. In addition, the lack of
standardized training programs across institutions exacer-
bates this vulnerability. To address these issues, Jigyasu
et al. [40] suggest integrating ongoing training and disaster
drills into the operational structures of cultural institutions
to improve preparedness. They further advocate for cross-
sector collaboration between heritage professionals and
emergency responders to ensure effective coordination
during disaster responses. However, experts like Pas-
trana-Huguet et al. [88] argue that the technical resources
available to cultural institutions for disaster response are
often inadequate. While some institutions may have access
to basic emergency tools, many lack advanced technologies
for risk assessment, monitoring, and post-disaster recovery,
which limits their capacity to protect and salvage cultural
assets during disasters.
Preserving cultural heritage calls for a comprehensive
approach that strengthens legal protections, utilizes new
technologies, involves local communities, and addresses
the challenges of climate change [92–94]. Experts suggest
enhancing international agreements, like the Hague Con-
vention, by weaving them into national legislation and
encouraging deeper international partnerships, particularly
with organizations such as UNESCO [95]. Technological inno-
vations, including 3D scanning and drones, have become
essential tools in documenting and monitoring heritage
sites, helping assess risks and plan restoration efforts after
damage [96–98]. Engaging local communities and raising
Cultural heritage protection in Serbia 5
awareness about the importance of cultural heritage are
also key to ensuring long-term protection [99,100]. In conflict
zones, it is advised to create specialized heritage protection
units and integrate them into peacekeeping operations [101].
Finally, with the increasing impact of climate change, con-
servation strategies must evolve to focus on resilience and
adaptability [102,103].
Experts also stress the necessity of scenario planning,
including the development of action plans for the immediate
post-disaster period [104,105]. Rahman [89] found that many
institutions are ill prepared for the critical first 72 h after a
disaster, during which significant damage to cultural heri-
tage can occur. The absence of predefined scenarios or
response protocols often delays recovery efforts, leading to
greater losses. Collaboration between cultural institutions
and DRR entities is widely recognized as essential, but it
remains underdeveloped. Different studies [76,88] show
that while some institutions have formed partnerships
with emergency management agencies, these collabora-
tions are often informal and lack proper institutionaliza-
tion. Cultural institutions that work closely with national
or regional disaster management bodies, such as civil
protection units or fire and rescue services, tend to be
better equipped to respond to disasters [106,107]. How-
ever, many studies emphasize the need for more forma-
lized networks that include joint training and resource-
sharing initiatives to ensure effective disaster prepared-
ness and response [108,109].
Regarding methodological frameworks and results,
this study has several limitations: (a) the research focuses
exclusively on Serbia, which limits the ability to apply its
findings to other regions with different environmental or
cultural backgrounds; (b) the reliance on qualitative data,
such as interviews, introduces a degree of subjectivity,
making it harder to conduct in-depth statistical analysis;
(c) the absence of longitudinal data prevents a long-term
assessment of how effective the protective measures are
over time; (d) emerging technologies, like remote sensing
or AI, are not fully explored, despite their potential role in
mitigating risks to cultural heritage; (e) input from a wider
range of stakeholders –local communities, non-govern-
mental organizations (NGOs), and heritage visitors –was
not included, missing valuable perspectives; (f) while finan-
cial constraints faced by cultural heritage institutions are
mentioned, potential solutions like public–private partner-
ships or international funding are not explored in depth; (g)
although the study examines existing legal frameworks, it
lacks detailed recommendations for improving enforce-
ment, particularly in rural or underdeveloped areas; (h)
climate change is acknowledged as a risk factor, but the
study does not delve into future climate scenarios and their
specific impacts on heritage sites; (i) the methodology does
not incorporate quantitative risk assessments, like cost–be-
nefit analysis or disaster probability modelling, which could
offer a more comprehensive risk evaluation; and (j) there is
limited discussion on how cultural heritage protection can
be coordinated with disaster management agencies, leaving
room for further exploration of institutional collaboration
in crisis management.
2 Methods
This research is dedicated to a comprehensive examination
of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the legal and
institutional measures designed to protect cultural heri-
tage in the Republic of Serbia from the adverse effects of
natural hazards, including earthquakes, landslides, rock-
falls, floods, torrents, storms, hail, and forest fires. The
study aims to identify the primary challenges and short-
comings within the existing legal and institutional frame-
work, while also pinpointing and analyzing best practices
and potential improvements for the protection system. By
conducting interviews with experts in the field, the research
seeks to gather critical data and insights that will enhance
the understanding of these issues and contribute to formu-
lating viable solutions.
Experts for the semi-structured interviews are selected
based on clearly defined criteria outlined in the document.
These individuals represent key institutions that are pivotal
in the management of Serbian cultural heritage. The criteria
used for their selection include:
•Institutional affiliation: experts are associated with orga-
nizations that are vital to the preservation and protec-
tion of Serbia’s cultural heritage. This includes entities
such as the Republic Institute for the Protection of
Cultural Monuments, the National Museum of Serbia,
the National Library of Serbia, among others.
•Professional background: each expert brings exten-
sive experience in cultural heritage protection, with
aminimumnumberofyears(tobeconfirmed) spent
working in the field. This ensures the interviewees
have significant expertise in the preservation and
management of cultural assets.
•Role specificity: the selected experts hold positions that
directly involve safeguarding cultural heritage, particu-
larly addressing risks related to natural hazards.
These interviews play a crucial role in collecting
expert insights on the vulnerabilities of cultural assets,
disaster preparedness, and the capacities of institutions.
6Vladimir M. Cvetkovićet al.
The interview guide was carefully designed to ensure that
important topics, such as legal frameworks, disaster response
training, and institutional coordination, were thoroughly
covered.
Furthermore, an assessment of the current capacity of
institutions to respond rapidly and effectively to disasters
that pose a threat to cultural heritage is a key component
of the study. A key element of this study is the evaluation of
institutional capacity, which involves examining response
times, resource availability, inter-agency collaboration,
and the effectiveness of disaster recovery strategies. This
assessment was carried out through expert interviews,
qualitative analysis using ATLAS. ti software, and a review
of institutional risk assessments and emergency protocols.
The focus was on identifying gaps in resources, training,
and coordination, as well as evaluating the institutions’
ability to effectively mobilize during the critical first 72 h
after a disaster (Figure 2).
The ultimate goal is to develop recommendations that
will fortify the legal and institutional framework, thereby
bolstering the resilience of cultural heritage sites in Serbia
against future natural hazards. Through this detailed eva-
luation, the research aspires to propose practical improve-
ments that will significantly enhance the protection and
preservation of Serbia’s cultural heritage.
2.1 Hypothetical framework
The central hypothesis of this research posits that the legal
and institutional framework for the protection of cultural
heritage in the Republic of Serbia is inadequately prepared
to ensure an effective response and recovery following
natural hazards. To explore this overarching hypothesis,
several specific hypotheses have been formulated.
First, it is hypothesized that significant deficiencies
exist within the legal framework governing the protection
of cultural heritage in Serbia, which adversely impacts the
effectiveness of disaster protection efforts. This hypothesis
rests on the assumption that existing laws and regulations
are either outdated or insufficiently enforced in practice.
Second, the study hypothesizes that the institutional capa-
cities and resources available for disaster response and
recovery are inadequate. This suggests that institutions
may lack the financial, human, and technical resources
necessary for a swift and effective response, as well as
comprehensive plans for such emergencies.
A third hypothesis concerns the technical and logis-
tical resources allocated for the protection and recovery
of cultural heritage, suggesting that they are underdeve-
loped and insufficient for rapid deployment in the event of
disasters caused by natural or technological hazards. This
highlights the need for more advanced equipment and
technological solutions.
In addition, it is hypothesized that the staffwithin cul-
tural heritage protection institutions may not be adequately
trained to respond to disasters, which could diminish the
effectiveness of protective measures. This assumption points
to the necessity for continuous education and training
programs.
Finally, the research proposes that the effectiveness of
inter-institutional cooperation is limited, which negatively
Figure 2: The methodological framework of the study: key phases, objectives, and data sources.
Cultural heritage protection in Serbia 7
affects coordination and joint action in safeguarding cul-
tural heritage. This hypothesis underscores the importance
of improving collaboration and communication among
various institutions involved in heritage protection.
Together, these hypotheses aim to identify critical
areas within the current framework that require enhance-
ment, providing a basis for strengthening the resilience
and preparedness of Serbia’s cultural heritage protection
systems against natural hazards.
2.2 Research instruments
We conducted expert interviews to modify our hypothesis
and to develop and discover a theory in terms of our field
of investigation. This specific form of guideline-based inter-
views focuses on experts’specific knowledge [110], parti-
cularly in their technical, processual, and interpretative
knowledge, regarding their professional field of action
[111]. The interviews were conducted with a carefully
selected sample of experts from relevant institutions,
ensuring the validity and reliability of the data collected.
The interviewees therefore represent a certain organiza-
tion or institution that is primarily responsible for the
conservation and protection of cultural assets.
The interview guide was meticulously structured to
facilitate a thorough exploration of the research topics. It
ensured that each interview comprehensively addressed
all relevant aspects, such as the vulnerability of cultural
assets to disasters, the evaluation of the legal and institu-
tional protection framework, disaster response training,
technical and logistical resources, planning documentation
development, prevention methodologies, response and
recovery plans, and the effectiveness of inter-institutional
cooperation. In addition to this hypothetical framework, an
open question at the end of the interview offered the
opportunity to name further necessary protective mea-
sures and perceived challenges that were not previously
discussed. The semi-structured design of our interview allowed
conversational flexibility and ensured that all key topics were
thoroughly explored. This approach enabled interviewers to
adapt to the flow of the conversation without missing essential
points.
Guide for Semi-Structured Interview with Questions:
1. Do you consider that the cultural assets preserved by
your institution are at risk from natural hazards such
as earthquakes, fires, floods, torrents, storms, heavy
rains, lightning, hail, drought, landslides or soil ero-
sion, snowdrifts and avalanches, and extreme air
temperatures?
2. How would you evaluate the domestic and internation-
ally ratified regulations related to the protection of
cultural assets?
3. Do you believe that the institutional framework for the
protection of cultural assets is adequate for the needs
of the Republic of Serbia?
4. How would you assess the level of training for emer-
gency response to natural hazards among employees
in institutions that are responsible for the protection of
cultural assets?
5. How would you evaluate the technical resources avail-
able in your institution for responding to emergencies
caused by natural hazards?
6. Has your institution developed a risk assessment?
7. How does your institution address prevention and
mitigation of the consequences if a natural hazard
were to threaten the cultural assets it preserves?
8. If a natural hazard were to threaten the cultural assets
preserved by your institution, do you have developed
scenarios for actions during and immediately (within
72 h) after the natural hazard?
9. Does your institution collaborate with DRR and emer-
gency management entities, such as emergency manage-
ment headquarters, civil protection units, firefighting
and rescue units, the Firefighting Association of Serbia,
the Sector for Emergency Management of the Ministry of
Interior, the Red Cross of Serbia, the Mountain Rescue
Service, the Serbian Radio Amateurs Association, and
others? From which institutions were your colleagues?
10. In what ways and with what measures would you
improve the current state of protection of cultural
assets from the consequences of natural hazards in
the Republic of Serbia?
2.3 Study area
Protecting cultural treasures from natural hazards –such
as earthquakes, floods, fires, and landslides –is crucial.
This study focuses on five key institutions in Serbia, which
are central to safeguarding the country’s cultural heritage.
Each institution is responsible for preserving specific types
of assets, facing unique challenges in disaster prepared-
ness and response due to factors like resource constraints,
legal frameworks, and coordination between institutions.
Interviews were conducted with employees from the
mentioned institutions, all of which play a vital role in the
protection of Serbia’s cultural heritage (Figure 3). Each
institution has a distinct role in preserving cultural assets,
from immovable monuments to historical documents and
8Vladimir M. Cvetkovićet al.
cinematic history. The following is a breakdown of each
institution and its role in the study.
The Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural
Monuments is a leading authority responsible for the pro-
tection, conservation, and restoration of Serbia’s immo-
vable cultural heritage, including historical buildings,
archaeological sites, and other significant monuments. It
designs and implements strategies to protect these assets
from natural hazards, ensuring that both legal frameworks
and technical expertise are applied to preserve Serbia’s
cultural identity (Interviewee 1).
As Serbia’s largest and most prominent museum, the
National Museum is entrusted with preserving a vast array
of cultural assets, including artworks, archaeological dis-
coveries, and historical artefacts. The museum plays a cru-
cial role in protecting movable cultural heritage, which is
particularly vulnerable to disasters like floods, fires, and
theft. Its mission also extends to educating the public about
the importance of cultural preservation (Interviewee 2).
The National Library preserves Serbia’s written cul-
tural heritage, including rare manuscripts, historical docu-
ments, and books. With the high vulnerability of paper
materials to disasters such as fires and floods, the library
works to develop comprehensive disaster prevention and
response strategies. Preserving this form of heritage is vital
to maintaining the nation’s intellectual and cultural history
(Interviewee 3).
The State Archives are responsible for the long-term
preservation of documents with historical, legal, or
administrative value. The archives house invaluable
government records and historical documents essential
to maintaining a complete record of Serbia’spolitical
and social history. Protecting these materials from
environmental threats is a central part of their mission
(Interviewee 4).
As one of the largest film archives in the region, the
Yugoslav Film Archive is dedicated to preserving cinematic
history. The archive safeguards thousands of films, which
are sensitive to environmental factors and disasters like
fires and floods. Preserving these audiovisual materials
requires specialized techniques and continuous moni-
toring to prevent deterioration (Interviewee 5).
As mentioned earlier, Serbia boasts a rich cultural
heritage, encompassing numerous historical monuments,
archaeological sites, and religious buildings of exceptional
importance. Among the most significant of these are mon-
asteries, fortresses, and medieval towns that reflect the
long and tumultuous history of the region [112]. Also,
Serbia is particularly renowned for its medieval monas-
teries, which serve not only as centres of spiritual signifi-
cance but also as important cultural and historical land-
marks [113]. One of the most notable examples is the
Studenica Monastery, founded in the twelfth century.
This monastery is a prime example of Serbian medieval
Figure 3: Elevation map of the study area in Serbia with highlighted capital (a) and geographic position in Europe (b). Integral vulnerability map of the
natural hazards in the territory of Serbia (according to Dragicevic et al. [123]) is presented on panel (c).
Cultural heritage protection in Serbia 9
architecture and art, renowned for its frescoes, which are
considered masterpieces of Byzantine painting [114].
In addition to its religious monuments, Serbia is home
to a wealth of archaeological heritage [51,115]. The Vinča
site, located near Belgrade, stands out as one of the most
significant Neolithic sites in Europe. Artefacts such as
ceramic figures and tools unearthed at this site offer valu-
able insights into the life and culture of one of Europe’s
oldest civilizations [116,117]. Another key historical monu-
ment in Serbia is the Kalemegdan Fortress in Belgrade.
This fortress, which has witnessed numerous historical
events, is now a major cultural and tourist attraction. It
comprises remnants of Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, and
Austro-Hungarian fortifications, making it a uniquely rich
historical site [118].
Besides that, the Đerdap National Park, located on the
border with Romania, is not only one of Serbia’s most
beautiful natural sites but also holds great cultural signifi-
cance due to its archaeological findings. These discoveries
indicate human presence in the region since prehistoric
times. The most renowned site within the park is Lepenski
Vir, which is one of Europe’s oldest settlements and a major
archaeological landmark [119]. Serbia’s long history of war-
fare and military tradition is vividly reflected in the many
preserved examples of medieval weapons and armour.
Items such as swords, spears, and battle armour used in
the struggles against the Ottoman Empire are significant
artefacts of Serbia’s military heritage [120,121]. The National
Museum in Belgrade, the oldest and most prominent museum
in Serbia, houses an extensive collection of artistic, archae-
ological, and historical artefacts that are crucial for under-
standing Serbian and Balkan history and culture [122].
In Serbia and globally, the protection of cultural heri-
tage is governed by various legal frameworks designed to
preserve cultural assets for future generations. In Serbia,
the key legal document overseeing this area is the Law on
Cultural Heritage, established in 2009 (as published in the
Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 71/94, 52/2011
–other laws, 99/2011 –other law, 6/2020 –other law). This
law outlines the definitions, classifications, registration
procedures, and protection measures for cultural assets.
Under this legislation, cultural goods are categorized as
either movable or immovable, encompassing items such
as works of art, historical artefacts, architectural land-
marks, archaeological sites, and other objects of cultural
importance.
In the central register of Serbia, there are currently a
total of 2,657 immovable cultural properties, including
2,277 cultural monuments, 97 spatial cultural-historical
units, 203 archaeological sites, and 80 sites of outstanding
value (https://heritage.gov.rs, Accessed date 6 August. Also,
preserving these sites is essential for safeguarding their
historical and cultural significance. However, the existing
legal framework for their protection is inadequate, leaving
many critical issues unaddressed. Conversely, certain reg-
ulations are ambiguous and outdated, leading to chal-
lenges in their effective implementation. Institutes tasked
with the protection of cultural monuments, including the
Republic Institute and 13 regional institutes, face challen-
ging conditions [124]. This situation directly affects the
state of many immovable cultural properties, with some
suffering from neglect or deterioration. On the other side,
the absence of a robust regulatory framework further hin-
ders the effective operation of the protection system for
these sites. Despite recognizing the need for more compre-
hensive legal regulation in this field since 2016, a specific
law has yet to be enacted. Besides that, a national strategy
for the protection of immovable cultural properties has not
been developed, even a decade past the deadline for its
creation [124].
2.4 Sample characteristics
Experts for the guideline-based interviews were selected
based on several criteria (Table 1):
•Extensive professional experience in cultural heritage
protection, ranging from 10 to over 20 years.
•Specific responsibilities, such as the legal and technical
protection of immovable heritage, the preservation of
movable and written assets, and safeguarding audiovi-
sual materials.
•Active participation in disaster response efforts, particu-
larly in coordinating recovery activities and imple-
menting preparedness measures.
•Substantial contributions to policy development in DRR
and heritage protection.
Table 1 summarizes the expertise of five professionals
chosen for their extensive experience in cultural heritage
protection, averaging 15 years of work across various insti-
tutions. These experts collectively represent organizations
tasked with preserving immovable, movable, written, and
audiovisual cultural assets, spanning a wide range from
historical monuments to national film archives. Their roles
involve significant responsibilities, addressing the legal,
technical, and practical aspects of protecting cultural heri-
tage from natural hazards. On average, each expert has
been involved in at least three major disaster response
efforts, facing challenges like limited funding for structural
protection, safeguarding fragile materials, and conducting
risk assessments in rural regions.
10 Vladimir M. Cvetkovićet al.
All five experts have contributed to policy develop-
ment, with four actively advising on DRR strategies for
cultural heritage. Their work includes local and national
initiatives, and over half have played a key role in shaping
digital archiving policies to enhance the long-term protec-
tion of Serbia’s cultural heritage. In terms of disaster
response, all five experts have taken part in preparedness
drills, and three of their institutions are directly involved
in coordinating recovery efforts after major disasters. This
table highlights their pivotal contributions to developing
national strategies and frameworks, ensuring the resili-
ence and protection of Serbia’s cultural heritage.
Furthermore, the sample of interviewees in this study
consists of five participants, each bringing a diverse set
of demographic and socio-economic characteristics to the
research. Gender representation within the sample includes
three men (60%) and two women (40%), offering a balanced
perspective that incorporates insights from both genders. The
participants’ages range from 39 to 58 years, with an average
age of approximately 48 years, capturing a broad spectrum of
generational experiences relevant to the research focus.
In terms of educational background, the sample includes
two participants with secondary education (40%) and three
with higher education (60%). This mix allows the study to
explore viewpoints across different levels of formal education.
Income among participants varies from €420 to €600, with an
average income of around €504. The highest income of €600 is
reported by a participant with higher education from Belgrade,
while the lowest income of €420 is earned by a participant with
secondary education from Kragujevac. The interviews were
conducted in various locations, including Nikšić,Belgrade,
Novi Sad, Kragujevac, and Niš, ensuring geographical diversity
and capturing a range of regional perspectives.
The interviews lasted between 35 and 45 min, with an
average duration of about 39 min, reflecting the depth and
engagement of the discussions. All participants are employed,
indicating a stable economic status within the sample.
Regarding marital status, the majority of participants are
married (60%), with one participant being divorced (20%)
and another being single (20%). This structured and diverse
sample provides valuable insights into the demographic and
socio-economic characteristics of the interviewees, enriching
the study’s understanding of their perspectives and experi-
ences within the research context (Table 2).
2.5 Data collection
Data collection for this research was conducted through
semi-structured interviews with experts and an in-depth
Table 1: Detailed profile of interviewed experts: experience, responsibilities, and contributions to cultural heritage protection and disaster preparedness
ID Organization Experience Specific area of responsibility Involvement in disaster response Contribution to policy development
01 Republic Institute for the
Protection of Cultural
Monuments
15+ years Responsible for the legal and technical protection of
immovable cultural heritage, including historical
buildings and archaeological sites
Direct involvement in coordinating disaster
response and recovery efforts for
immovable heritage
Provides critical input on policy
development for heritage protection in
disaster contexts
02 National Museum of Serbia 12 years Safeguarding movable cultural heritage, including
valuable artefacts and archaeological finds
Engaged in emergency evacuation and
recovery of valuable artefacts during
disasters
Advises on DRR strategies for museum
collections and cultural tourism
03 National Library of Serbia 10 years Preservation of written cultural heritage, including
manuscripts and historical documents
Participates in disaster planning for the
protection of valuable books and documents
A key player in the development of digital
archiving policies to ensure cultural
continuity
04 State Archives of Serbia 18 years Long-term preservation of governmental and historical
documents, vulnerable to environmental hazards
Involved in disaster preparedness drills and
coordination with emergency services
Contributes to the legal framework
surrounding archive preservation in
disasters
05 Yugoslav Film Archive 20 years Preservation of Serbia’s audiovisual heritage, using both
modern and traditional methods
Coordinates with international film
preservation bodies for disaster prevention
Provides insight into modernizing Serbia’s
audiovisual heritage policies and DRR
Cultural heritage protection in Serbia 11
analysis of existing documentation by applying qualitative
content analysis [125]. The interviews followed a carefully
designed interview guide, ensuring that all relevant topics
were thoroughly addressed.
In addition to these interviews, the research relied on
several secondary sources to gather comprehensive data.
Documents such as reports, legal acts, and protection plans
were systematically analyzed to provide a comprehensive
understanding of the current framework for cultural heri-
tage protection. These documents served as the foundation
for understanding the existing legal framework and the
institutional mechanisms in place. This analysis encom-
passed a range of materials from key organizations respon-
sible for safeguarding cultural heritage, including various
reports, legal regulations, and preservation plans. These
includetheRepublicInstitutefortheProtectionofCultural
Monuments, the National Museum of Serbia, the National
Library of Serbia, the State Archives of Serbia, and the
Yugoslav Film Archive.
Reviewing these documents was crucial for under-
standing the current state of cultural heritage and the mea-
sures in place to safeguard it. They provided valuable
insights into existing legal frameworks and institutional
mechanisms, helping researchers identify major challenges
and pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses within the cur-
rent system.
This analysis was done alongside semi-structured
interviews, offering a deeper look into the legal and insti-
tutional setups. While the interviews brought in expert
perspectives and experiences, the document review gave
practical context and specific examples of how laws and
protection strategies are put into action. Therefore, these
documents do not just match the interview data; they
add to it, creating a more comprehensive picture of the
research question.
Fife expert interviews were held with employees from
central cultural heritage protection institutions, including the
Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments,
the National Museum of Serbia, the National Library of
Serbia, the State Archives of Serbia, and the Yugoslav Film
Archive.
Interviewees were asked a consistent set of core ques-
tions, organized around pre-defined thematic areas taking
into account the literature review and the underlying
hypothetical framework: thevulnerabilityofcultural
assets to disasters, evaluation of the legal and institutional
framework for protection, training for disaster response,
availability of technical and logistical resources, develop-
ment of planning documentation, prevention methodolo-
gies, response and recovery plans, and the effectiveness of
inter-institutional cooperation. The conversations were
guided with attention to the participants’levels of interest,
sincerity, and engagement, ensuring that the discussion
remained focused and productive.
These interviews aimed to provide a deep under-
standing of the legal and institutional frameworks, alongside
the current challenges and best practices in the field of cul-
tural heritage protection from the expert’sperspective.The
discussions covered a range of topics, including the vulner-
ability of cultural assets to natural hazards, the evaluation of
legal and institutional regulations, the level of preparedness
and training for disaster response,aswellastheavailability
and adequacy of technical and logistical resources, and the
effectiveness of inter-institutional cooperation.
Moreover, reports and studies from institutions like
the Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural
Monuments, the National Museum of Serbia, the National
Library of Serbia, the State Archives of Serbia, and the
Yugoslav Film Archive were invaluable. These reports pro-
vided critical insights into the current state of cultural
heritage and the protective measures being undertaken.
Additionally, a review of relevant scientific literature
on the topic of cultural heritage protection from natural
hazards was conducted. This literature not only helped in
formulating the research hypotheses but also provided a
robust theoretical framework for the study. By combining
these diverse data sources, the research was able to con-
duct a comprehensive investigation, ensuring the validity
and reliability of the results. These findings were instru-
mental in developing recommendations and proposals aimed
at improving the cultural heritage protection system in the
Republic of Serbia.
Table 2: Demographic and socio-economic profiles of interviewees
ID Gender Age Education Income Interview location Interview duration (min) Employment status Marital status
01 Male 64 Secondary education 450€Belgrade 37 Employed Married
02 Female 45 Higher education 600€Belgrade 40 Employed Married
03 Male 39 Higher education 500€Belgrade 35 Employed Single
04 Female 52 Secondary education 420€Belgrade 38 Employed Divorced
05 Male 47 Higher education 550€Belgrade 45 Employed Married
12 Vladimir M. Cvetkovićet al.
2.6 Analyses
The ATLAS.ti software was used for the systematic analysis
of the collected data, which facilitated the qualitative pro-
cessing of the interviews. The use of ATLAS.ti further
enhanced the depth and the quality of the analysis as it
enabled detailed coding and contributed to the robustness
of the study’sfindings. The use of ATLAS. ti software was
integral to this study as it facilitated the systematic coding
and analysis of qualitative data. Its advanced features
allowed for efficient organization of interview transcripts,
identification of recurring themes, and generation of visual
representations of relationships between codes. This soft-
ware’s capability to handle complex qualitative datasets
ensured a robust and replicable analysis process, aligning
with the study’s objectives to provide comprehensive
insights into Serbia’s cultural heritage protection systems.
Thedataunderwentacarefulcodingprocessusinga
combination of summary and structuring qualitative content
analysis. Each of these methodological approaches contrib-
uted uniquely to the examination of the data and provided
multiple insights into the challenges and dynamics of cul-
tural heritage protection. We used summary content ana-
lysis to reduce the essential content of the textual material
to a manageable corpus of texts. Through this process, we
identified the most important themes emerging from the
data. We also quantified the most common key terms in the
data. Terms such as “scenarios,”“response,”and “coordi-
nation”were coded and their frequency was analyzed
using the ATLAS.ti word frequency tool. In this way, a
quantitative overview of the key areas of disaster prepa-
redness and response was obtained, providing insight into
which concepts were most emphasized by respondents and
thus offering a complementary numerical perspective to
the qualitative results.
Using structured qualitative content analysis, data
were semi-inductively semi-deductively coded and care-
fully categorized, which allowed for easier identification
of key aspects of the research, including the vulnerability
of cultural assets to natural hazards, assessment of the
legal and institutional protection framework, disaster
preparedness training, technical and logistical resources,
development of planning documents, prevention methods,
and the effectiveness of inter-institutional cooperation.
This qualitative coding process uncovered significant pat-
terns and trends and identified interrelationships and
influencing factors.
The results of this analysis helped formulate conclu-
sions about the benefits and shortcomings of the current
heritage protection system. These conclusions enabled the
precise identification of areas in need of improvement and
highlighted specific measures and strategies that could
improve the protection of cultural heritage from natural
hazards. This process not only serves to develop strategies
for better protection in the future but also forms the basis
for further research.
2.6.1 Methodological framework for the Pearson
correlation analysis
This methodological framework outlines the steps under-
taken to perform Pearson correlation analysis and signifi-
cance testing on survey data collected from institutions
involved in cultural heritage protection in Serbia. The pro-
cess followed several key stages, starting from data collec-
tion to statistical analysis, ensuring a systematic approach
to understanding the relationships between institutional
factors and disaster preparedness:
(a) Data collection: The survey was designed with 10 core
questions aimed at investigating factors that influence
institutional preparedness and response to natural
hazards. These questions covered areas such as risk per-
ception (Q1), institutional frameworks (Q3), employee
preparedness (Q4), technical resources (Q5), and colla-
boration with DRR entities (Q9). Since the responses
were qualitative, additional steps were required to
enable quantitative analysis.
(b) Coding and quantification: To convert qualitative
responses into a format suitable for statistical analysis, a
coding system was implemented. Open-ended responses
were assigned numerical values. Most questions used a
Likert scale (1–5), while binary yes/no questions were
coded as 0 or 1. This conversion ensured uniformity,
allowing for effective comparison and correlation analysis
across the data set.
(c) Data organization: The coded data were structured
into a matrix, with each row representing a respon-
dent’s answers and each column corresponding to
one of the survey questions (Q1–Q10). This tabular
organization facilitated the clear presentation of the
data and prepared it for subsequent statistical proce-
dures, ensuring all variables were aligned for correla-
tion calculations.
Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to
assess the strength and direction of linear relationships
between pairs of variables (survey questions). The coeffi-
cient values range from −1 (perfect negative correlation) to
1 (perfect positive correlation), with r=0 indicating no
relationship. This analysis helped identify how various
factors, such as employee preparedness and technical
Cultural heritage protection in Serbia 13
resources, were interrelated. To determine the reliability
of the observed correlations, significance testing was per-
formed using p-values. A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated
statistical significance, while values below 0.01 pointed to
highly significant correlations. This step ensured that only
meaningful relationships were highlighted, allowing for a
more focused interpretation of how institutional practices
and preparedness levels were connected.
3 Results
The results include the following sections and their respec-
tive subheadings: (a) Pearson correlation matrix for cul-
tural heritage protection; (b) comprehensive qualitative
analysis of risk perception for cultural heritage in nat-
ural hazard contexts: a thematic content and discourse
approach; and (c) descriptive analysis of the perceived
vulnerability of cultural heritage to disasters: key risks
and institutional challenges.
3.1 Pearson correlation matrix for cultural
heritage protection
Pearson’s correlation analysis highlights several statisti-
cally significant relationships (p<0.05) between variables,
providing insight into how different factors related to the
protection of cultural heritage assets interact. This analysis
is particularly relevant for key personas involved in cul-
tural heritage protection, including cultural heritage man-
agers, disaster risk reduction experts, and policy makers.
These personas play a crucial role in shaping disaster pre-
paredness strategies and responding to the correlations
identified in the study (Table 3).
For cultural heritage managers, the positive correla-
tion between Q7 (preventive measures) and Q1 (risk per-
ception) (r=0.65, p=0.04) is especially important. It indi-
cates that institutions taking proactive steps in prevention
tend to have a heightened awareness of disaster risks. This
suggests that managers who emphasize prevention are
more attuned to potential threats, enabling them to better
safeguard cultural heritage assets.
Similarly, disaster risk reduction experts would ben-
efit from the relationship observed between Q9 (collabora-
tion) and Q4 (employee preparedness) (r=0.61, p=0.05).
While slightly significant level, this correlation shows that
better collaboration with disaster risk entities leads to
more prepared staff. For these experts, the findings under-
score the importance of fostering partnerships to improve
Table 3: Pearson correlation matrix for cultural heritage protection variables
Questions Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10
Q1: Risk perception 1.00 (0.00)
Q2: Regulations 0.32 (0.37) 1.00 (0.00)
Q3: Institutional framework 0.24 (0.50) 0.52 (0.12) 1.00 (0.00)
Q4: Employee preparedness 0.55 (0.10) 0.38 (0.28) 0.43 (0.21) 1.00 (0.00)
Q5: Technical resources 0.11 (0.75) 0.48 (0.16) 0.39 (0.27) 0.31 (0.39) 1.00 (0.00)
Q6: Risk assessment 0.07 (0.84) 0.26 (0.46) 0.35 (0.32) 0.21 (0.56) 0.29 (0.42) 1.00 (0.00)
Q7: Preventive measures 0.65 (0.04) 0.39 (0.27) 0.48 (0.16) 0.47 (0.17) 0.42 (0.22) 0.20 (0.58) 1.00 (0.00)
Q8: Scenarios preparedness 0.30 (0.40) 0.41 (0.24) 0.42 (0.22) 0.40 (0.25) 0.28 (0.45) 0.41 (0.24) 0.45 (0.19) 1.00 (0.00)
Q9: Collaboration 0.41 (0.24) 0.51 (0.13) 0.55 (0.10) 0.61 (0.05)* 0.65 (0.04)* 0.32 (0.37) 0.51 (0.13) 0.51 (0.13) 1.00 (0.00) 0.55 (0.10)
Q10: Suggested improvements 0.25 (0.48) 0.45 (0.19) 0.50 (0.13) 0.38 (0.29) 0.50 (0.13) 0.33 (0.35) 0.60 (0.07)* 0.49 (0.15) 0.55 (0.10) 1.00 (0.00)
*p≤0.05.
14 Vladimir M. Cvetkovićet al.
institutional readiness and ensure employees are well
trained to respond to disasters.
In addition, the correlation between Q9 (collaboration)
and Q5 (technical resources) (r=0.60, p=0.07) is highly
relevant for both cultural heritage managers and policy
makers. Institutions with stronger technical resources
are better positioned to collaborate with other disaster
management entities. This implies that policy decisions
focusing on enhancing technical capabilities could lead to
more effective partnerships and, ultimately, better disaster
preparedness.
Finally, the relationship between Q10 (suggested
improvements) and Q7 (preventive measures) (r=0.60,
p=0.05) indicates that institutions that have already imple-
mented preventive measures are more likely to push for
further improvements. This is particularly significant for
policymakers, as it highlights the need for continuous
investment in disaster prevention strategies. These proac-
tive institutions serve as advocates for ongoing policy
reforms, pushing for stronger frameworks that enhance
cultural heritage protection. Overall, these findings offer
actionable insights for the key personas involved in cul-
tural heritage protection. The correlations suggest that cul-
tural heritage managers, disaster risk reduction experts,
and policy makers who emphasize collaboration, preven-
tive measures, and technical resources are better equipped
to protect cultural assets from disasters (Table 3).
3.2 Comprehensive qualitative analysis of
risk perception for cultural heritage in
natural disaster contexts
This section presents the results of additional qualitative
analyses that quantify respondents’views on the risks and
challenges related to protecting cultural heritage in Serbia.
Table 4 offers a detailed analysis of the risks posed by
natural hazards and resource constraints that challenge
the safeguarding of cultural heritage. It identifies six key
factors –earthquakes, floods, fires, climate change, preven-
tive measures, and limited resources –along with their
frequency, impact, readiness levels, and proposed mitiga-
tion strategies.
Earthquakes and floods are highlighted as the most
common threats, each accounting for 21.05% of the total
risk. Although both present significant dangers to cultural
sites, the level of preparedness varies. Earthquake readi-
ness is rated as inadequate, while flood preparedness is
deemed moderate. To address these risks, recommenda-
tions include strengthening infrastructure in earthquake-
prone areas and implementing early warning systems to
better manage flood hazards.
Fires and climate change, each comprising 10.53% of
the risks, also present notable challenges. Fires have a
moderate impact, with preparedness considered insuffi-
cient. To reduce this risk, the use of fire-resistant materials
is suggested. Similarly, climate change, seen as an esca-
lating threat, faces low preparedness levels. Developing
strategies to adapt to climate change is recommended to
mitigate its growing impact.
Table 4 also emphasizes the critical role of preventive
measures, which are currently hindered by inadequate
preparedness. Enhancing training programs is identified
as a key step to improving disaster response capabilities.
Finally, limited resources are recognized as a significant
barrier. While no specific preparedness rating is assigned
to this issue, securing additional funding is seen as essen-
tial for improving overall disaster management strategies.
Table 5 categorizes the findings into four main factors:
legal frameworks, institutional coordination, technology
adoption, and resource limitations. Each factor is analyzed
in terms of its importance, the specific challenges involved,
and suggested solutions.
Legal frameworks are identified as the most significant
challenge, with an importance rating of 32.15%. The pri-
mary issues stem from outdated legislation, poor enforce-
ment, and a lack of alignment with international stan-
dards. To address these, the recommended solutions
include updating legal regulations to reflect modern DRM
Table 4: Analysis of perceived natural hazard risks and resource challenges affecting cultural heritage
Natural disaster Frequency (%) Impact level Preparedness level Mitigation measures
Earthquakes 21.05 High Inadequate Structural reinforcements
Floods 21.05 High Moderate Early warning systems
Fires 10.53 Medium Inadequate Fire-resistant materials
Climate change 10.53 Growing Inadequate Climate adaptation plans
Preventive measures 10.53 Essential Low More training required
Lack of resources 10.53 Critical N/A Increase funding
Cultural heritage protection in Serbia 15
principles and strengthening enforcement mechanisms to
ensure more effective protection.
Institutional coordination is ranked second, with a
22.00% importance rating. The main challenge here is the
weak communication between cultural heritage institu-
tions and disaster management agencies, which hampers
efficient preparedness and response. To improve this, the
table suggests establishing formal collaboration protocols
between agencies and organizing joint training exercises to
enhance cooperation.
Technology adoption, rated at 20.00%, faces obstacles
due to the limited use of tools like geographic information
systems (GIS), drones, and digital archiving systems, which
are crucial for effective DRM.The proposed solution involves
investing in these technologies and providing staffwith the
necessary training to utilize them effectively.
Finally, the lack of resources is highlighted as a critical
issue, with a 25.00% importance rating. Insufficient funding
and human resources hinder effective cultural heritage pro-
tection in Serbia, making it difficult to implement disaster
risk strategies. Securing additional funding through public–
private partnerships and international grants is recom-
mended as a way to support both financial and staffing
needs.
Table 6 provides an in-depth analysis of key terms
relevant to DRM in the context of safeguarding cultural
heritage. It highlights five essential terms –scenarios,
response, coordination, plans, and damage –examining
their frequency, significance, associated challenges, and
proposed solutions. The most frequently cited term is “sce-
narios,”accounting for 20%, underscoring the importance
of preparing for a variety of potential disaster events. The
primary challenge noted is the lack of comprehensive plan-
ning for all possible risks. To address this, it is recom-
mended that detailed, scenario-based planning exercises
be developed to improve preparedness for different dis-
aster situations.
In addition, the term “response,”representing 16% of
the frequency, is pivotal for minimizing the impact of dis-
asters. However, the analysis reveals issues with inefficient
response procedures and delays in action. Enhancing
response protocols and providing targeted training to
speed up reaction times are suggested as solutions to these
problems. Similarly, “coordination,”cited at 12%, empha-
sizes the importance of collaboration among agencies to
ensure a unified disaster response. Poor communication
between stakeholders is a significant challenge. To mitigate
this, Table 6 suggests establishing clear communication
pathways and conducting inter-agency drills to strengthen
coordination. Also at 12%, “plans”focuses on the impor-
tance of preparedness during disaster events. The primary
issue is that many disaster plans are either incomplete or
outdated. Regularly updating and testing these plans is
proposed to ensure readiness.
Finally, “damage,”accounting for 8%, highlights the
critical role of quick and effective damage assessments in
recovery efforts. The challenge lies in the delays often
encountered in damage assessment after a disaster.
To streamline recovery, faster assessment protocols, sup-
ported by modern technology, are recommended (Table 6).
Table 7 provides an analysis of the protection of cul-
tural heritage in Serbia, focusing on three main areas:
national treasure, vulnerability, and global cooperation.
It examines the frequency of these terms, key themes, chal-
lenges, and proposed solutions.
Dominating the discourse with 50% of the mentions,
“national treasure”reflects the deep connection between
Serbia’s cultural heritage and its national identity. The
primary challenge identified is the insufficient protection
mechanisms at the national level. The recommendations in
Table 7 propose enhancing legal frameworks and increasing
public awareness to ensure stronger protection for cultural
heritage sites. At 30% of the discussion, “vulnerability”high-
lights concerns about the fragility of cultural heritage,
Table 5: Key challenges in cultural heritage protection in Serbia
Factor Importance (%) Challenges identified Proposed solutions
Legal frameworks 32.1 Outdated or insufficient enforcement of laws; lack
of alignment with international standards
Update laws to include modern DRM principles;
improve enforcement mechanisms
Institutional
coordination
22 Poor communication between cultural heritage
institutions and disaster management agencies
Establish inter-agency collaboration protocols
and joint training exercises
Technology adoption 20 Limited use of advanced technologies such as GIS,
drones, and digital archiving
Invest in new technologies and provide training
for staffon their use
Lack of resources 25 Insufficient funding and human resources to
implement effective DRM
Secure additional funding through
public–private partnerships and international
grants
16 Vladimir M. Cvetkovićet al.
Table 6: Content analysis of key terms and their relevance to DRM in cultural heritage protection
Key term Frequency (%) Relevance Challenges identified Proposed actions
Scenarios 20.00 Scenarios are vital for planning responses to different
disaster types
Lack of comprehensive scenario planning for all
risks
Develop detailed scenario-based planning exercises
Response 16.00 Effective disaster response is critical for minimizing
damage
Inefficient response mechanisms and delayed
actions
Improve response protocols and training for quicker
action
Coordination 12.00 Coordination between agencies ensures a unified
disaster response
Poor communication between agencies and
stakeholders
Establish clear communication channels and inter-agency
drills
Plans 12.00 Preparedness plans outline essential actions during
disasters
Incomplete or outdated disaster plans in various
regions
Regularly update and test disaster plans
Damage 8.00 Assessing and addressing damage is key to effective
recovery
Delayed damage assessments post-disaster Implement rapid damage assessment protocols with
modern tools
Table 7: Focus areas in cultural heritage protection in Serbia
Focus area Mentions (%) Key themes Challenges identified Proposed solutions
National treasure 50 Cultural heritage is seen as vital to national identity Insufficient protection mechanisms at the national
level
Strengthen legal frameworks and raise public
awareness
Vulnerability 30 Emphasis on the fragility of heritage sites to
disasters
High susceptibility to natural and human-made
disasters
Implement risk assessment programs and preventive
measures
Global cooperation 20 Importance of international collaboration to protect
heritage
Limited collaboration and shared resources across
borders
Foster international partnerships and exchange best
practices
Cultural heritage protection in Serbia 17
especially in the face of both natural hazards and human
activities. The major challenge is the high risk of damage
to these sites. To reduce these risks, implementing com-
prehensive risk assessments and preventive measures is
recommended.
Meanwhile, “Global Cooperation,”mentioned 20% of
the time, emphasizes the importance of international col-
laboration in safeguarding cultural heritage. Limited coop-
eration and resource-sharing across borders are identified
as significant obstacles. The proposed solution is to foster
stronger international partnerships and exchange best
practices to enhance global efforts in cultural heritage pre-
servation (Table 7).
3.3 Descriptive analysis of perceived
vulnerability of cultural heritage to
disasters: key risks and institutional
challenges
The analysis of respondents’views on the vulnerability of
cultural heritage assets to natural hazards offers a detailed
overview of the primary risks and challenges that institu-
tions in Serbia face in preserving cultural heritage.
Earthquakes and floods emerged as the most frequently
mentioned concerns, accounting for 21.05% of all key
terms, signalling that these two disasters are perceived
as the greatest threats. This is particularly evident in rural
areas where underdeveloped infrastructure exacerbates
the situation. These findings underscore the urgent need
to enhance protection systems, especially in the country’s
less developed regions.
Fires were also identified as a significant risk, but with
a frequency of 10.53%, they are mentioned less often than
earthquakes and floods. While relatively common, fires
are not viewed as posing the same level of danger.
However, when combined with climate change –also
mentioned with a frequency of 10.53% –fires could
become a much more serious challenge, particularly in
areas where resources and infrastructure for risk man-
agement are lacking. Climate change was further high-
lighted as a contributing factor to the vulnerability of
cultural assets, particularly regarding flood risks and damage
to documentation. Respondents stressed the need for preven-
tive measures and emphasized the importance of better plan-
ning and institutional organization to mitigate these risks.
In addition, the lack of resources was singled out as a
key issue. This indicates that institutions in Serbia often
face financial and technical limitations, which hinder their
ability to respond effectively to natural hazards. This
resource shortage complicates the implementation of pre-
ventive strategies and limits the capacity for swift action
during emergencies. The results point to the need for
increased investment in employee education and training,
as well as the development of modern technologies that
enable early disaster detection and response. Moreover,
the analysis emphasizes the importance of better coordina-
tion between local and national institutions and the involve-
ment of local communities in cultural heritage protection
efforts. Improving infrastructure and regularly updating
protection plans are critical steps toward strengthening pro-
tective measures for cultural assets in Serbia (Table 8 and
Figure 4).
The analysis of respondents’views on domestic and
international regulations for the protection of cultural
assets in Serbia highlights several key factors that influ-
ence the effectiveness of these measures. A significant por-
tion of respondents (32.15%) stressed the importance of
both domestic and international regulations, but identified