Preprint

Article

In-Depth Analysis of Disaster (Risk) Management System in Serbia: A Critical Examination of Systemic Strengths and Weaknesses

Altmetrics

Downloads

Views

Comments

Vladimir M. Cvetković^*

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

10 May 2024

Posted:

13 May 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts

Abstract

This study comprehensively explores Serbia's Disaster (Risk) Management System, aiming to critically evaluate its inherent strengths and weaknesses. Using descriptive-analytical methods and qualitative interpretation, SWOT analysis was applied to collect data from scientific papers, books, and institutional reports. This study delves deeply into the nuances of Serbia's Disaster Management Framework, revealing a nuanced landscape of strengths, weaknesses, and strategic improvement opportunities. Identified strengths underscore a robust foundation characterized by proficient professionals, state-of-the-art technology, and cohesive teamwork, all pivotal for effective emergency preparedness and response. Conversely, weaknesses underscore pressing imperatives for enhancements in regulatory enforcement, resource allocation, and infrastructure upgrades, presently hampering the framework's efficacy and response readiness. This research contributes to the ongoing discourse on disaster risk management and serves as a catalyst for further scholarly inquiry and policy formulation. By mapping out the structure of Serbia’s Disaster (Risk) Management Framework and integrating diverse data sources, the study enriches theoretical models and lays the groundwork for practical policy interventions. Its findings, including precise recommendations for policy reform and strategic improvements, provide valuable insights for policymakers, emergency management experts, and stakeholders seeking to enhance disaster preparedness and response capabilities on both national and global scales.

Keywords:

Subject: Social Sciences - Geography, Planning and Development

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the world has witnessed a surge in the frequency and severity of disasters, posing significant threats to lives, assets, and economies [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This escalating trend underscores the imperative of bolstering effective disaster risk management strategies [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Spanning from natural hazards like floods, earthquakes, and droughts to technological mishaps, industrial accidents, and man-made hazards such as pandemics, terrorist strikes, and climate shifts, these events underscore the urgent need for resilient disaster management systems capable of navigating the evolving challenges of contemporary society [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Within this context, it becomes evident that Serbia is not shielded from disaster risks and confronts a unique array of challenges [26]. Safeguarding citizen safety, preserving assets and infrastructure, and ensuring business continuity emerge as pivotal priorities demanding the establishment of a robust, well-coordinated disaster risk management framework [27,28,29,30].

Among the recurring natural disasters impacting Serbia, floods stand out as a pervasive threat, inflicting substantial material losses and jeopardizing public safety [5,31,32,33,34,35]. Concurrently, seismic activities present sporadic yet formidable risks, capable of inflicting considerable damages and casualties [36,37,38]. Moreover, industrial incidents, including chemical emergencies and conflagrations, pose formidable challenges, particularly in urban settings [39,40,41]. Alongside these natural and technological perils, Serbia grapples with socio-economic pressures, ranging from economic downturns and mass migrations to social unrest, all of which can precipitate catastrophic outcomes [42]. These multifaceted challenges underscore the critical importance of an effective disaster management apparatus in Serbia, adept at addressing an array of threats and exigencies.

In light of these circumstances, conducting a thorough examination of Serbia's existing Disaster Management System assumes paramount significance. Such an inquiry seeks to elucidate key success factors and obstacles impeding the system's efficacy. Accordingly, the primary objective of this research is to furnish an exhaustive analysis of Serbia's Disaster Management System, with a specific focus on delineating its inherent strengths and weaknesses. Through a meticulous appraisal of its components and operational modalities, this study endeavors to furnish invaluable insights into the system's operational efficiency and its preparedness to counter disasters. Furthermore, leveraging SWOT analysis as a strategic instrument, this investigation aims to illuminate critical facets of Serbia's Disaster Management System, pinpointing areas amenable to enhancement and fortification of capacities for disaster preparedness and response.

2. Methods

The study applied SWOT analysis to conduct a detailed evaluation of the emergency and disaster (risk) management system in Serbia. SWOT analysis is a standard tool in strategic planning that enables the identification of internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats relevant to the analyzed system [43]. In this research, SWOT analysis was applied using a combination of descriptive-analytical methods and qualitative interpretation of collected data [44]. The descriptive approach involved a review of available scientific papers, books, and reports from relevant institutions involved in disaster management in Serbia. These sources provided basic information about the structure, functions, and performance of the disaster management system. After collecting relevant data, the analysis was conducted using the SWOT matrix. Internal factors, including institutional capacities, resources, procedures, and experience, were identified as strengths or weaknesses of the system. External factors, such as political, economic, socio-cultural, and environmental factors, were analyzed to identify opportunities and threats facing the system. After identifying all four components of the SWOT analysis, a detailed evaluation and interpretation followed. This phase of the analysis included a discussion of relevant factors, their mutual interactions, and potential implications for the effectiveness of the disaster management system in Serbia. Finally, based on the results of the SWOT analysis, conclusions were drawn, and recommendations were formulated for improving the disaster management system in Serbia. These recommendations were shaped considering the identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, as well as relevant contextual factors and resources. SWOT analysis provided a deeper understanding of the key characteristics and challenges of the disaster management system in Serbia, enabling the identification of strategies and policies to enhance system efficiency and reduce the risk of disasters.

3. Results

The research findings are presented in three sections: Systemic Strengths: Proficiencies and Advantages in Serbia's Disaster (Risk) Management Framework; Systemic Weaknesses: Challenges and Limitations in Serbia's Disaster (Risk) Management Framework; and 'Strategic Enhancements and Challenges in Emergency and Disaster Management.

3.1. Systemic Strengths: Proficiencies and Advantages in Serbia's Disaster (Risk) Management Framework

In the examination of Serbia's Disaster (Risk) Management System, several key strengths stand out, highlighting the proficiencies and advantages that fortify the framework's effectiveness and resilience: 1) Employees within the emergency protection and rescue forces boast a rich background and substantial expertise in managing a wide range of emergency scenarios, demonstrating profound knowledge and advanced skills that are crucial in this field; 2) A robust framework for collaboration facilitates the efficient dissemination of critical data, timely alerts, and warnings to the appropriate emergency management authorities, other interested parties, and media channels, ensuring that all stakeholders are well-informed and can respond promptly; 3) The organization maintains a comprehensive and reliable database of meteorological and hydrological data, supported by high-quality analytical and forecasting products that enable accurate predictions and strategic planning for various weather-related events; 4) Staff are not only highly educated and thoroughly trained but are also equipped with state-of-the-art technical equipment and advanced IT infrastructure. This includes modern meteorological radar systems and an automated network of radiosonde stations integrated into the Global Observing System, along with automated meteorological and hydrological stations. The organization is also in the process of modernizing five radar centres dedicated to hailstorm defence; 5) The national hydrometeorological early warning system of Serbia is designed to operate round-the-clock, providing continuous coverage across the entire nation. This system is fully integrated with global and European hydrometeorological information systems, enhancing capabilities to predict and respond to emergency weather conditions effectively; 6) A significant portion of the regulatory framework necessary for managing flood risks has been implemented, with a few elements still under development. The institution enjoys an excellent level of cooperation with other key organizations, ensuring a cohesive approach to emergency management; 7) The orderly and efficient exchange of critical data relevant to protection and rescue operations is a cornerstone of operational effectiveness, facilitating timely and coordinated responses during emergencies; 8) Legal regulations for managing watercourses and protecting against harmful water effects are well-established. Additionally, procedures for data collection are routinely updated to ensure that they reflect the most current conditions and data available; 9) The department is known for its efficiency in drafting comprehensive proposals and successfully implementing a wide array of projects within the realm of protection and rescue, reflecting a commitment to excellence and effective emergency management; 10) Effectiveness in handling daily activities and processing cases pertaining to emergency situations is noted, showcasing the ability to manage and resolve issues swiftly and competently; 11) The decision-making process in emergency situations is characterized by swiftness and decisiveness, which are essential in mitigating the impact of emergencies and ensuring public safety; 12) The team comprises professional, experienced, and expertly trained personnel who are dedicated to providing the highest level of emergency response services; 13) Transparency is a key principle in all operations, ensuring that processes and decisions are open and accountable to the public and all stakeholders involved; 14) The Serbian Army has designated specific initial response forces that are prepared and equipped to assist civil authorities swiftly and effectively in the event of emergencies; 15) These designated initial response forces are specially trained and equipped to provide timely and effective assistance to civil authorities during various emergency scenarios; 16) The Ministry of Defense maintains a robust and effective collaboration and communication with the Emergency Management Sector of the Ministry of Interior. A system where designated representatives from the Ministry of Defense and the military are included in emergency management staffs at all levels has been established; 17) Military forces are sufficiently engaged in the demining operations of military complexes and facilities, using state-of-the-art demining equipment to ensure safety and security; 18) The Special Communications System (SCS) is a vital tool that can be deployed in disaster response and risk management scenarios, providing a secure and reliable means of communication during emergencies; 19) Membership in prominent international organizations dealing with emergency situations allows active participation in various global and European programs and initiatives, enhancing capabilities and knowledge in emergency management; 20) Both bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the field of emergency situations is actively pursued, working closely with international partners to share knowledge, resources, and best practices; 21) A tradition and comparative advantage in the practices of protection and rescue are established, supported by well-defined legal, normative, and organizational-functional aspects of the emergency management system; 22) The legal framework governing operations in emergency management is clearly defined, providing a solid foundation for activities and ensuring compliance with national and international standards; 23) The condition of forests and the overall bioecological stability of the region are relatively good, with a dedicated team of professionals who are skilled in the conservation, improvement, and maintenance of both existing and newly planted forests; 24) The significance of forest goods and services is increasingly recognized at various levels—from global to local—highlighting the crucial role forests play in environmental sustainability and economic stability; 25) Various international and European agreements and conventions relevant to forestry have been signed and ratified, committing to best practices and compliance with international standards; 26) Timely and effective control of particularly dangerous infectious diseases among animals is ensured, demonstrating a commitment to both animal health and public safety; 27) Experts are dedicated to the essential public service of water supply, ensuring that all citizens have access to safe and clean drinking water; 28) Institutions are well-staffed by trained professionals and are organized effectively across the territory, ensuring that operations are conducted smoothly and efficiently; 29) The current workforce in the Ministry of Construction, Transport, and Infrastructure is deemed sufficient to meet the ongoing demands and challenges of maintaining and developing the nation’s infrastructure; 30) A comprehensive database of landslide occurrences and hazard zone assessments in accordance with the European Thematic Strategy is maintained, ensuring that land management practices are scientifically based and strategically implemented; 31) State management of landslides and unstable slopes includes detailed mapping and research, which are crucial for informed spatial and urban planning; 32) Collaboration with local government units focuses on identifying and preparing engineering geological research projects for the remediation of landslides, ensuring that these projects meet contracted deadlines and are of high quality; 33) Various data sources are integrated to create a comprehensive hazard registry through the GeoSerbia portal, maintaining good interpersonal relations among employees, which enhances organizational effectiveness; 34) The presence of the Red Cross in every municipality in Serbia ensures a rapid and coordinated response to accidents and emergencies, demonstrating the effectiveness of the disaster response infrastructure; 35) Developments on the ground are continuously monitored using advanced electronic aids, enabling prompt and effective responses to any changes or emergencies that may arise; 36) Communication within the Red Cross organization is efficient, particularly at higher levels of organization, ensuring that resources can be mobilized and responses are quick when the situation demands; ak) Strong and effective support for local systems, such as the healthcare system during the COVID-19 operation, is provided, demonstrating a commitment to public health and safety; 37) Ongoing collaboration with actors at the local level is maintained, working together to address and manage emergency situations effectively; 38) The Red Cross is readily accessible to citizens and partners, providing essential services and support during times of need; 39) Active collaboration with organizations for people with disabilities is pursued, ensuring that their needs are considered and addressed in emergency response and management strategies; 40) A commitment to protecting and promoting human rights is central to the mission, with dedicated efforts to work diligently to protect vulnerable social groups, ensuring that they receive the support and protection they need during emergencies.

3.1. Systemic Weaknesses: Challenges and Limitations in Serbia's Disaster (Risk) Management Framework

The Disaster (Risk) Management Framework in Serbia exhibits a range of systemic weaknesses that present substantial challenges and limitations. These issues critically affect the efficiency and robustness of the nation's emergency response capabilities: 1) The absence of conditions for consistent implementation of regulations poses a significant challenge, undermining the effectiveness of the framework; 2) The role and importance of the Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia (RHMS) in public administration and its visibility to the wider public are insufficiently presented, limiting public awareness and engagement; 3) The organization and implementation of preventive measures are inadequate, which hampers effective disaster risk reduction; 4) Specialized cadastres are not accessible, which restricts the ability to effectively manage land and resources during emergencies; 5) Comprehensive risk maps are lacking, which is a critical gap that hinders effective planning and response strategies; 6) There is a shortage of efficient mechanisms for collaboration with the private sector, educational institutions, and research bodies, limiting the integration of innovative solutions and knowledge; 7) The capacity of response services is unevenly distributed, creating disparities in emergency responsiveness across different regions; 8) The emergency number 112 system has not been established, which delays the response times in critical situations; 9) No methodology for hazardous waste management has been developed, leading to potential environmental and health risks; 10) Outdated, unreliable equipment, vehicles, and resources in emergency services impair response efficiency and effectiveness; 11) The salary system for public servants does not align with market rates for engineering professions, affecting recruitment and retention; 12) Inadequate funding for the maintenance of the protection and rescue systems compromises their sustainability and operational readiness; 13) Specialized vehicles and equipment for responding to chemical accidents in road, rail, and river transport are absent, exposing gaps in handling hazardous material incidents; 14) The number of mobile eco-toxicological units is insufficient, limiting the capability to address environmental disasters promptly; 15) Training for employees is lacking; there is also a shortage of expert assistance, which impacts the overall quality of emergency management; 16) Coordination among various entities within the emergency protection and rescue system is insufficient, leading to fragmented responses during crises; 17) Collaboration between research institutions and direct research users is inadequate, which stifles the application of scientific advances in practical settings; 18) Interaction with non-governmental and private sectors is insufficient, which could otherwise enhance resource mobilization and innovative approaches in emergencies; 19) There is a need for improvement in international cooperation to better handle cross-border emergencies and benefit from global best practices; 20) The professional qualifications and technological discipline of available human resources are inadequate, affecting the overall effectiveness of emergency responses; 21) Logistical capacities to provide support to civil authorities in emergencies, especially transportation and storage capabilities, are limited; 22) There is a shortage of specialized personnel, which affects the quality and efficiency of specialized emergency response services; 23) The outflow of skilled personnel and the government's restrictive employment policies exacerbate the challenges in maintaining a skilled workforce; 24) Professional staff lack adequate training, which affects their performance and the quality of emergency services provided; 25) The level of IT support for data entry, management, and utilization is insufficient, hindering effective information management in emergencies; 26) The preparedness and capacity of local governments are low, which compromises local responses in emergency situations; 27) The use of databases and Information Systems (IS) is inadequate, which leads to inefficiencies in data-driven decision-making; 28) The culture of prevention is underdeveloped, leading to higher vulnerability and lower community resilience against emergencies; 29) The general population's level of awareness is low, which impedes effective community engagement in disaster preparedness and response; 30) The utilization of available international development funds is insufficient, which limits the financial resources available for emergency management; 31) The quality of maintenance and repair services for Mobile Telecommunication Systems (MTS) is poor, affecting communication reliability during emergencies; 32) The education of forestry professionals is inadequate, impacting the management and sustainability of forest resources; 33) There is a shortage of engineers with appropriate qualifications (e.g., civil engineers specializing in hydrology, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, certified technologists, and chemists), which limits the technical capacity in relevant sectors; hh) Procedures for adopting documents on an urgent basis are lengthy, which delays critical decision-making in emergency management; 34) Specific procedures for inter-sectoral action are lacking, leading to inefficiencies and inconsistencies in multi-agency responses; 35) The availability of resources and capacities is uneven, which leads to disparities in the effectiveness of emergency responses across different regions; 36) There is no systemic solution for engaging volunteers, which hinders the mobilization of community resources during emergencies; 37) The registry of disaster risks remains incomplete, lacking full integration of geo-referenced data for all recognized natural and technological hazards throughout the nation; 38) The development of standardized operating procedures for a synchronized response to emergencies is lacking, which undermines the quickness and efficiency of response operations; 39) The distribution of tasks within the protection and rescue sectors does not align proportionally with the capabilities of the assigned agencies and forces, leading to inefficiencies; 40) There is a notable imbalance in the support provided for sustaining the existing capacities and resources dedicated to disaster risk reduction and emergency management; 41) The critical emergency response system, designated by the number 112, has yet to be implemented, resulting in significant delays when responding to emergencies; 42) Local government bodies show inadequate planning and budgeting for funding essential services in protection, rescue, and disaster risk reduction; 43) Both the general public's preparedness and the local governments’ readiness to manage emergencies are dangerously inadequate; 44) The cultivation of a preventive and safety-conscious culture is significantly lacking, coupled with a low level of public knowledge about how to handle hazards and risks, and a weak foundation for risk reduction and disaster impact mitigation; 45) Emergency response resources and capacities are not only insufficient but are also unevenly available across different emergency services and organizations; 46) There is an absence of an organized approach to mobilize volunteers and engage the youth in emergency situations, which hampers effective community-driven response efforts; 47) The integration of vulnerable and marginalized groups into disaster preparedness and response plans is poorly handled, often overlooking the needs of these crucial segments of the population; 48) Effective oversight and regulation enforcement within the realms of protection and rescue are notably lacking, resulting in varied compliance and implementation across the board.

5. Strategic Enhancements and Challenges in Emergency and Disaster Management

To strengthen emergency and disaster management systems effectively, it's crucial to focus on key strategies such as enhancing collaborative efforts, developing capacities, and refining response measures. These steps are vital for a well-rounded and effective strategy in disaster risk reduction and emergency preparedness: 1) Enhancing regional and international cooperation in emergency management, including involvement in multinational operations and direct collaborations with organizations like WMO, IPCC, GEOSS; 2) Strengthening capacities through increased funding for equipment, operational expenses, and revitalization of domestic production of technical resources; 3) Improving coordination and collaboration at all levels, including data exchange with entities like ICPDR and the Sava Commission, and enhanced communication with stakeholders and government bodies; 4) Advancing training and education programs for civil protection units, emergency staff, and the general public, focusing on safety, emergency preparedness, and disaster risk reduction; 5) Utilizing international funding and technological advancements to boost strategic capabilities, including early warning systems and risk predictions; 6) Continuous development and harmonization of methodologies, regulations, and strategic documents, particularly aligning with European standards and utilizing extensive scientific research and data.

Emergency management systems today face a myriad of challenges that span financial limitations, operational inefficiencies, political and demographic hurdles, environmental risks, and communication barriers, each complicating the path to effective crisis response and resilience building.

The following threats have been identified, posing significant challenges to the effectiveness and resilience of emergency and disaster management system: 1) Financial and resource constraints impacting equipment modernization, infrastructure development, and the execution of essential tasks, including inadequate investment levels and budgetary support; 2) Operational inefficiencies in emergency management, slow implementation of preventive measures, and inadequate disaster planning and preparedness at various levels; 3) Political risks, demographic challenges, and workforce issues, including high staff turnover, understaffing, and the need for better job task definition and coordination among societal actors; 4) Climate change and environmental extremes posing increasing risks, requiring rapid response capabilities and reform in public enterprise management; 5) Challenges in maintaining effective interdepartmental and external communications, managing expectations, and ensuring adequate responses to emergencies, compounded by potential economic crises due to global events like pandemics and conflicts.

6. Conclusions

This research thoroughly explores the intricacies of Serbia’s Disaster Management Framework, uncovering a complex array of strengths, weaknesses, and areas ripe for strategic improvement. The strengths identified highlight a solid base marked by skilled professionals, cutting-edge technology, and effective teamwork, all crucial for proficient emergency preparedness and response. On the flip side, the weaknesses point to urgent needs for improvement in areas like regulatory enforcement, resource distribution, and infrastructure upgrades, which currently impede the framework’s efficiency and response capabilities. Strategically, the study recommends a comprehensive approach to boost Serbia's disaster management effectiveness. Suggestions include strengthening international and regional partnerships, ramping up investment in technology and infrastructure, and expanding training and public awareness initiatives. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of proactive policy development aimed at resilience and thorough risk management. The study posits that with focused reforms, increased funding, and ongoing commitment to enhancement, Serbia could substantially improve its resilience to disasters, thus better protecting its people and infrastructure from the growing unpredictability of global environmental challenges. This research not only adds to the ongoing conversation on disaster risk management but also acts as a springboard for further studies and policy-making in this crucial area.

This study not only maps out the structure of Serbia’s Disaster (Risk) Management Framework but also enriches the academic conversation around disaster management. It presents a detailed framework suited for comparative analysis in various national contexts, helping to deepen the understanding of both universal and region-specific challenges in disaster management. The methodology used in this research strengthens the integrity of disaster management studies by integrating various data sources, which refine theoretical models for disaster resilience and response. Thus, this research lays a solid foundation for further theoretical exploration and offers insightful views on the dynamics of disaster management systems. On a practical level, this study's outcomes are crucial for shaping policies and strategic planning in disaster management. By identifying key systemic weaknesses and areas needing strategic improvements, the research delivers precise recommendations for policy reform. These recommendations include creating extensive training programs for emergency personnel and the public, optimizing resource distribution, and encouraging multi-sectoral collaborations. These measures are vital for boosting disaster preparedness and response capabilities and contributing to comprehensive enhancements in national disaster management strategies. The practical insights provided are designed to assist policymakers, emergency management experts, and stakeholders in developing more effective and efficient practices in disaster management, ultimately fostering a more resilient society.

References

Cvetkovic, Vladimir M. "Risk Perception of Building Fires in Belgrade." International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 1, no. 1 (2019): 81-91. [CrossRef]
Ocal, A. "Natural Disasters in Turkey: Social and Economic Perspective." International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 1, no. 1 (2019): 51-61. [CrossRef]
Aleksandrina, Mavrodieva, Dyah Budiarti, Zhou Yu, Federico Pasha, and Rajib Shaw. "Governmental Incentivization for Smes’ Engagement in Disaster Resilience in Southeast Asia." International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 1, no. 1 (2019): 32-50. [CrossRef]
Xuesong, Guo, and Naim Kapucu. "Examining Stakeholder Participation in Social Stability Risk Assessment for Mega Projects Using Network Analysis." International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 1, no. 1 (2019): 1-31. [CrossRef]
Kumiko, Fujita, and Rajib %J International Journal of Disaster Risk Management Shaw. "Preparing International Joint Project: Use of Japanese Flood Hazard Map in Bangladesh." 1, no. 1 (2019): 62-80.
Tošić, Ivana, Ivana Hrnjak, Milivoj B. Gavrilov, Miroslava Unkašević, Slobodan B. Marković, and Tin Lukić. "Annual and Seasonal Variability of Precipitation in Vojvodina, Serbia." Theoretical and applied climatology 117 (2014): 331-41. [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir M., Aleksandar Dragašević, Darko Protić, Bojan Janković, Neda Nikolić, and Predrag Milošević. "Fire Safety Behavior Model for Residential Buildings: Implications for Disaster Risk Reduction." International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (2022): 102981. [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir, Neda Nikolić, Radovanović Una Nenadić, Adem Ocal, and Miodrag Zečević. "Preparedness and Preventive Behaviors for a Pandemic Disaster Caused by Covid-19 in Serbia." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 11 (2020): 4124. [CrossRef]
Ocal, A., Vladimir M. Cvetković, Hoda Baytiyeh, Fantina Tedim, and Miodrag Zečević. "Public Reactions to the Disaster Covid-19: A Comparative Study in Italy, Lebanon, Portugal, and Serbia." Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk (2020).
Cvetković, V., Adem Öcal, Yuliya Lyamzina, Eric Noji, Goran Milošević, and Mihailo %J Advance.Preprint Jovanović. "Public Risk Perception of Nuclear Power in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation Vs. Social Benefits." (2020): advance.13082240.v1.
Cvetkovic, Vladimir, and Jovana %J International Journal of Disaster Risk Management Martinović. "Innovative Solutions for Flood Risk Management." 2, no. 2 (2020).
Cvetković, Vladimir, Ronan Kevin, Rajib Shaw, Marina Filipović, Rita Mano, Jasmina Gačić, and Vladimir Jakovljević. "Household Earthquake Preparedness in Serbia – a Study from Selected Municipalities." Acta Geographica 59, no. 1 (2019). [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir, Adem Öcal, and Aleksandar Ivanov. "Young Adults’ Fear of Disasters: A Case Study of Residents from Turkey, Serbia and Macedonia." International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction (2019): 101095. [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir. Disaster Risk Management (Upravljanje Rizicima u Vanrednim Situacijama) Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, 2020.
Ranke, Ulrich. Natural Disaster Risk Management: Springer, 2016.
Coppola, Damon P. Introduction to International Disaster Management: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015.
Hémond, Yannick, and Benoît Robert. "Preparedness: The State of the Art and Future Prospects." Disaster Prevention and Management 21, no. 4 (2012): 404-17. [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir M., Jasmina Tanasić, Adem Ocal, Želimir Kešetović, Neda Nikolić, and Aleksandar Dragašević. "Capacity Development of Local Self-Governments for Disaster Risk Management." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 19 (2021): 10406. [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir M., Slavoljub Dragićević, Marina Petrović, Saša Mijalković, Vladimir Jakovljević, and Jasmina Gačić. "Knowledge and Perception of Secondary School Students in Belgrade About Earthquakes as Natural Disasters." Polish journal of environmental studies 24, no. 4 (2015): 1553-61. [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir, and Vanja Šišović. "Understanding Community (Social) Disaster Resilience in Serbia: Demographic and Socio-Economic Impacts." Preprints 2024, 2024020950. (2024): 2024020950.
Grozdanić, G., Vladimir Cvetković, Tin Lukić, and Aleksandar Ivanov. "Comparative Analysis and Prediction of Sustainable Development in Earthquake Preparedness: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia." Preprint (2024).
Cvetković, Vladimir M., and Vanja Šišović. "Community Disaster Resilience in Serbia." Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Belgrade, 2024.
Grozdanić, G., and M. Vladimir Cvetković. "Exploring Multifaceted Factors Influencing Community Resilience to Earthquake-Induced Geohazards: Insights from Montenegro." Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Belgrade, 2024.
Cvetković, Vladimir, Jasmina Tanasić, Mirjana Živković-Šulović, and Stefan Milojević. "State of Public Health at the Local Level in Serbia: Longitudinal Research." Preprint (2023).
Cvetković, Vladimir, Saša Romanić, and Hatidža Beriša. "Religion Influence on Disaster Risk Reduction: A Case Study of Serbia." Preprint (2023). [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir M., and Vanja Šišović. "Capacity Building in Serbia for Disaster and Climate Risk Education." Available at SSRN 4575350 (2023).
Nikolić, Neda, Vladimir Cvetković, and Aleksandar Ivanov. "Human Resource Development for Environmental Security and Emergency Management." Scientific-Professional Society for Disaster Risk Management, Belgrade, 2023.
Cvetković, V. Pavlović S., and B. Janković. "Private Security Preparedness for Disasters Caused by Fires." Journal of Criminalistic and Law, NBP 26, no. 1 (2021). [CrossRef]
Janković, Bojan, Vladimir Cvetković, Saša Milojević, and Zvonimir Ivanović. "Relations between Police and Private Security Officers: A Case Study of Serbia." Security Journal (2021). [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir, Katarina Andrić, and Aleksandar Ivanov. "Comparative Analysis of DRM Systems in Germany, USA, Russia and China." Security Dialogues /Безбеднoсни дијалoзи 14, no. 2: 65-88. [CrossRef]
Cvetković, V., G. Roder, A. Öcal, P. Tarolli, and S. Dragićević. "The Role of Gender in Preparedness and Response Behaviors Towards Flood Risk in Serbia." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 12 (2018): 2761. [CrossRef]
Guerriero, Luigi, Giuseppe Ruzza, Francesco M. Guadagno, and Paola Revellino. "Flood Hazard Mapping Incorporating Multiple Probability Models." Journal of Hydrology 587 (2020): 125020. [CrossRef]
Petrucci, Olga, Luigi Aceto, Cinzia Bianchi, Victoria Bigot, Rudolf Brázdil, Susana Pereira, Abdullah Kahraman, Özgenur Kılıç, Vassiliki Kotroni, Maria Carmen Llasat, Montserrat Llasat-Botija, Katerina Papagiannaki, Angela Aurora Pasqua, Jan Řehoř, Joan Rossello Geli, Paola Salvati, Freddy Vinet, and José Luis Zêzere. "Flood Fatalities in Europe, 1980–2018: Variability, Features, and Lessons to Learn." 11, no. 8 (2019): 1682. [CrossRef]
Kutub, Juel Rana, Vladimir M. Cvetković, and Shahnaz Huq. "Assessment of Women’s Vulnerability and Their Coping Mechanism Living in Flood Prone Areas: A Case Study of Belkuchi Upazila, Sirajganj." Serbian Science Today (2017).
Parvin, Gulsan, Annya Shimi, Rajib Shaw, and Chaitee Biswas. "Flood in a Changing Climate: The Impact on Livelihood and How the Rural Poor Cope in Bangladesh." Climate 4, no. 4 (2016): 60. [CrossRef]
Cvetković, Vladimir, and Jelena Planić. "Earthquake Risk Perception in Belgrade: Implications for Disaster Risk Management." International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 4, no. 1 (2022): 69-89. [CrossRef]
Hough, Susan Elizabeth. Predicting the Unpredictable: The Tumultuous Science of Earthquake Prediction: Princeton University Press, 2016.
Rikhari, RD. "Making Buildings Earthquake Resistant Is Good Economics." (2015).
Cvetković, Vladimir. "Taktika Zaštite I Spasavanja U Katastrofama (Disaster Protection and Rescue Tactics)." Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, Beograd, 2022.
Cvetković, Vladimir, and Jovanović Marina. Mitovi O Katastrofama: Istine I Zablude (Myths About Disasters: Truths and Misconceptions). Beograd: Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, 2021.
Cvetković, Vladimir, and Jovana Martinović. "Upravljanje u Nuklearnim Katastrofama (Nuclear Disaster Management)." Naučno-stručno društvo za upravljanje rizicima u vanrednim situacijama, Beograd, 2021.
Cvetković, Vladimir M. "A Predictive Model of Community Disaster Resilience Based on Social Identity Influences (Modersi)." International Journal of Disaster Risk Management 5, no. 2 (2023): 57-80. [CrossRef]
Benzaghta, Mostafa Ali, Abdulaziz Elwalda, Mousa Mohamed Mousa, Ismail Erkan, and Mushfiqur Rahman. "Swot Analysis Applications: An Integrative Literature Review." Journal of Global Business Insights 6, no. 1 (2021): 54-72. [CrossRef]
Ghazinoory, Sepehr, Mansoureh Abdi, and Mandana Azadegan-Mehr. "Swot Methodology: A State-of-the-Art Review for the Past, a Framework for the Future." Journal of Business Economics and Management 12, no. 1 (2011): 24-48. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.