Abstract
This study examines residents’ perceptions of environmental and disaster risks near the “Duboko” regional landfill in Serbia. It aims to uncover factors that affect public trust and community resilience. This approach is rooted in interdisciplinary perspectives on risk perception, institutional trust, and socio-ecological resilience. A structured, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from a stratified sample of 1,180 respondents across nine municipalities in Western Serbia. The statistical analysis involved descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and multiple linear regression. The regression models indicated that gender, education level, type of settlement, property ownership, and household size were significant predictors across various thematic dimensions. The model addressing risk perception and environmental impact accounted for 5.6% of the variance, while the model regarding institutional trust and transparency explained 7.4% of the variance. Higher perceived risk and lower institutional trust were found among women, individuals with lower levels of education, rural residents, and respondents from smaller households. Furthermore, increased transparency and access to environmental information correlated with enhanced trust and perceived resilience. These results emphasise the complex nature of landfill risk perception and highlight the need for participatory communication, transparent governance, and context-sensitive community involvement to bolster disaster resilience and public health protection in areas impacted by landfills.
Conclusions
This study provides a comprehensive, multifaceted examination of how individuals residing near Serbia’s “Duboko” regional landfill perceive environmental and disaster risks. It also examines how these perceptions relate to their trust in institutions and the resilience of their communities. Drawing on key theories related to risk perception, trust in institutions, and socio-ecological resilience, the research provides strong support for all five original hypotheses. It shows that people’s sense of risk isn’t just about being physically close to environmental hazards—it’s also shaped by their social environment, values, and life experiences.
Demographic factors, such as gender and age, emerged as significant predictors. Women and older individuals consistently demonstrated greater concern, stronger emotional reactions, and less trust in institutions. This aligns with global research that frequently reveals women exhibit heightened environmental awareness and emotional investment, while older adults, likely due to life experiences, are more sceptical of official narratives. Additionally, socioeconomic status has an influential impact on both risk perception and resilience. Individuals with higher education, greater incomes, and stable employment exhibited more trust in institutions, a more optimistic outlook, and a greater sense of control. Conversely, those with limited economic resources experienced height-ened vulnerability, stress, and a sense of disconnection from institutional frameworks. These results underscore the importance of social equity in managing environmental risks and emphasise the need for policies tailored to support marginalised communities. The location also played a crucial role. Residents of rural areas or those living within 5 km of the landfill voiced greater concerns about pollution, public health, and environmental degradation. They exhibited more intense emotional responses and greater distrust toward public authorities. These trends strengthen the “proximity hypothesis,” which posits that individuals living closer to environmental hazards tend to have heightened awareness, stronger emotional reactions, and increased civic engagement. Housing conditions and property ownership also influenced concern levels. People living in homes they or their families owned were more psychologically invested and more anxious about long-term con-sequences like health issues or falling property values. This likely reflects a sense of long-term commitment and deeper emotional ties to the area, emphasising how place attachment plays into vulnerability.
Access to information and participation in civic life emerged as significant factors driving trust, preparedness, and emotional resilience. Individuals who remained informed, engaged in community or environmental initiatives, and viewed institutions as open and transparent exhibited notably greater trust and optimism. This underscores the effectiveness of participatory communi-cation and open governance in fostering stronger and more connected communities. On the aca-demic front, this research makes substantial contributions. By integrating various theoretical per-spectives, it enhances our understanding of how individuals perceive and respond to environmental risks. It demonstrates the necessity of looking beyond merely technical risk data to also consider personal, emotional, and institutional dimensions. The study further introduces a flexible model that may be applicable to other environmental contexts, particularly in areas adapting to EU regulations. Regarding policy, the findings provide clear guidance for enhancing waste management in Serbia. There is a need for more inclusive, strategic, and transparent approaches to planning and managing landfills. Special attention should be directed towards engaging the most affected and sceptical groups—particularly rural communities, women, and those with limited resources. Public educa-tion, clear risk communication, and increased opportunities for citizen involvement must all be expanded to restore trust and promote more sustainable behaviour.
To support this, the study concludes with 18 specific recommendations. These initiatives are designed to address Serbia’s key waste management challenges, including fragmented institutions, poor communication, a lack of community input, inadequate infrastructure, and the informal sector’s weak regulation. Each recommendation is linked to practical steps, relevant stakeholders, and feasibility, providing a clear path forward in the real world. This study adds to both scholarly conversations and practical policymaking. It makes clear that you can’t achieve environmental safety or community resilience without trust, fairness, and people’s participation. Going forward, building a waste system that’s both socially and environmentally responsible will take lasting po-litical will, cooperation across sectors, and authentic engagement with the communities that live closest to the risks.
How to cite
Nikolić, N., Cvetković, V., Renner, R., Cvijović, N. & Gačić, J. (2025). Disaster risk perception and local resilience near the “Duboko” landfill: Challenges of governance, management, trust, and environmental communication in Serbia. Open Geosciences, 17(1), 20250850. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2025-0850
