Abstract

This study examines residents’ perceptions of cultural–historical heritage and seismic safety in two Adriatic regions – the Bay of Kotor (Montenegro) and the Dubrovnik Littoral (Croatia). A cross-sectional survey (N = 540; 270 from the Bay of Kotor and 270 from the Dubrovnik Littoral) used 5-point Likert items to assess heritage valuation, personal and community earthquake awareness, institutional readiness, and community practices. The analytical framework combined descriptive statistics, independent-samples t-tests (gender; place of residence), one-way ANOVA (education), Pearson correlations (age), and multiple linear regression on a composite index (“Cultural-Heritage and Seismic Preparedness Attitudes”). Respondents strongly endorsed the importance and tourism value of monuments (M ≈ 4.6–4.7) but expressed low confidence in institutional protection and local preparedness (M ≈ 2.0–2.4). No gender differences emerged (all p > 0.05). Place-based differences were limited: residents of the Bay of Kotor reported more frequent citizen training (p = 0.005) and greater adherence to seismic construction rules (p = 0.003). Age correlated positively with heritage valuation and risk awareness, and negatively with willingness to attend training and confidence in institutions. Education showed consistent effects; more-educated respondents valued heritage and risks more but were more critical of protection systems. In the regression, education was the only significant predictor of the composite index (B = −0.346, β = −0.134, p = 0.002), while overall explained variance was modest (R² = 0.022). Findings reveal a gap between strong cultural attachment and limited practical preparedness, underscoring the need for stronger intersectoral coordination, enforcement of seismic regulations, and systematic public training.

Conclusion

This study examined how residents of the Bay of Kotor and the Dubrovnik Littoral perceive the value of their cultural and historical heritage and assess seismic preparedness. Overall, the findings support targeted, scalable strategies to bridge the gap between cultural appreciation and practical seismic preparedness in both regions. Respondents in both regions highly valued heritage as a cultural symbol and a tourism resource, yet expressed low confidence in institutional protection, community measures, and opportunities for citizen training. This highlights a persistent implementation gap: strong cultural attachment exists alongside weak daily preparedness and limited trust in protection systems. The originality of this study lies in its integrated examination of cultural-heritage valuation, seismic preparedness, and perceived institutional capacity within a comparative Adriatic coastal context. By focusing on the Bay of Kotor and Dubrovnik Littoral, it extends existing disaster-risk and heritage literature beyond physical vulnerability assessments and provides empirical evidence on the influence of community perceptions on preparedness in culturally significant, earthquake-prone environments.

Hypothesis testing clarifies the sources of this gap. Hypothesis 1 is partly supported: while awareness of seismic risk is high, perceptions of community awareness and preparedness are moderate. Hypothesis 2 is supported: current protection, restoration, and code enforcement are viewed as inadequate. Hypothesis 3 is partially supported: gender differences are absent, but older and more educated respondents value heritage and recognize risks more and are more critical of institutional performance, with older adults showing less interest in training. Hypothesis 4 is supported: coordination efforts, such as drills and compliance, receive low public ratings. Hypothesis 5 is supported: willingness to attend training is very high, indicating that targeted education and communication could significantly improve resilience if systematically implemented.

Policy should focus on transforming cultural pride into routine preparedness. Key actions include: 1) institutionalizing regular public education and drills in schools, museums, and community centers, with clear participation goals; 2) increasing visibility of seismic codes enforcement through inspection logs, certifications, and sanctions to rebuild trust; 3) customizing risk communication for different age groups – brief, practice-focused formats for older adults and participatory modules for youths; 4) providing heritage-compatible seismic retrofitting guidance and piloting it at iconic sites to show feasibility; and 5) establishing formal intersectoral coordination through standing working groups involving heritage authorities, civil protection, and local governments, with shared indicators and public reporting.

Methodologically, the multiple regression explained only a modest part of the variation in attitudes, suggesting that factors such as training, enforcement intensity, building conditions, and funding cycles likely influence perceptions beyond demographics. This highlights the importance of combining community surveys with administrative and technical data to identify systemic barriers and monitor progress. The study has typical limitations of cross-sectional, self-report research: causality cannot be established, and results may be biased by recall or social desirability. The low explanatory power of the regression model suggests that additional contextual, social, institutional, or experiential factors not included in the present analysis may play a substantial role in shaping perceptions and preparedness. Accordingly, the regression findings should be interpreted as exploratory rather than strongly predictive. Future studies should use longitudinal designs to track changes post-interventions; incorporate administrative data on inspections, investments, and drills; and include technical evaluations of building vulnerability to link perceptions to objective risks. Both regions have strong social support for heritage preservation and a willingness to participate. If local institutions leverage this support through regular training, visible enforcement, and heritage-sensitive retrofitting, they can better protect cultural assets against seismic hazards. Closing the gap between cultural identity and effective implementation is essential for resilient, lasting protection of Adriatic heritage.

Reference

Grozdanić, G., Perošević, N., Cvetković, V. M., Manojlović, B., & Lukić, T. (2026). Cultural heritage under seismic threat: Risk awareness and preparedness in the Bay of Kotor and Dubrovnik Littoral. Open Geosciences, 18(1), 20250986. doi:10.1515/geo-2025-0986

View more: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/geo-2025-0986/html