Cvetković, V., & Kezunović, A. (2021). Security Aspects of Critical Infrastructure Protection in Anthropogenic Disasters: A Case Study of Belgrade [Bezbednosni aspekti zaštite kritične infrastrukture u antropogenim katastrofama: studija slučaja Beograda]. In Forenzičko računovodstvo, istražne radnje, lјudski faktor i primenjeni alati. Beograd: Fakultet organizacionih nauka, Univerzitet u Beogradu.
Vladimir M. Cvetković University of Belgrade
Security Aspects of Critical Infrastructure Protection in Anthropogenic Disasters: A Case Study of Belgrade
Recognized as the basis for maintaining the functionality of the community in disaster conditions, the protection of critical infrastructure is one of the essential measures to improve society’s resilience.
Starting from the fact that society can be affected by various natural and anthropogenic disasters, the subject of this chapter refers to a comprehensive analysis of the security aspects of critical infrastructure protection in anthropogenic (anthropogenic) disasters. On the other hand, the social goal of the research is to determine the level of public awareness of the importance of protecting critical infrastructure from these disasters. By applying the quantitative research tradition, quantitative research was realized in Belgrade, in which 200 respondents were interviewed by random sampling. The obtained research results unequivocally indicate that preventive action in this area should be mainly focused on adopting strategies based on which plans are made to prevent these disasters and operational procedures from protecting critical infrastructure.
Critical infrastructure, in theory, does not have a single conceptual definition, and often its conceptual definition depends on the field of research in which it is determined, but also the country in which it is done because in almost every country, it is defined differently (Cvetković, 2013; Hromada & Lukas, 2012; Mijalković & Cvetković, 2013; Murray & Grubesic, 2012). Nevertheless, the conceptual definitions of critical infrastructure, both in-laws and regulations, international and national, and in theory mainly indicate that these are assets and assets of the most significant importance for all activities (functioning) of both the economy and society (Trbojević, 2018; Herega, 2010).
Globalization and the technological revolution have made every type of infrastructure and the systems that belong to it complex and essential for modern society (Marjanović, 2019). Mijalković and Cvetković (2013) define disasters as a characteristic, momentary, real danger for people and goods. Also, they state that these are harmful, unforeseen, unfortunate events that have detrimental consequences for people, their property, natural resources, and infrastructure, which no society can prevent and solve without support and help and use the resources of the wider community. Disasters are often divided into natural disasters, technological disasters, and their background is highly complex (Mladjan & Cvetkovic, 2013).
Anthropogenic disasters, when they occur, cause significant damage to critical infrastructure facilities such as oil, gas, water, water distribution, communication, traffic, transport and have an extremely negative impact on society, the environment, and the economy (Petrova, 2011). Anthropogenic disasters are different and have different characteristics and bring with them various hazards. These are mainly hazards that occur in industrial and technical conditions. They can be other accidents, such as traffic accidents, different dangerous procedures, specific activities of people that can lead to human casualties, injuries and various diseases, and many other dangers to human health. It can also be property damage, dams, infrastructure failures, the environmental damage caused by various chemical spills, toxic waste,
industrial pollution, and fires. In addition to the above, it can also be nuclear radiation (Cvetković, 2021; Cvetković, Filipović, & Gačić, 2019).
Anthropogenic disasters can be of different forms (Lin Moe & Pathranarakul, 2006; Martin & Rice, 2012; Wang, 2000). Therefore, in the studies of disasters, they are defined; differently, they are accidents, i.e., disasters that a person intentionally or unintentionally causes by his actions. The formulation of anthropogenic disasters is less commonly used, i.e., anthropogenic disasters (Cvetković, 2020). The anthropogenic disaster most often occurs due to the malfunction of technical infrastructure or people mistake in the structure of its use or control, but also a combination of both (Arata et al., 2000). They represent different types of accidents that man has caused intentionally or unintentionally. Usually, they are defined as a sudden and uncontrolled event or a series of events that got out of control during the management of specific means of work and the handling of dangerous substances, whether in production or transport, during their trade or processing disposal, and storage. These can be fires, various accidents in all types of traffic, explosions of all kinds, for example, in mines and tunnels, downtime of cable cars for transporting people, demolition of dams, accidents at power, oil and gas plants, accidents in the handling of radioactive and nuclear materials, and whose consequences endanger the safety and lives of people, material goods and the environment “(Jakovljević, 2006: 106).
In the Law on Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management (Official Gazette of RS, no. 87/2018), anthropogenic disasters, i.e., accidents, are defined as events that occur suddenly and that are not controlled, or they are events over which the ability to manage such as working equipment or the use of hazardous substances in production, processing or transport and distribution, but also in storage and disposal. Technical – technological disasters have their factors, and the most significant of them can be related to human technological or organizational errors that occur in warehousing, transport, and many other processes (Shaluf, 2007, 2008). These disasters are often classified as industrial; construction; nuclear; computer and transport” (Cvetković, 2019b). The characteristics of anthropogenic disasters are therefore different, and thus they bring with them significant risk factors. Some of these factors are chemical complexes; accidents and incidents in the chemical industries; different types of accidents inconvenient and warehouses in production; various accidents during the transport of dangerous goods; nuclear explosions; accidents and incidents involving nuclear weapons; accidents with the disposal of radioactive waste and materials of that kind, but also careless and careless handling of the same (Cvetković, 2019b).
Based on the classifications above, it can be said that the causes of anthropogenic disasters, i.e., the factors of the same, are different industrial factors that are most often related to the chemical industry. However, there are various accidents in producing and transporting dangerous goods and those caused by nuclear weapons or their consequences (Shaluf, 2007: 708). It can often be associated with radioactive waste and material and careless handling because they are often associated with nuclear weapons. Nuclear and radiological disasters include all situations that arise; as a result, i.e., consequence
of human error, various unexpected and extraordinary events, equipment failures, and various forms of action by people from evil intentions. These disasters have extremely significant harmful consequences. These disasters can have short-term and long-term results, both for the people and the environment directly affected by them and beyond, on those who are not directly affected by them. Their effects, for example, radiation, are not available to the human senses and cause a feeling of helplessness and vulnerability in people, but also various traumas (Vazque et al., 2010). Sources of endangerment with radioactive materials are primarily nuclear power plants. Still, they can also be plants for producing and processing nuclear fuel or radioactive waste and various institutions that use nuclear reactors for scientific research (Cvetković et al., 2019, p.52). These disasters have, as a consequence, a severe violation of human health, safety, and quality of life in general. Also, the results are substantial and harmful to the environment. All of the above occurs because the consequences of nuclear disasters are most often closely related to the radiation they cause (Vazquez et al., 2010).
On the other hand, industrial disasters occur in the manufacturing sector, primarily goods, but the provision of services in some economic activities, are highly unfavorable and unfavorable events for people, their health, and the environment and production. With the development of this sector, the occurrence of these disasters became more frequent. “Mechanical processing of raw materials and serial production make life easier for modern man, but make it difficult to achieve his relative safety” (Cvetković, 2020, p. 122). They are rare, but their consequences are often significant for people and the environment (Zio & Avenc, 2013). These disasters differ based on the industry in which they occur. Their most common division is into severe industrial disasters in the extractive and processing industries, they divided into severe ones: for example, in energy, metallurgy, and mining, but also in the chemical and construction industries; light industrial disasters, for instance, those industrial disasters that occur in the production of construction materials, wood, tobacco, textiles and many other similar industries (Cvetković, 2020).
Unlike them, transport or traffic disasters are a common occurrence, and they are different types of traffic accidents of all kinds of traffic. Their consequences are multiple, not only for the wider social community but also for its smaller parts, such as families. In our country, traffic accidents of all kinds are pretty standard, especially in road traffic. Their causes are numerous, and often it is a high speed, poor infrastructure, different weather conditions, for example, rain, snow, fog, etc. It can also be inadequate road markings, poor penal policy, or its poor application of various human impacts factors.
The causes of anthropogenic disasters can be various (Al-ramlawi, El-Mougher, & Al-Agha, 2020; Chakma, Hossain, Islam, Hasnat, & Management, 2020; Kaur, 2020; Olawuni, Olowoporoku, & Daramola, 2020; Thennavan, Ganapathy, Chandrasekaran, & Rajawat, 2020), and their consequences often cannot be seen. Considering that all anthropogenic disasters occur under the influence of natural forces, man or their actions, or in combination under the influence of these two factors (Shaluf, 2007). For example, the cause of an anthropogenic disaster caused by nuclear or radiological factors can be pushed under the influence of natural forces. There would be some damage to the facility in which nuclear and radiological research is performed. Also, the same disasters can happen by human error, not by attention, but by
malfunctioning specific devices used for nuclear or radiological examination. The same disasters can occur by making a mistake that would cause an anthropogenic disaster under the influence of natural forces, such as earthquakes, people in fear or panic (Eagle & Davies, 1992).
It can also be noticed that industrial and transport anthropogenic disasters are often connected, although this is not the rule. Industrial disasters can also occur as a result of natural and human factors but both. Namely, in industrial production, for example, floods can cause technical and technological disasters.
Still, the same can happen by human error during the show, for example, mistakes that lead to failure that causes the spillage of hazardous substances (Quarantelli, 1990). Traffic-transport anthropogenic disasters are often the result of human error or negligence. For example, during the transport of dangerous goods, the transport vehicle was moving at high speed, which led to an error and anthropogenic disaster – transport. In the media, one can often see reports of significant transport disasters that occurred on the water, i.e., in sea transport with oil spills from tankers, which ran aground by human error, and this led to a breakdown due to which the oil spilled (Couch & Coles, 2011).
Anthropogenic disasters are prevented, i.e., protection from them is carried out by preventive action. A whole series of preventive measures are adopted, regulated by various laws and regulations for that purpose. Also, there must be a legally regulated procedure to eliminate their consequences. It is also necessary that all those engaged in activities that can lead to a higher risk of accidents take all the required actions to prevent it, both its impact on humans and the environment in general. Also, all those who deal with activities that can cause anthropogenic disasters are legally obliged to organize and implement protection against these disasters, both for people and the environment, as well as material goods (Savić & Stajić, 2006).
Every company must have a Plan for protection against the consequences of accidents, i.e., anthropogenic disasters. For example, the Law on Environmental Protection has defined SEVESO plants as plants with a specified plan. SEVESO plants are plants in which activities are carried out in which it is present or can be a dangerous substance in prescribed quantities but also greater than attributed. There are several laws related to dealing with when disasters occur, and following them, various strategies, regulations, procedures, and bylaws are adopted. For protection and rescue, when all types of tragedies occur, including anthropogenic disasters, and within the Protection and Rescue Plan, it is mandatory to take the following measures: “early warning and preparedness (readiness); mobilization and activation; protection and rescue by types of hazards; civil protection measures; use of force and subjects of protection and rescue” (Cvetković et al., 2019). Based on the above, it can be said that the reaction and protection from anthropogenic disasters are conditioned by preparedness for them. Therefore it is necessary to improve it constantly. Disaster preparedness and the types of protection that are undertaken concerning them can be divided into: “Preparation and regular updating of both actions and policies related to disasters, i.e., preparation for action related to them” (Cvetković, 2020). It is necessary to strengthen and maintain systems. Still, to predict these disasters, early warning systems for them,
constant monitoring of possible dangers, i.e., risks and communication-related to them, and telecommunication systems should be used because they enable fast-forwarding of this information.
Local communities can often be affected by technical and technological disasters because within or near them. There can be a whole range of, for example, plants and research institutions, which can cause these disasters (Cvetković, 2019a; Cvetković & Filipović, 2018; Vukoje, 2012). For the local community to be ready for this type of disaster, various activities are carried out within its framework. An entire subculture can be developed where experiences and knowledge are exchanged on how to react before, during, and after these disasters (Helsloot & Ruitenberg, 2004). This method is often the most common for preparedness, sewing, and eliminating the consequences of disasters. It can be said that local communities must be educated, informed, and even trained on how to act before, during, and after disasters. Based on the above, it can be said that the local community, to provide adequate protection and response to anthropogenic disasters, is primarily left to itself. However, sufficient laws and strategies exist, and it is only necessary that they are appropriately implemented and implemented, at least when it comes to Serbia. For the local community to be ready, the best way to achieve this is education on anthropogenic disasters and training its members to react and protect when they occur.
The state is crucial for reacting to anthropogenic disasters because its role is highly significant in these situations. After all, based on that reaction, one can see how organized and ready one country is for all kinds of unforeseen events, i.e., crises – disasters. In the Republic of Serbia, several laws and strategies deal with this area. State bodies and ministries are the most important for protection against technical and technological accidents. The role of the National Assembly is essential when adopting various strategies related to them. The government has extensive powers because it ensures the construction and development of protection and rescue systems. It is also in charge of the planned connection of parts of those systems and their tasks. Also, it forms the Republic Headquarters for Emergency Situations when anthropogenic disasters occur. In addition, he appoints the chief, commander, and members of that staff. The government is a crucial factor in providing and seeking international assistance in situations where these disasters occur (Tatić, 2016).
The research subject is a comprehensive analysis of the security aspects of critical infrastructure protection in anthropogenic (anthropogenic) disasters. The scientific goal of the research is to describe the methods and techniques necessary for integrated risk mitigation and protection of infrastructure from disasters caused by technical and technological hazards. On the other hand, the social goal of this research is to determine how much the general public is aware of the importance of protecting critical infrastructure from technical and technological disasters. For the study, various data were collected to analyze the current situation in this area in the Republic of Serbia, Europe, and the world.
Sample and Survey Questionnaire
After a systematic analysis of many scientific papers dealing with critical infrastructure, the instruments used to conceptualize the survey questions were identified. During the survey questionnaire development, economic and cultural environment factors in which the research is conducted, were considered. A survey questionnaire was used for data collection, delivered to the respondents in person and via the Internet.
With a random sampling method, 116 respondents were interviewed directly in the central city square, while 84 were interviewed electronically, which is 200 respondents. Data were collected by allowing respondents to rate statements from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 5 (absolutely disagree).
Approximately 200 respondents took part in the survey, of which 132 were males, and 68 were females. Fifty men surveyed had secondary education, 72 higher education, and ten masters or doctoral degrees when it comes to education. The distribution of professional qualifications of female respondents was as follows: there were 48 respondents with secondary education, 18 with higher education, while two had a master’s or doctorate. When it comes to the age structure of the respondents, it is divided into three categories: 1. (20-35 years); 2. (35-45 years), 3. (45 to 55 years). It is easy to see that the second age group from 35 to 45 is the most represented among the respondents.
Data analysis
After completing the survey, each questionnaire was given a unique code to verify the entered data. Then the data was entered into a database supported by the statistical software SPSS. Before conducting the analysis and after collecting the data, the information for the study was prepared. Data preparation consisted of data editing, coding, and statistical adjustment of data. Data editing included procedures in determining whether there were missing, unclear, and erroneous answers? Data coding involved assigning certain symbols to response modalities to more successfully monitor specific response categories and structures. After completing the data preparation, the first step was to analyze each issue or measure it independently. In the program for statistical data processing (SPSS), all data obtained by the survey were arranged and classified. With descriptive statistical analyzes, the distributions of answers to the questions were determined.
To the question “Assess your knowledge of what a critical infrastructure is,” the respondents gave answers that indicate a big difference in the responses of male and female respondents. Based on the data in the table, it is clear that the highest percentage of male respondents gave a grade of 5, and the female opposite a grade of 1. The ratio of men chose grade 5 in 27% of cases and women 1 in 13% of
cases. Based on education, it can noticed that those with a university degree with the highest grade 5 rate their knowledge of what critical infrastructure is in 24% (Table 1).
Table 1. A comparative view of respondents’ responses based on gender.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||
|
Male 8% |
11% |
11% |
10% |
27% |
66% |
|
|
Female 13% |
6% |
5% |
5% |
7% |
34% |
|
|
23% |
16% |
16% |
15% |
34% |
100% |
When asked, “Assess the population knowledge about what is a critical infrastructure,” male and female respondents rated with a score of 3 in 22% of cases and with a score of 1 in 10% of cases. Based on education, they are arranged so that those with secondary education grade 4 in 14% of cases, which is the highest percentage of grades in this question. The lowest percentage is for those whose education is a master’s or doctorate with grades 1 and 3 at 2%.
After that, the respondents were asked the question “Assess your knowledge about the consequences of technical and technological disasters,” and the answers to it when analyzed, indicate that male respondents rate their knowledge of the above with a grade of 3 in most cases, more precisely in 22%, and among the respondents, i.e., females, the dominant grade is 1 in 10% of cases. The most common percentage is grade 4 for those with higher education, followed by grade 5 for secondary education. For those respondents with a master’s or doctoral degree, the most common grade is 5, in 3% of answers.
Then they were asked the question, “Assess the knowledge of the population of our country about what are anthropogenic disasters.” Based on the data, it can be noticed that the most common grade for male respondents was 4 with 21.5%, while for women, the most common grade was 3 with 15.5%. When the answers to the same question are analyzed based on the education of all respondents, it can be seen that grade 3 is most common among those with secondary education with 15.5%, while for those with higher education, it is grade 5 with 13.5%. Those with a master’s or doctorate’s degree also most often chose the same grade in 1.5% of cases. Other estimates, as well as the ones given, are given in Graph 6.
The next question they were asked was, “Assess the importance of critical infrastructure for the state and society.” Based on the respondents’ answers and the conducted statistical analysis, it was noticed that the most common grade in male respondents is in the percentage of grades 5 with 19.5%. For females, it is grade 3 with 9.5%. On question number 5, based on the education of the respondents, it can be noticed that among those with secondary education, the most common grade is 5 with 16%. A university degree is a grade of 3 with 13%, and a master’s or doctoral degree is a grade of 5 with 3%.
After that, the respondents asked the question, “Assess whether the activities of your work organization can lead to anthropogenic disasters.” According to the obtained grades, i.e., statistical
results of the same, it can be concluded that male respondents give the lowest grade 1 in 17.5% of cases, but also grades 4 and 5 in 18% and 17% of cases, which can be interpreted as ignorance but not all in organizations where the above may occur. On the other hand, in women, grade 1 is dominant with 12.5%. The survey results show that university degree respondents rate with four the possibility that the activities of their work organization lead to an anthropogenic disaster in 13.5% of grades, while those with a high school diploma usually rate it with the lowest grade of 1 with 16%. Interestingly, 6% of those with a master’s or doctoral degree evaluate the above with a grade of 1. It can be concluded that those with a university degree assess that the activities of organizations in which they work lead to technical and technological disasters.
In addition, the question “Assess the need for critical infrastructure from anthropogenic disasters to provide specially trained staff” received interesting answers, bearing in mind that the answers of both male and female participants in the survey are the same, i.e., distributed in the same way. Thus, both men with 24.5% and women with 14% rate five as necessary to protect specially trained staff from these disasters. Other answers also coincide in terms of representation. Grade 5 is the most represented percentage when the survey results are analyzed based on the respondents’ education. In contrast, different answers were received to the question “Assess the need for personnel who protect critical infrastructure from technical and technological disasters.” Interestingly, the results here indicate that male respondent’s rate this attitude with a score of 4 in 25%, i.e., this score is dominant, while females still dominate with a score of 5 the need for these staff to be specially educated. However, both sexes are in favor of the training and education of these staff. With secondary education, they rate it with the lowest grade 1 in 14.5% of answers, while those with higher education still rate it with grade 4 in as many as 22.5% of answers. Interestingly, those with the highest education with a master’s or doctorate degree have a grade of 1 in 2.5% of cases, which is not a negligible percentage if we consider that they make up 6% of the total number of respondents.
The question “Evaluate the activities of work organizations in your environment can lead to anthropogenic disasters” is interesting because both male and female respondents have a dominant grade of 3 with 46% and 21%, respectively, also for male respondents, grade 5 is wholly neglected, and its percentage is 0. The answers of the respondents of both sexes indicate indecision because it is a middle grade. On the same question, based on the statistics of grades based on education, it can be concluded that none of the specific groups believe that the activities of work organizations in your environment can lead to anthropogenic disasters because grades between 1 and 3 dominate their answers. Respondents were also asked the following question: “Assess the protection and rescue system from anthropogenic disasters in the Republic of Serbia.” The most represented in this issue is grade 3, with 19.5% for males and 16% for females. Such answers lead to indecision, which may be a consequence of the respondents’ lack of information about the above. On the same question, but when analyzing the respondents’ grades based on education, it is noticeable that respondents predominantly chose grades 1, secondary education 22.5%, and master’s or doctorate 3%, while university graduates mainly chose grades 1 and 2 with 10 % and 9%. The absence of high grades in higher percentages indicates a wrong opinion of the said system.
The next question in the survey was “Assess your readiness for an anthropogenic disaster,” and the answers received from both men and women indicate that the respondents are highly rated on this issue. Namely, the male respondents chose grades 4 and 5 as their answer, 18%, and 16.5%, and the female grade 4, 10.5%, which are the most selected grades. So it can be concluded that respondents of both sexes highly value their readiness in case of this disaster. The same question is when the answers are analyzed based on the professional qualifications of the respondents, and high grades are dominant.
About 18.5% of respondents with secondary education rate a grade of four, while 11% of respondents rate it with a grade of three. The next question was “Assess the degree of risk of technical and technological disasters in the Republic of Serbia.” The answers, i.e., the assessments stated by the male respondents, are arranged in such a way that 16.5% rate it with the highest grade 5.
On the other hand, the female respondents rated the above with a grade of 3 in most cases. The conclusion based on the results is that most male respondents believe that there is a high level of risk of these disasters in the Republic of Serbia. To the same question, grade 3 is the most dominant answer among those with secondary education and higher education, but grade 5 is most prevalent among those with a master’s or doctorate. It can be observed that those with the highest education are both the most educated and the most knowledgeable about changing this.
To the question “Assess the protection of critical infrastructure in the Republic of Serbia,” respondents of different sexes equally answered with a high score of 4. Male respondents did so with 20.5%, and females with 15%. It can be concluded that both sexes are highly valued. The majority of respondents with secondary education or master’s/doctorate degree rated that with 4. However, grade 2 prevailed with 11.5% in higher education, although grade 4 was immediately next with 10%. The next question was, “Assess the readiness of the competent services for technical and technological disasters in the Republic of Serbia.” Male respondents gave the highest score in the majority of 22%, and female respondents the lowest 9%. It can hardly lead to a firm conclusion, but perhaps the female sex is more cautious, timider.
On the other hand, male respondents are traditionally more informed about the above, or at least it is considered, which gives his assessment certain credibility. Based on the analysis, it can be noticed that grade 5 is most prevalent among those with secondary education with 17% and those with masters or doctorate with 3%. While for those with a university degree, grade 2 with 12.5% is the most common.
However, their grade 4 is immediately behind grade 2 with 11.5%. These results indicate that the respondents highly assessed the readiness of the competent services for the above in total. When asked, “Assess the level of taking preventive measures to protect critical infrastructure in the Republic of Serbia,” 26.5% of respondents rated it with 5, while 11.5% of respondents rated it with 3. Mentioned indicates that the male part of the respondents rated it higher. All this indicates that prevention measures aimed at protecting critical infrastructure were rated the highest.
The next question in the survey was to assess the level of education of young people about the importance of critical infrastructure in the Republic of Serbia, and for male respondents, it received almost the same number of grades 1, 2, and 4 in percent, while for females the dominant grade is 5. To
the same question, respondents of all education categories answered with 4, which means that they highly evaluate the education of young people in this area in our country. In contrast, the question “Assess protection from anthropogenic disaster in the world” received the lowest and highest grades of both sexes, i.e., 1 and 5. Identity and the difference in ratings can be understood as differences in information and knowledge of the area. Based on the answers of respondents of different backgrounds who answered this question, it can be seen that it was rated 1, 2, and 3. The frequency of all types of disasters does not instill confidence in them and the anthropogenic disasters team.
In addition, respondents were asked, “Assess your fear of critical infrastructure failure due to an anthropogenic disaster.” The answers to it in both sexes are almost identical, with a dominance of grades 3, in males and 4 in females. When analyzing the survey results, i.e., the answer to the same question based on the respondents’ education, it can be seen that in all three categories, the grade is the most represented grade 3, with the fact that in higher education and grade one is equally represented. The next question was, “Assess the possibilities of your evacuation in case of an anthropogenic disaster of critical infrastructure in your environment.” The answers of the respondents of both sexes are such that they rate it with a grade of 5, i.e., they evaluate the possibility of their evacuation with the highest grade. Based on the survey results, it can be concluded that both sexes do not consider these disasters possible in their environment or believe that they can be evacuated quickly if these disasters occur in their environment.
Moreover, when the respondents’ answers are analyzed based on their education, the dominant grade is 5 in all three categories. Thus, it can be concluded that the respondents highly evaluate the possibility of their evacuation in the above case. The next question, “Assess the possibilities of evacuating your community in the event of an anthropogenic disaster of critical infrastructure in its environment,” indicates that male respondents received almost 2 and 5 percentages in percentage, and 3 and 4 in female respondents. Respondents are at least insecure or uninformed about the evacuation. Based on the respondents’ education, the same indecision and high percentage of respondents’ answers of each category can be noticed. The next question in the survey was “Assess the degree of anthropogenic risks in your environment.” The answers, i.e., the grades of both sexes, are the highest percentage of the answer 2.
These results confirm that the respondents in their environment do not perceive anything as a possible cause of anthropogenic disasters. It can be noticed that the respondents with secondary education and masters or doctoral degree chose the highest percentage of 2, and those with higher education chose grade 4. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents mostly think that the degree of this risk in their environment is relatively small. , although there are those with different attitudes and grades, they are in the minority. In contrast, to the question “Assess the possibilities of an anthropogenic disaster of critical infrastructure in the Republic of Serbia in the coming period,” respondents of both sexes answered similarly with a score of 5. For male respondents, this rating received 24%, and for females, 18 % rating. Based on the results of the answer to this question, it can be concluded that the fear and high assessment of the possibility of this adverse event is a consequence of frequent natural disasters in the Republic of Serbia, and respondents are aware that they can affect other disasters.
The next question referred to the assessment of the most probable cause of anthropogenic disasters in the world. Unlike other questions in this and the following questions, the respondents were asked to complete one of the five offered answers. The answers offered to respondents of both sexes in this question were: 1, nature; 2, man; 3, technology; 4, industry, and 5, all of the above. Answers 3 and 4, i.e., technology and industry, received the most answers from respondents of both sexes. Considering their accelerated development, such attitudes of the respondents are not surprising. The exact answers dominate when the answers of the respondents are analyzed based on education. Because those with a high school diploma and a master’s or doctorate most often chose technology as their answer, and those with a university degree chose industry.
In contrast, the next question was, “Who in the Republic of Serbia deals with protecting critical infrastructure”? The answers offered were: 1, the army; 2, police; 3, specialized civil services; 4, private companies and 5, others not listed. Based on the answer to this question, it can be concluded that male respondents believe that it is the police and females that specialized state services do it. Moreover, based on the education of the respondents, the answers do not differ much. Those with secondary education believe that specialized state services deal with the above, while those with higher education believe that the police do it. Those with a master’s or doctorate mainly were considered to be done by private companies.
Finally, the respondents were asked the question “What worries you the most about the protection of critical infrastructure from technical and technological disasters,” and the answers offered were: 1, it is conducted by inadequate staff; 2, irregularly maintained; 3, not monitored regularly; 4, outdated protection system and 5, all of the above reasons. Respondents of both sexes most often chose the answer in an inadequate cadre, which is surprising because they cited specialized state services and the police as their answers to who is protecting the above. Although these answers may be related to distrust in state institutions, they may also result from respondents’ lack of information. Moreover, based on education, the results indicate that those with secondary education and master’s or doctorate chose the most.
However, those with higher education more often chose as their answer is not monitored regularly.
Overall, the survey results indicate that respondents are primarily informed about critical infrastructure and anthropogenic disasters and disasters in general. This can be explained with the help of Marjanović’s statements, which he stated at the end of his research, where he states that critical infrastructure has long been present in the history of people, i.e., civilization, but that it has gained a new dimension in the modern world (Marjanović, 2019). In his research, Trbojevic claims that protecting critical infrastructures is a security issue of the most significant importance because it is crucial for the state and society and their functioning. Infrastructures for food production, primarily food and water, traffic, energy, information, health, chemical, nuclear, etc., are of the most significant importance (Trbojević, 2018). That is why it is encouraging that the research conducted for this paper found that respondents are primarily informed about disasters, critical infrastructure, and anthropogenic disasters or dangers. The answers regarding
education and protection are mostly related to personal attitude because none of the respondents is specially educated about that. This means that they gave answers based on their readiness for protective critical infrastructure and education and evacuation in situations when anthropogenic disasters would occur in the survey. In 2013, Mijalković and Cvetković pointed out the effects of natural disasters on the occurrence of anthropogenic disasters. Therefore, it is worrying that this study found that participants were uninformed about the evacuation of their communities if these disasters occurred.
When it comes to prevention, Cvetković (2017) found in his research that 20.5% of respondents believe that competent services will undoubtedly help them and that there is no need to prepare for possible disasters. Regarding results, it can be said that the attitudes regarding the protection of critical infrastructure about anthropogenic disasters caused by anthropogenic dangers depend on education in our country. It cannot be stated that there is a broader cognizance of all residents approximately the consequences, however additionally approximately how the crucial infrastructure is sewn, which it protects. Knowledge of this area is primarily general and related to general information. It cannot be concluded that there is a strategy based on which citizens are prepared for everything that could happen in an anthropogenic disaster, but also that they are aware of the importance of protecting critical infrastructure from them. In the conclusion of his research from 2013, Marjanović and Nađ state that “rapid changes and the emergence of non-state actors in the security system contribute to the state monopoly on critical infrastructure protection being divided between experts, academia, professional associations and technology community, business sector and nonprofits. Private security companies need to increase the capacity and quality of their products and services. This is the only way to become a key part of a public-private partnership in the field of critical infrastructure protection” (Marjanović and Nađ, 2013, p. 89). It is stated in contradiction with the results of the research conducted for this paper, based on which it can be concluded that the citizens of the Republic of Serbia believe that it should remain within the competence of state services. Based on the research conducted for this paper, it can be said that in our country, the general public is at least uninformed about critical infrastructure and that this data could be misused to the greatest extent by a foreign factor. Both Matić and Miljković (2013) pointed out in the same year that critical infrastructure needs to be protected in cyberspace, which is undoubtedly necessary. However, above all, it should be done by protecting the availability of information about them that could make them vulnerable to, for example, terrorist attacks. World powers like Russia must constantly monitor everything that can tame their critical infrastructure, which Petrova (2011) pointed out, emphasizing prevention. Based on available data and the research conducted, it shows the greatest weakness in the field of prevention of all kinds, including the preventive protection of that infrastructure.
Based on the results obtained by the survey, it can be concluded that the citizens of our country are pretty uninformed about the prevention of this type. The same can be said for the prevention of technical and technological disasters because the research indicates that the citizens of our country do not have adequate knowledge on how to act in that direction, which means that there is no preventive education, training. There has been much research on this topic globally, and it can be said that Serbia is not an isolated case in the above. However, one should not be comforted by that. This was pointed out by Rovins and Winningham (2010) in their research, pointing out that many countries are simply waiting for
disasters of this kind without doing much to act preventively. The research results conducted for this paper do not differ to the greatest extent from the research conducted in the world regarding the protection of critical infrastructure and protection against technical and technological disasters, but they are indeed worrying. Most citizens of our country, at least according to this research, only roughly know the possible consequences of these disasters, and the knowledge about possible actions and evacuation before and after them is superficial and insufficient, which is a great danger. The citizens of Serbia are very little informed about the consequences for the person and the community’s health and the environment. These consequences were pointed out in 2005 by Lillibridge and Brennan with particular reference to public health. Based on this research, we can say that critical infrastructure protection from anthropogenic disasters should be both preventive and reactive, but prevention is key to mitigating or preventing their consequences.
Critical infrastructure must be protected from disasters of all kinds, even anthropogenic disasters, and preventive action is extremely important. Preventive action in this area should mainly be aimed at adopting strategies based on which plans are made to prevent these disasters, but as they often cannot be avoided, it is necessary to develop action plans when they occur. These plans should primarily envisage rescuing and protecting the population from their consequences and protecting critical infrastructure. In addition, citizens and members of various organizations must be prepared to act within the preventive action. Anthropogenic disasters are such that they can leave permanent consequences for countries, their inhabitants, but also the natural environment. Their consequences can be a permanent destruction of infrastructure, even critical ones, and injuries to people and their deaths. Also, they leave lasting consequences for nature and everything that lives in it: flora and fauna. Therefore, the protection of critical infrastructure from anthropogenic disasters should be both preventive and reactive because only in this way can it be ensured that it is not permanently damaged or destroyed and their functions cease. The significance of this infrastructure is such that it would have lasting consequences for societies and countries where something similar happens.
In the Republic of Serbia, the state’s critical infrastructure protection is given significant attention, i.e., the bodies and institutions responsible for the above. However, it cannot be said that citizens are ready to react if they happen. The above primarily refers to the extent to which citizens are individually ready to protect themselves in the event of anthropogenic disasters. Also, it cannot be said that citizens act preventively toward their protection from them. There have been no major anthropogenic disasters in our country in the last two decades, but there have certainly been minor disasters that could be classified under this term.
Nevertheless, it cannot be said that something has been done in this period regarding the readiness of citizens for them, and the infrastructure and even critical infrastructure are often not in a satisfactory condition, which indicates that there is a possibility of various disasters and that it is necessary to take measures. to prevent them. Protection of critical infrastructure from anthropogenic disasters is carried
out preventively because their consequences are significant for both people and the environment when they occur. In addition, the protection of critical infrastructure from disasters caused by technical and technological hazards requires constant and planned activities in this area, both in the training of personnel dealing with it and in educating the population and modernizing the equipment used for that purpose. Finally, it can be said that protection from disasters caused by technical and technological hazards of critical infrastructure is approached strategically and systematically at all levels.
This research was funded by the Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Belgrade, Serbia (http://upravljanje-rizicima.com/).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Al-ramlawi, A. H., El-Mougher, M. M., & Al-Agha, M. R. (2020). The Role of Al-Shifa Medical Complex Administration in Evacuation & Sheltering Planning. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 19-36.
Arata, C., Picou, S., Johnson, G., & McNally, T. (2000). Coping with technological disaster: An application of the conservation of resources model to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13(1): 23–39.
Chakma, U. K., Hossain, A., Islam, K., Hasnat, G. T., & Management, K. (2020). Water crisis and adaptation strategies by tribal community: A case study in Baghaichari Upazila of Rangamati District in Bangladesh. 2(2).
Couch, S. R., & Coles, C. J. (2011). Community stress, psychosocial hazards, and EPA decision-making in communities impacted by chronic technological disasters. American journal of public health, 101(S1), S140-S148.
Cvetković, S. M., & V. (2013). Vulnerability of critical infrastructure by natural disasters. Paper presented at the National critical infrastructure protection, regional perspective., Belgrade.
Cvetković, V. (2017). Prepreke unapređenju spremnosti građana za reagovanje u prirodnim katastrofama.
Vojno delo, 69(2), 132-150.
Cvetković, V. (2019a). First aid disaster kit for a family: a case study of Serbia – Porodični pribor za pružanje prve pomoći u katastrofama: studija slučaja Srbije. Paper presented at the IX International scientific conference Archibald Reiss days November 6-7, 2019. The University of Criminal Investigation and Police Studies, Belgrade.
Cvetković, V. (2019b). Upravljanje rizicima i sistemi zaštite i spasavanja od katastrofa. Beograd: Naučno- stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.
Cvetković, V. (2020). Upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama – Disaster Risk Management. Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.
Cvetković, V. (2021). Bezbednosni rizici i katastrofe. Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.
Cvetković, V. M., & Filipović, M. (2018). Ispitivanje uloge porodice u edukaciji dece o prirodnim katastrofama – The role of the family in children education of natural disasters. Nauka, bezbednost, policija, 23(1), 71-85.
Cvetković, V., Filipović, M., & Gačić, J. (2019). Zbirka propisa iz oblast upravljanja rizicima od katastrofa. Beograd: Naučno stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama.
Eagle, J. C., Davies, J. M. (1992). Accident analysis of large-scale technological disasters applied to an anesthetic complication, Springer: Canadian Journal of anesthesia, Vol, 39, No. 2, pp. 18-122.
Helsloot, I., & Ruitenberg, A. (2004). Citizen response to disasters: a survey of literature and some practical implications. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 12(3), 98-111.
Herega, M. (2010). Nacionalna kritična infrastruktura. Menadžment i sigurnost. M&S: „Planiranje i sigurnost“.
Hromada, M., & Lukas, L. (2012). Critical Infrastructure Protection and the Evaluation Process.
International Journal of Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity, 3. Institute for Corporative Security Studies, Ljubljana.
Jakovljević, V. (2006). Sistem civilne odbrane. Beograd: Fakultet civilne odbrane.
Kaur, B. (2020). Disasters and exemplified vulnerabilities in a cramped Public Health Infrastructure in India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(1), 15-22.
Klajn Tatić, V. (2016). Upravljanje prirodnim i nuklearnim katastrofama: pravni i etički pristup, Strani pravni život, Vol. 60, Br. 1, str. 45-59,
Lillibridge, R.S., Brennan, J. R. (2005). Public health perspectives related to technological disasters and terrorism, Military Preventive Medicine: Mobilization and Deployment, Volume 2, pp. 1337-1350
Lin Moe, T., & Pathranarakul, P. (2006). An integrated approach to natural disaster management: public project management and its critical success factors. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 15(3), 396-413.
Marjanović, M., Nađ, I. (2013). Assessment of threats to critical infrastructure facilities from serious and organized crime, Zbornik, National critical infrastructure protection regional perspective, str. 77-90.
Martin, N., & Rice, J. (2012). Emergency communications and warning systems: Determining critical capacities in the Australian context. Disaster Prevention and Management, 21(5), 529-540. doi:10.1108/09653561211278671
Mijalković, S., & Cvetković, V. (2013). Vulnerability of critical infrastructure by natural disasters. In Z. Keković, D. Čaleta, Ž. Kešetović, & Z. Jeftić (Eds.), National critical infrastructure protection, regional perspective (pp. 91-102). Belgrade: the University of Belgrade – Faculty of Security Studies
Mijalković, S., Cvetković, V. (2013). Vulnerability of critical infrastructure by natural disasters, Zbornik, National critical infrastructure protection regional perspective, str. 91-104.
Mlađan, D., & Cvetković, V. (2013). Classification of emergency situations. In Ž. Nikač (Ed.), International scientific conference Archibald Reiss days (pp. 275-291). Belgrade: The Academy of Criminalistic and Police studies.
Murray, A. T., & Grubesic, T. H. (2012). Critical infrastructure protection: The vulnerability conundrum.
Telematics and informatics, 29(1), 56-65.
Olawuni, P., Olowoporoku, O., & Daramola, O. (2020). Determinants of Residents’ Participation in Disaster Risk Management in Lagos Metropolis Nigeria. International Journal of Disaster Risk Management, 2(2), 1-18.
Petrova, E. (2011). Critical infrastructure in Russia: geographical analysis of accidents triggered by natural hazards, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, Vol.10, No. 1, pp. 53-58.
Quarantelli, E. L. (1990). Similarities and differences in institutional responses to natural and technological disasters, Disaster Research Center (preliminary paper #147), pp. 1-21.
Rovins, J., & Winningham, S. (2010). Waiting for Disasters: A Risk Reduction Assessment of Technological Disasters.
Savić, A. Stajić, Lj. (2006). Osnovi civilne bezbednosti. Novi Sad: Fakultet za pravne i poslovne studije.
Shaluf, I. M. (2007). An overview on disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management, 16(5), 687-703. doi:10.1108/09653560710837000
Shaluf, I. M. (2008). Technological disaster stages and management. Disaster Prevention and Management, 17(1), 114-126. doi:10.1108/09653560810855928
Thennavan, E., Ganapathy, G., Chandrasekaran, S., & Rajawat, A. (2020). Probabilistic rainfall thresholds for shallow landslides initiation – A case study from The Nilgiris district, Western Ghats, India. 2(1).
Trbojević, M. (2018). Zaštita kritičnih infrastruktura – iskustva tranzicionih zemalja, Politička revija, 56 (2), 99-118.
Vazquez, M., Jordan, O., Kuper, E., Hernandez, D., Galmarini, M., & Ferraro, A. (2010). Management of acute traumatic stress in nuclear and radiological emergencies. Health physics, 98(6), 795-798.
Vukoje, J. (2012). Osnovne funkcije savremene porodice. Svarog, 1(4), 137-144.
Wang, J. (2000). Analysis of safety-critical software elements in offshore safety studies. Disaster Prevention and Management, 9(4), 271-282. doi:10.1108/09653560010351961
Zio, E. Avenc, T. (2013). Industrial disasters: Extreme events, extremely rare. Some reflections on the treatment of uncertainties in the assessment of the associated risks, Elsevier, Volume 91, Issues 1–2, pp. 31-45
