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 [73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. 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 threatening 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 evaluate 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 military, humanitarian groups, and heritage experts are crucial 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 conservation into urban planning to avoid irreversible damage. Global research highlights various strategies for cultural heritage protection, including legal frameworks, technological solutions, and community involvement. However, these findings provide a general foundation, with limited direct applicability to Serbia’s unique challenges.

Many studies highlight the importance of developing risk management frameworks specifically designed to protect cultural heritage [84,85,86]. 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 insufficient integration of disaster risk management (DRM) strategies. Studies focusing on Balkan countries emphasize the need for region-specific approaches, highlighting parallels with Serbia in terms of resource limitations and institutional 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 – heritage institutions, governments, and international organizations – 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 traditional 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 heritage 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 pressures 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 inadequate [78,90,91]. According to Jigyasu et al. [40], numerous countries, especially in developing regions, lack the necessary resources or political motivation to implement these regulations effectively. From another perspective, Majumdar and Das [78] similarly argue that despite international agreements and national legislation in countries like India, enforcement remains problematic. This is largely due to the complexities of coordinating between heritage authorities 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] highlight 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 especially 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 thorough risk assessments or develop effective emergency response plans, rendering them poorly equipped for major disasters. Training among staff at cultural institutions is also a critical concern. Conversely, Rahman [89] points out that many cultural heritage workers receive insufficient training in disaster preparedness, which undermines the resilience of heritage sites. In addition, the lack of standardized training programs across institutions exacerbates 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 Pastrana-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 [92,93,94]. Experts suggest enhancing international agreements, like the Hague Convention, by weaving them into national legislation and encouraging deeper international partnerships, particularly with organizations such as UNESCO [95]. Technological innovations, including 3D scanning and drones, have become essential tools in documenting and monitoring heritage sites, helping assess risks and plan restoration efforts after damage [96,97,98]. Engaging local communities and raising 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, conservation 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 heritage 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 collaborations are often informal and lack proper institutionalization. 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]. However, many studies emphasize the need for more formalized networks that include joint training and resource-sharing initiatives to ensure effective disaster preparedness 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-governmental organizations (NGOs), and heritage visitors – was not included, missing valuable perspectives; (f) while financial constraints faced by cultural heritage institutions are mentioned, potential solutions like public–private partnerships or international funding are not explored in depth; (g) although the study examines existing legal frameworks, it lacks detailed recommendations for improving enforcement, 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–benefit 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.

2.1 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 capacities 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 logistical resources allocated for the protection and recovery of cultural heritage, suggesting that they are underdeveloped 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 staff within cultural 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 affects coordination and joint action in safeguarding cultural 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 enhancement, 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 interviews focuses on experts’ specific knowledge [110], particularly 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 organization 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 institutional 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 measures 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 erosion, snowdrifts and avalanches, and extreme air temperatures?

2. How would you evaluate the domestic and internationally 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 emergency 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 available 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 emergency management entities, such as emergency management 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 preparedness 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 cinematic history. The following is a breakdown of each institution and its role in the study.

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).

The Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments is a leading authority responsible for the protection, conservation, and restoration of Serbia’s immovable 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 discoveries, and historical artefacts. The museum plays a crucial 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 cultural heritage, including rare manuscripts, historical documents, 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’s political 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 monitoring 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 monasteries, fortresses, and medieval towns that reflect the long and tumultuous history of the region [112]. Also, Serbia is particularly renowned for its medieval monasteries, which serve not only as centres of spiritual significance but also as important cultural and historical landmarks [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 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 valuable insights into the life and culture of one of Europe’s oldest civilizations [116,117]. Another key historical monument 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 significance 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 warfare 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, archaeological, and historical artefacts that are crucial for understanding Serbian and Balkan history and culture [122].

In Serbia and globally, the protection of cultural heritage 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 landmarks, 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 regulations are ambiguous and outdated, leading to challenges in their effective implementation. Institutes tasked with the protection of cultural monuments, including the Republic Institute and 13 regional institutes, face challenging 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 hinders the effective operation of the protection system for these sites. Despite recognizing the need for more comprehensive 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 audiovisual materials.

• Active participation in disaster response efforts, particularly in coordinating recovery activities and implementing 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 institutions. 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 heritage 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.

All five experts have contributed to policy development, 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 protection 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 resilience 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 experiences 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 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 heritage protection. These documents served as the foundation for understanding the existing legal framework and the institutional mechanisms in place. This analysis encompassed a range of materials from key organizations responsible for safeguarding cultural heritage, including various reports, legal regulations, and preservation plans. These include 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.

Reviewing these documents was crucial for understanding the current state of cultural heritage and the measures 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 current system.

This analysis was done alongside semi-structured interviews, offering a deeper look into the legal and institutional 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 questions, organized around pre-defined thematic areas taking into account the literature review and the underlying hypothetical framework: the vulnerability of cultural assets to disasters, evaluation of the legal and institutional framework for protection, training for disaster response, availability of technical and logistical resources, development of planning documentation, prevention methodologies, 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 understanding of the legal and institutional frameworks, alongside the current challenges and best practices in the field of cultural heritage protection from the expert’s perspective. The discussions covered a range of topics, including the vulnerability of cultural assets to natural hazards, the evaluation of legal and institutional regulations, the level of preparedness and training for disaster response, as well as the availability 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 provided 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 conduct a comprehensive investigation, ensuring the validity and reliability of the results. These findings were instrumental in developing recommendations and proposals aimed at improving the cultural heritage protection system in the Republic of Serbia.

2.6 Analyses

The ATLAS.ti software was used for the systematic analysis of the collected data, which facilitated the qualitative processing 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’s findings. 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 software’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.

The data underwent a careful coding process using a combination of summary and structuring qualitative content analysis. Each of these methodological approaches contributed uniquely to the examination of the data and provided multiple insights into the challenges and dynamics of cultural heritage protection. We used summary content analysis 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 “coordination” 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 preparedness 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 carefully 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 patterns and trends and identified interrelationships and influencing factors.

The results of this analysis helped formulate conclusions 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.

3.1 Pearson correlation matrix for cultural heritage protection

Pearson’s correlation analysis highlights several statistically 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 cultural heritage protection, including cultural heritage managers, disaster risk reduction experts, and policy makers. These personas play a crucial role in shaping disaster preparedness strategies and responding to the correlations identified in the study (Table 3).

For cultural heritage managers, the positive correlation between Q7 (preventive measures) and Q1 (risk perception) (r = 0.65, p = 0.04) is especially important. It indicates 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 benefit from the relationship observed between Q9 (collaboration) 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 underscore the importance of fostering partnerships to improve 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 implemented 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 proactive 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 cultural heritage protection. The correlations suggest that cultural heritage managers, disaster risk reduction experts, and policy makers who emphasize collaboration, preventive 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, preventive measures, and limited resources – along with their frequency, impact, readiness levels, and proposed mitigation 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 readiness is rated as inadequate, while flood preparedness is deemed moderate. To address these risks, recommendations 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 insufficient. To reduce this risk, the use of fire-resistant materials is suggested. Similarly, climate change, seen as an escalating 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 essential 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 primary issues stem from outdated legislation, poor enforcement, and a lack of alignment with international standards. To address these, the recommended solutions include updating legal regulations to reflect modern DRM 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 institutions 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 staff with 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 protection in Serbia, making it difficult to implement disaster risk strategies. Securing additional funding through public–private partnerships and international grants is recommended 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 “scenarios,” accounting for 20%, underscoring the importance of preparing for a variety of potential disaster events. The primary challenge noted is the lack of comprehensive planning for all possible risks. To address this, it is recommended that detailed, scenario-based planning exercises be developed to improve preparedness for different disaster situations.

In addition, the term “response,” representing 16% of the frequency, is pivotal for minimizing the impact of disasters. 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%, emphasizes 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 importance 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, supported by modern technology, are recommended (Table 6).

Table 7 provides an analysis of the protection of cultural heritage in Serbia, focusing on three main areas: national treasure, vulnerability, and global cooperation. It examines the frequency of these terms, key themes, challenges, 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” highlights concerns about the fragility of cultural heritage, 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 comprehensive risk assessments and preventive measures is recommended.

Meanwhile, “Global Cooperation,” mentioned 20% of the time, emphasizes the importance of international collaboration in safeguarding cultural heritage. Limited cooperation 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 preservation (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 institutions 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 management are lacking. Climate change was further highlighted as a contributing factor to the vulnerability of cultural assets, particularly regarding flood risks and damage to documentation. Respondents stressed the need for preventive measures and emphasized the importance of better planning 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 preventive 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 coordination between local and national institutions and the involvement of local communities in cultural heritage protection efforts. Improving infrastructure and regularly updating protection plans are critical steps toward strengthening protective measures for cultural assets in Serbia (Table 8 and Figure 4).

Figure 4

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning the vulnerability of cultural heritage to natural hazards.

The analysis of respondents’ views on domestic and international regulations for the protection of cultural assets in Serbia highlights several key factors that influence the effectiveness of these measures. A significant portion of respondents (32.15%) stressed the importance of both domestic and international regulations, but identified implementation as the main challenge. Specifically, 17.86% pointed to issues with law enforcement, primarily due to a lack of resources and capacity. This shortage of resources, which limits the effectiveness of the prescribed measures, was cited by 10.71% of respondents, underscoring the need for greater investment in infrastructure and human resources (Table 9 and Figure 5).

Figure 5

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning domestic and international ratified regulations on the protection of cultural assets.

Moreover, 14.29% of respondents emphasized the need for improved coordination between institutions and international organizations to enhance the protection of cultural heritage and ensure compliance with global standards. An equal 14.29% highlighted the importance of international cooperation, seeing it as essential for integrating Serbia into the global framework for heritage protection. In addition, 10.71% of respondents identified a lack of oversight in the enforcement of regulations, particularly in rural areas, which points to the need for regular monitoring and supervision of law enforcement efforts. These findings suggest that while Serbia’s legal framework for protecting cultural assets is robust, significant improvements are needed in its implementation and in fostering better coordination at both national and international levels.

The analysis of respondents’ views on the adequacy of Serbia’s institutional framework for protecting cultural assets reveals several critical challenges in the application of existing legal and institutional measures. While most respondents agree that the framework is solid in theory, they point to significant issues in its practical implementation. Approximately 35% of respondents highlight the need to strengthen institutional capacities to improve cultural heritage protection, particularly in rural areas where resources are scarce, leaving cultural assets more exposed to risks.

In addition, 22% of respondents emphasize the need for better cooperation between institutions at both the national and local levels, specifically citing the lack of coordination between the National Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and its regional branches. This lack of collaboration, they argue, hinders the effective implementation of protective measures and the sustainable management of cultural assets.

About 18% of respondents indicate that the institutional framework lacks the necessary flexibility to respond swiftly to emergencies and urgent situations. They suggest that current regulations should be amended to better address the protection of cultural assets during natural hazards and unforeseen disasters. These respondents believe that the laws should include provisions that enable institutions to take decisive and effective action during emergencies, especially when dealing with hazards caused by natural or technological disasters.

While the institutional framework is generally regarded as satisfactory in theory, 15% of respondents believe that poor resource management and inadequate planning are major barriers to effective cultural heritage protection, particularly in the face of natural hazards. They advocate for more proactive planning, comprehensive risk assessments, and the development of contingency measures to ensure that cultural assets are safeguarded.

Finally, 10% of respondents stress that insufficient cooperation between institutions and other relevant organizations undermines the effectiveness of the current framework. Although the institutional setup is considered adequate, respondents highlight the importance of stronger partnerships between governmental bodies, NGOs, and international institutions. They believe that fostering these collaborations would lead to a more comprehensive and effective approach to protecting Serbia’s cultural heritage (Table 10 and Figure 6).

Figure 6

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning the adequacy of the institutional framework for the protection of cultural property in the Republic of Serbia.

The analysis of respondents’ views on employee preparedness for emergencies caused by natural hazards reveals a broad agreement on the need to enhance current training programs. Although training sessions are regularly conducted, 40% of respondents believe that there is a lack of practical exercises and simulations, which would better equip employees to handle disasters. Respondents point out that the existing training sessions are not held frequently enough and primarily cover basic topics, leaving employees underprepared for more complex disasters.

Approximately 20% of respondents stress the need for additional, more advanced training focused on specific risks like fires and earthquakes. They acknowledge that employees in cultural institutions are trained to use basic equipment, but emphasize that further investment in training programs is necessary to prepare staff for real-life crisis scenarios. Another 20% of respondents highlight the importance of continuous education and training that covers more complex disasters. They underscore the need for improved coordination with other institutions and emphasize the critical role of teamwork during disasters.

The remaining 20% of respondents identify insufficient training for responding to natural hazards and call for more frequent and intensive sessions, with a focus on practical exercises and simulations. They believe that this gap in training diminishes employee preparedness for emergencies. Overall, the findings suggest that while emergency response training does exist, significant improvements are required. More frequent and comprehensive training sessions, particularly those that offer practical experience, would enhance employee readiness for disasters (Table 11 and Figure 7).

Figure 7

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning the employee preparedness for responding to natural hazards.

The analysis of respondents’ perspectives regarding the technical resources of institutions for responding to emergencies caused by natural hazards indicates significant deficiencies in equipment. The majority of respondents (40%) highlight that technical resources are limited and underdeveloped for effective emergency response. While basic equipment, such as fire extinguishers and document protection systems, is generally available, more advanced technologies and specialized tools that would enable rapid response and damage assessment are lacking.

Around 20% of respondents state that the equipment is often outdated and that institutions lack sufficient funds to acquire new devices. These respondents believe that the current technical capacities are insufficient to cope with major natural hazards, such as floods and earthquakes, and emphasize the need for modernization of protection systems. In addition, another 20% of respondents point out that the technical equipment of institutions is relatively adequate for daily activities, but that there are insufficient resources for effective intervention in disasters. These respondents particularly stress the need for equipment that would allow for quick damage assessment and the protection of endangered cultural heritage in disasters.

The remaining 20% of respondents believe that the technical resources of institutions are insufficient for immediate response, especially in the context of natural hazards. They emphasize the need to improve technical capacities to ensure the effective protection of cultural heritage during disasters and suggest that institutions should be equipped with modern devices and equipment, including early warning systems and specialized tools for rapid response. These results indicate that investment in the modernization and improvement of technical resources is necessary to ensure the efficient protection of cultural heritage in Serbia, particularly in the context of emergencies caused by natural hazards (Table 12 and Figure 8).

Figure 8

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning technical resources of institutions for responding to disasters.

The analysis of respondents’ perspectives towards risk assessment following Article 15 of the Law on Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management highlights the importance of this law as a crucial step towards improving DRM in Serbia. However, the majority of respondents (40%) emphasize that the implementation of this law in practice is insufficient and that the procedures for risk assessment are often overly complex. Respondents stress the need for better coordination among various institutions to ensure effective enforcement of regulations.

About 25% of respondents point out the importance of continuous training for staff in institutions to ensure that risk assessment is conducted appropriately. Although current procedures are partially implemented, respondents believe that more resources and effort should be invested in training and practical application of these procedures. An additional 20% of respondents consider the law to be well designed but note that there are challenges in its implementation at the local level. These respondents highlight the need for better tools and methodologies for risk assessment, especially concerning natural hazards (Table 13 and Figure 9).

Figure 9

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning perspectives on risk assessment following Article 15 of the Law on Risk Reduction and Emergency Management.

The remaining 20% of respondents state that it is necessary to improve coordination and provide additional resources for conducting risk assessments, particularly in less developed regions. The lack of resources and coordination affects the effectiveness of implementing the law and risk assessments in practice. These results indicate a need for enhancing the practical application of Article 15 of the Law on Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management through better coordination, continuous training, and the provision of additional resources and tools for risk assessment across institutions throughout Serbia (Table 13 and Figure 9).

Keywords identified in respondents’ views on preventive measures for protecting cultural heritage from natural hazards show that preventive measures are the most frequently mentioned, appearing in 20.83% of cases. This indicates that respondents view prevention as a key factor in safeguarding cultural heritage. Cultural heritage itself, as the subject of protection, is mentioned in 16.67% of cases, highlighting its importance within the context of protective activities.

Technologies are mentioned in 8.33% of cases, suggesting that respondents feel there is a lack of modern technological solutions for protecting cultural heritage. Training and education of staff are highlighted in 12.50% of cases, indicating the need for continuous education to improve preventive measures. Additionally, local coordination and infrastructure are also mentioned in 8.33% of cases, emphasizing the importance of collaboration with local authorities and the need for improved infrastructure for better protection. Financial resources represent a significant challenge, as evidenced by their mention in 12.50% of cases, pointing to the need for increased investment in this area. Finally, international cooperation, mentioned in 12.50% of cases, underscores the importance of global support and knowledge exchange for enhancing preventive measures (Table 14 and Figure 10).

Figure 10

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning perspectives on preventive measures by institutions to mitigate the impact of natural hazards on cultural heritage.

The analysis of respondents’ perspectives toward response scenarios during and after natural hazards threatening cultural heritage shows that concepts such as scenarios, response, coordination, and plans are key in this area. The most frequently mentioned keyword, “scenarios,” appears in 20% of cases, indicating that respondents consider the development and elaboration of response scenarios crucial for protecting cultural heritage in the event of natural hazards. However, although scenarios are important, respondents highlight that current scenarios are not sufficiently detailed and lack specific plans that would enable effective intervention, particularly in cases of floods and earthquakes.

The keyword “response,” appearing in 16% of cases, emphasizes the importance of timely and organized responses by institutions to natural and technological hazards. Respondents believe that current preparedness is inadequate and that more effort is needed to improve response processes to protect cultural heritage from natural hazards. This lack of adequate preparation is linked to underdeveloped scenarios and insufficient practical training.

On the other hand, “coordination” and “plans” are also significant keywords, appearing in 12% of cases. Respondents stress that coordination between different institutions is crucial for ensuring effective response during disasters. Without clear coordination and protocols, the protection of cultural assets remains insufficient, highlighting the need for improved communication and collaboration among relevant actors. Simultaneously, developing specific response plans is necessary for institutions to adapt to real conditions during disasters.

In addition, terms such as “intervention,” “damage,” and “drills,” mentioned in 8% of cases, indicate the importance of organizing regular practical drills to prepare staff for emergencies and enable quick intervention when cultural heritage is threatened. Respondents also emphasize the need for damage assessment plans after disasters, especially in rural areas where resources are limited.

This analysis shows that institutions need to pay more attention to developing detailed and specific response scenarios for various types of disasters, improving coordination with other institutions and services, and conducting regular drills to ensure staff are prepared for emergency interventions. This would enable more effective protection of cultural assets and reduce damage during natural hazards (Table 15 and Figure 11).

Figure 11

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning response scenarios during and after natural hazards that threaten cultural heritage.

The analysis of respondents’ perspectives towards collaboration with DRR and emergency management systems shows that this collaboration is recognized as a key element in the risk reduction process and effective response during disasters. The term “collaboration” is the most frequently mentioned, appearing in 40% of cases, indicating the importance of better integration of activities among various services, such as civil protection, firefighters, and rescue units. Respondents believe that collaboration should be regular and systematic to achieve greater preparedness for disasters.

Respondents also emphasize the importance of coordination and communication between institutions, mentioned in 32% of cases. The lack of coordination and communication among different actors represents an obstacle to effective collaboration and preparedness for disasters. Respondents suggest that better mechanisms for information exchange and joint training should be developed to enhance operational collaboration during disasters. In 20% of cases, respondents highlighted the importance of drills and simulations as a key element in improving collaboration and preparedness for emergencies. They propose that regular drills be organized to better prepare staff for emergencies and enable different services to respond more effectively.

The term “resources” is mentioned in 8% of cases, indicating the need for additional resources and trained personnel to support collaboration and the protection of cultural heritage in emergencies. Respondents highlight the importance of investing in training and developing joint activities with different system forces to ensure better protection of cultural assets. These results show that strengthening collaboration between institutions and various services, improving coordination and communication, and organizing regular drills are necessary to enhance disaster preparedness. Investment in resources and training remains a crucial factor for ensuring effective response and protection of cultural heritage in emergencies (Table 16 and Figure 12).

Figure 12

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning cooperation with system forces involved in DRR.

The analysis of respondents’ perspectives towards measures for improving the protection of cultural heritage from the impacts of natural hazards in Serbia highlights several key areas that require attention. The most frequently mentioned aspect is the education and training of personnel, which appears in 40% of cases. Respondents emphasize the importance of continuous education on new methods and technologies for preventing and mitigating the effects of disasters on cultural assets. It is suggested that more investment be made in training staff within cultural institutions to better prepare them for responding to disasters caused by natural and technological hazards.

Technologies and modernization of equipment are mentioned in 20% of cases, underscoring the need for the development of modern technologies and specialized early warning systems that would enable timely protection of cultural heritage. Respondents highlight that modernization is essential for institutions to adequately respond to natural hazards and reduce risks. International cooperation is identified as a crucial factor in 20% of cases. Respondents recommend enhancing collaboration with international organizations and engaging in global programs that support the protection of cultural assets from disasters. This cooperation is important for both obtaining financial support and exchanging knowledge and experiences with other countries.

In 16% of cases, respondents emphasize the importance of coordination between institutions, particularly at the local and national levels. Better coordination of activities and regular review of existing protection plans are needed to ensure more effective protection of cultural heritage. Disaster-resistant infrastructure is mentioned in 8% of cases. Respondents recommend building disaster-resistant infrastructure, especially in rural areas where resources are often limited. These results indicate that education, technology modernization, international cooperation, institutional coordination, and the development of resilient infrastructure are key elements for enhancing the protection of cultural heritage from natural hazards in Serbia (Table 17 and Figure 13).

Figure 13

Visualization of key term frequencies in respondents’ answers concerning cooperation with system forces involved in DRR.

In summary, the results underscore the urgent need for updating legal frameworks, improving institutional capacities, and fostering inter-institutional collaboration to address the vulnerabilities of Serbia’s cultural heritage to natural hazards.