The Analysis of Fire Protection for Selected Historical Buildings as a Part of Crisis Management: Slovak Case Study

Abstract

Historical buildings are exposed to an increased risk of fire. The direct influence comes from the buildings’ structural design and the fire protection level. The fundamental principle for reducing the loss of heritage value in historical buildings due to fire is fire protection, as part of crisis management. This article focuses on selected castle buildings from Slovakia. Three castle buildings were selected based on their location in the country. All of them are currently used for museum purposes. Using an analytical form, we assessed fire hazards and fire safety measures in two parts, calculated the fire risk index, and proposed solutions. Qualitative research, which is more suitable for the issue at hand, was used to evaluate the selected objects. The main methods used in the research focused on visual assessment of the current condition of the objects and analysis of fire documentation and its comparison with currently valid legal regulations. Based on the results, we can conclude that Kežmarok Castle (part of the historical city center) has a small fire risk (fire risk index = 13 points). Trenčín Castle (situated on a rock above the city) and Stará Ľubovňa Castle (situated on a limestone hill outside the city, surrounded by forest) have an increased risk of fire (fire risk index = 50–63). Significant risk sources identified included surrounding forest areas, technical failures related to outdated electrical installations, open flames during cultural events, the concentration of highly flammable materials, and complex evacuation routes for both people and museum collections.

1. Introduction

Historic buildings are among the most vulnerable types of structures to extraordinary events. Their construction, the materials used, and limited modernization make these buildings challenging environments for the application of standard safety measures. The required safety and reliability of building structures and facilities are assessed according to the criteria of technical standards and regulations adopted by society to ensure an acceptable level of risk [1,2]. Historic buildings are under constant threat from natural disasters, including rain, wind, heat, earthquakes, floods, and landslides, as well as from disasters caused by human activities. Human-induced threats manifest in careless and unsystematic interventions, vandalism, theft of building materials, or even armed conflict [3]. Managing these threats falls within the scope of crisis management [4]. Most often, there are fires and their consequences, but firefighters also cooperate with crisis management in managing other emergencies such as floods, earthquakes, or storms. Fire protection and crisis management complement each other, since fire protection addresses preventive measures against the occurrence and spread of fire, crisis management ensures coordination, planning, and management of the crisis situation as a whole. In recent years, these threats have had a growing trend [5]. Due to its speed and cumulative impact, fire represents one of the main vulnerability factors of historic buildings, often resulting in extremely costly and frequently irreversible damage to the structures. Evidence for this is provided by fire statistics concerning historic buildings in the Slovak Republic for five consecutive years (Figure 1). A downward trend in the number of fires has been observed, which may be attributed to improvements in fire protection technologies and equipment installed in these structures. A significant difference in the reported economic impacts is seen in the year 2023, due to the largest fire affecting historic buildings in the Slovak Republic, which occurred in Banská Štiavnica (Figure 2).

Historic buildings possess architectural, aesthetic, historical, documentary, archaeological, economic, social, and even political, spiritual, or symbolic values, which have led to their designation as part of the national heritage. Heritage buildings worldwide were constructed several decades or even centuries ago. At the time of their design and construction, fire protection and prevention principles were not taken into consideration. In some cases, electrical lighting systems were not considered. Over time, protected heritage buildings have undergone renovations, expansions, and even changes in their original function. They have been transformed into museums, galleries, libraries, hotels, and other tourist attractions, which has increased demand for their usage, such as the installation of new electrical equipment [6]. The main groups causing fires in heritage-protected buildings were identified by UNESCO (

Table 1. The potential fire risks in heritage-protected buildings [7].

Source Category	Specific Examples
electricity	electrical system, electrical faults
lighting	high-intensity lights, exposed bulbs, exhibit lighting, temporary lights, Christmas decorations
hot surface	appliances, technical equipment, boilers, portable heaters, chimneys, stovetops
open flame	candles, incense, butter lamps, lighters, oil lamps fireplaces, chimneys appliances (stoves), heating devices (gas boiler, water heaters)
deliberate ignition (arson)	intentional fire setting, vandalism
smoking and waste disposal	cigars, cigarettes, pipes, lighters, matches
wildfires and natural spread	flames, hot sparks, flying embers, spread of fire from forest
open burning	field burning, controlled but escaped fires
waste containers and trash	dumpsters, waste, ash

) [7]. This document serves as a guide for UNESCO cultural and natural heritage sites, with each country expected to establish its legislation for the fire protection of historical buildings. In the Slovak Republic, we have only one document: methodology of the principles guiding the decision-making of the Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic in matters of structural or restoration interventions, titled “Fire Protection of Cultural Monuments”. This document is general only and does not include a specific evaluation method.

Fire safety of buildings is a complex of measures that must be fulfilled during the design, construction, and use of buildings. Achieving the highest possible level of fire safety in buildings is one of the basic requirements for any building. The aim of integrating all fire safety measures is to ensure the highest possible level of protection for human and animal life and health, property, and the environment. These requirements are enforced through applicable legal regulations, supplemented by technical standards [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17].

The means and methods used to achieve the required fire safety of buildings are divided into two basic categories, depending on whether they influence the development and intensity of a fire or simply resist the effects of fire. They are classified as follows [18,19]: active and passive fire protection. Active fire protection includes all measures that actively intervene in the event of a fire to ensure its reliable containment and extinguishment (e.g., automatic fire protection systems installed in the building). Passive fire protection refers to the ability of the building as a whole, and its structures, to withstand fire and prevent its spread to other parts of the building or adjacent buildings without compromising the stability and function of the structural components (e.g., dividing the building into smaller units—fire compartments—using fire-resistant structural elements).

Historic buildings are constructed from materials that were available and commonly used in the past. Wood was the most frequently used material in these structures, particularly for ceiling constructions, roof trusses, staircases, floor structures, windows, doors, furniture, and decorations [20]. Wood as a building material has certain advantages, such as low weight, aesthetic appeal, and fast construction. However, it also has disadvantages, including susceptibility to moisture and rot, vulnerability to pests, and flammability. If the original building materials used do not provide sufficient fire resistance, it is advisable to modify or protect the structures made from these materials. One option is the use of fire-retardant coatings, sprays, or claddings [21,22]. Another option is to use exotic woods that have better fire properties than commonly used woods [23,24].

One of the passive methods to prevent the spread of fire throughout a building is closing doors, especially after visitor operations have ended. Although buildings in the past were not divided into fire compartments, solid wooden doors can be considered a provisional fire barrier. While their fire resistance has not been verified through fire testing, it is generally assumed that they provide at least 30 min of fire resistance [25]. Walls are usually made of stone bonded with mortar, with a thickness of around 500–1000 mm. According to [26], such types of constructions have a fire resistance rating of 120–240 min. In the case of wooden ceiling structures, the fire resistance is estimated at approximately 30–60 min. Penetrations through ceiling structures—such as chandelier mounts, cable passages, and double-layer ceiling constructions that may contain cavities and openings through which fire could spread between floors—must be sealed using fire collars, intumescent seals, or special fire-resistant fillers. It is also advisable to seal the gap between the door and the frame, as well as between the door and the threshold, since these can serve as pathways for smoke and fire, using, for example, intumescent (expanding) tape. The type of roofing material has a significant impact on the fire safety of historical buildings. The use of metal roofing or wooden shingles is much riskier than using ceramic or slate tiles. One example is the fire at Krásna Hôrka Castle [27]. In the event of a fire in attic spaces, a major hazard is the absence of any internal separation, which can lead to the destruction of the entire building, as seen in the case of Zahrádky Castle [28]. It is also necessary to mention the illegal changes in the use of historic buildings—for example, converting attic spaces into residential areas or transforming basements into restaurants. In addition to indoor spaces, outdoor security is also necessary, which can be threatened by forest fires, floods, earthquakes, etc. [29,30].

The protection of historic buildings from fire requires specific technical solutions that allow rapid fire detection and minimize damage. All fire protection measures should provide maximum safety with minimum damage. Physical damage to the building and visual intrusion should be kept to a minimum [3]. Preventing the spread of fire can be achieved through active and passive fire protection systems, such as fire alarm systems, fixed fire suppression systems, or fire extinguishers. However, these fire suppression systems can potentially damage the building or its contents. Therefore, the requirements for equipping historical buildings with fire protection systems must be determined individually, and often go beyond existing legal regulations, based on expert assessment. Their installation is often more challenging than in modern buildings, mainly due to limitations on structural interventions. From the perspective of historical building typology, the most suitable solution is the use of wireless fire alarm systems, which do not require cable installations and thus minimize construction impact on the building. For long corridors and large open rooms, linear optical smoke detectors appear to be an ideal solution, while for smaller rooms in terms of floor plan, optical smoke or heat detectors are more appropriate.

The use of fixed fire suppression systems in historical buildings is very restrictive, but possible under certain conditions. The most suitable system is considered to be fixed fire suppression using inert gases, which are especially appropriate for archives, storage rooms, and areas containing electronic equipment. However, they are not suitable for spaces where visitors are present. For such areas, water mist fire suppression systems are recommended, which use water as the extinguishing agent in the form of a fine mist. These systems require significantly less water than conventional water-based suppression systems, making them more gentle on protected materials and structures [31,32]. Examples of fire protection system applications in historic buildings include Český Krumlov Castle, St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague, and the Louvre in Paris. Optical smoke or heat detectors are more appropriate.

The aim of the article is to identify the fire risks and fire safety measures and calculate the fire risk index in the selected three historical buildings in Slovakia. The historical buildings were selected because of their location in the country and the change of use of the buildings. In addition to the assessment of fire risks, the article also focuses on aspects of crisis management related to fire safety, particularly the preparedness of responsible institutions (the Monuments Board, the Fire and Rescue Service, and property managers) to handle emergencies related to fires in historically valuable buildings. We have selected the castle situated in the historical city (Kežmarok Castle), the castle situated on a rock above the city (Trenčín Castle), and the castle situated outside the city and surrounded by the forest (Stará Ľubovňa Castle).

2. Materials and Methods

This case study is based on the interdisciplinary foundations of the key disciplines of heritage conservation and fire protection. The aim is to analyze the fire protection of three selected historic buildings from the territory of the Slovak Republic and to determine their fire risk index. The research methods used to achieve this aim were historical–interpretative method, observation, and critical analysis. Each of these methods was selected based on its relevance to the research objectives and its ability to address the unique challenges posed by this interdisciplinary topic.

The historical–interpretive method involved an extensive review of the literature, technical and building codes, standards, and materials provided by historic building operators. Its main objective was to identify historical trends in fire safety regulations and assess their impact on historic preservation.

The observation method was repeated in each of the selected historic buildings in order to evaluate the implementation of fire protection measures and their physical and visual impact on the heritage values of the historic buildings. The observation was conducted between March and May 2025. Two separate on-site observations were conducted in each building, each lasting approximately 5 h, depending on the building’s size. The observation was carried out based on an analytical form adapted in 1990 by Stewart Kidd for use in heritage properties. Zelinger subsequently adapted this method for Czech museums and galleries, and later also for publicly accessible monuments such as castles, chateaux, and monasteries, and it has its application in the conditions of Slovak cultural monuments as well [25]. Photographic documentation was created in each building to capture the actual state of fire risk. A notebook and a voice recorder were used to record observations in real time. The collected data were digitized and processed into the FBI UNIZA database.

The critical analysis focused on synthesizing findings obtained from the review of the professional literature, applicable legislation, normative documents, and field observations conducted in selected historic buildings—specifically, castles with the status of national cultural monuments. The analysis aimed to identify key patterns, systemic deficiencies, and challenges related to the implementation of fire protection measures, and subsequently to propose actions to mitigate fire risk while respecting the heritage value of the buildings. The analysis was carried out through a comparative evaluation of individual sites based on a set of assessment criteria defined with regard to international recommendations (UNESCO, Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic), as well as expert studies in the field of fire safety in historic structures. The main evaluation criteria included the following:

• The level of technical fire protection equipment, including the types and number of detection and suppression systems (e.g., fire detectors, water mist systems, inert gas systems, portable fire extinguishers);
• The degree of integration of fire protection measures into the historic environment, with emphasis on visual discretion, reversibility, and minimal intervention in the original structures;
• The level of vulnerability of the building about construction materials (e.g., wooden ceilings, roof trusses, floors), location, and surrounding environment (e.g., forests, slopes, isolation).

The existence and up-to-date status of a fire protection plan and crisis management strategy. The critical analysis was supported by field observations, and the data obtained were consulted with experts in the fields of heritage conservation and the Slovak Fire and Rescue Service. The results were also interpreted in light of sustainability and the long-term preservation of cultural heritage, with a focus on striking a balance between safety requirements and conservation principles.

The analytical form is structured in two parts, A and B. Part A focuses on the assessment of the fire risks arising from the construction materials used, the materials of the internal equipment, and the activities carried out. Part B assesses the existing fire protection measures that reduce the fire risk. In Part A, individual criteria are assigned points from 1 to 10 according to their severity, from the worst criterion to the best. In Part B, points are also assigned from 0 to 10, but points are assigned based on severity from the best criterion to the worst. Points were assigned to single-unpaid criteria by experts in the field of fire safety in buildings and based on an evaluation of fire statistics and the professional foreign literature. The scores obtained in Part A are deducted from the scores in Part B to determine the overall fire risk to which the property falls. Part A—“Fire hazard/risk assessment” is made up of 12 points, and Part B—“Fire precautions” is made up of 10 points (

Table 2. The analytical form for assessing fire risk in historical buildings [-].

Part A Fire Hazard/Risk Assessment	Part B Fire Precautions
predominant building materials	fire detection, alarm, and evacuation systems
roof covering	automatic fixed fire suppression systems
roof structure	regulation of smoke and combustion gas ventilation
construction of corridor walls—escape routes	fire protection equipment
building layout and division into fire compartments	technical resources for responding units
interior finishing of floors, walls, and ceilings	doors
fire load of the rooms	escape routes
complexity of the interior space	lightning protection
ceiling height	building maintenance
potential ignition sources	building management
risk of fire spreading from neighboring structures
materials of cultural property items

). The difference in the number of points between Section A and Section B represents the resulting fire risk, which is classified according to the total score as low fire risk, normal fire risk, increased fire risk, and high fire risk [25].

Analyzed Historical Buildings

Kežmarok Castle (Figure 3a,b) is the only completely preserved castle in the Spiš region (a part of Slovakia). It is built on the eastern edge of the town of Kežmarok and is part of the town’s historic center, included in the town’s heritage conservation area. The castle covers an area of 7000 m². The complex includes three circular bastions and a prismatic annex on the southern side. The bastions have been modified and are connected to the castle grounds. The castle is accessible through a four-sided entrance tower, which once housed a drawbridge.

Kežmarok Castle is currently used for museum purposes. The museum is administered by the Prešov Self-Governing Region. The castle is open to the public from Monday to Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. A maximum of 500 visitors may be present in the castle’s exhibitions at any one time. The floor plan of Kežmarok Castle is in Figure 4.

Trenčín Castle (Figure 5a) is located in the center of the city of Trenčín, perched on a rock above the town, covering an area of 2.42 hectares. On its southern side, the castle is bordered by the Brezina Forest Park. The current castle was established in the 11th century as a border fortress. The oldest parts of the castle are approximately 1000 years old. The castle is divided into two main sections: the lower castle and the upper castle. Trenčín Castle is owned by the Trenčín Self-Governing Region, and its administration is managed by the Trenčín Museum in Trenčín. In 1790, the castle was struck by a fire and subsequently fell into disrepair. Restoration began in 1912 and continues to this day.

The castle is open to the public daily from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and during night tours, it remains open until midnight (12:00 a.m.). A maximum of 500 visitors may be present at the castle at any one time. Trenčín Castle is used year-round for various cultural and social events, such as theatrical performances, concerts, night tours, demonstrations of historical crafts, and knightly duels, which often involve the use of open flames. In the lower part of the castle, there is an amphitheater with a capacity of approximately 600 people. Access to the castle is difficult and not adapted for firefighting vehicles (Figure 5b). The floor plan of Trenčín Castle is in Figure 6.

Stará Ľubovňa Castle (Figure 7a) was built at the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century on a limestone hill at an elevation of 548 m in eastern Slovakia. The oldest parts of the castle are approximately 700 years old. The area of the castle grounds is about 150 by 100 m, where various buildings are located. The castle is managed by the Ľubovňa Museum in Stará Ľubovňa, and it currently houses a museum. The museum is open year-round, with limited opening hours during the winter months. The maximum number of visitors at one time is 250, with approximately 202,000 visitors annually. The individual buildings are not divided into fire compartments.

The castle is accessible through a single entrance via an arched gate, which was modified in 2023 to allow access for firefighting vehicles (Figure 7b). The access road to the castle is lined with a protected chestnut tree alley, and the surroundings of the castle consist of grassy and forested areas. The access surfaces to the castle do not meet the standard requirements. Within the castle grounds, the paths leading to all three courtyards and to the highest point of the rock can be used as internal access routes for firefighting interventions. The floor plan of Stará Ľubovňa Castle is in Figure 8.

As part of the methodology, special attention was given to the material composition of structural elements in the selected castle buildings. Identifying the construction materials used is essential for assessing fire risks, as different materials exhibit varying levels of resistance to high temperatures and fire.

Table 3. Material composition of the main structural elements of the examined castle buildings.

Construction	Building Material
	Kežmarok Castle	Trenčín Castle	Stará Ľubovňa Castle
walls	stone/brick	stone/brick	stone/brick
building lintels	stone/brick	stone/brick	stone/brick
vaults	stone/brick	stone/brick	stone/brick
ceiling	wood/concrete	wood	wood
roof structure	wood	wood	wood
main staircase	stone	stone	stone
secondary staircase	wood	wood	wood
roof covering	roof tile	wooden shingle	wooden shingle
windows	wood	wood	wood
doors	wood	wood	wood

provides an overview of the material composition of the main structural elements of the examined castle buildings.

3. Results

Castles are historical buildings that, due to their specific features, require the most difficult fire protection. In the past, they fulfilled a protective function, which is currently contrary to the requirements imposed on fire protection. The intervention of the units in such a complicated environment requires knowledge of the places at risk. For the fire risk analysis, we have chosen three castle buildings from the territory of Slovakia, which are currently used for museum purposes. We followed the analytical form by [25].

In the first step of the analysis, we focused on the protection of the building structure (

Table 4. The fire risk analysis—Part A of analytical form.

Castle	Prevailing Construction Materials	Points
	stone exterior walls	2
	wooden roof structure without fire-retardant treatment	6
	roof covering—roof tile	2
Kežmarok Castle	floors—concrete	2
	construction of corridor walls—lime plaster walls with a small number of pictures and posters	1
	division into fire compartments—5 fire zones	0
	interior space segmentation—mix rooms up to 20 m2 and up to 100 m2	2
	ceiling height—over 4 m	6
Total points		21
	stone exterior walls	2
	wooden roof structure without fire-retardant treatment	6
	roof covering—wooden shingle	6
Trenčín Castle	floors—wood	4
	construction of corridor walls—lime plaster walls, textile curtains, carpets, wooden panels	11
	division into fire compartments—no	10
	interior space segmentation—mix rooms up to 20 m2, 100 m2, and large rooms running through the entire floor	6
	ceiling height—over 4 m	6
Total points		51
	stone exterior walls	2
	wooden roof structure without fire-retardant treatment	6
	roof covering—wooden shingle	6
Stará Ľubovňa Castle	floors—wood	4
	construction of corridor walls—lime plaster walls, textile curtains	7
	division into fire compartments—no	10
	interior space segmentation—mix rooms up to 20 m2, 100 m2, and large rooms over 100 m2	4
	ceiling height—over 4 m	6
Total points		45

). All three historic buildings have predominantly wooden beam ceiling structures. Trenčín Castle has steel–concrete ceiling structures in some reconstructed buildings, and Ľubovnian Castle has steel ceiling structures in one building. The perimeter walls and partitions are made of stone, only in the case of Ľubovnianský hrad supplemented with bricks. The floors in the buildings are wooden or covered with tiles. Roofing is different. Kežmar Castle has a tiled roof covering. Trenčín Castle has mostly wooden shingles and in some buildings metal sheeting. Stará Ľubovňa Castle has wooden shingles, and in one reconstructed building, plastic shingles. Kežmarok Castle is divided into five fire zones. The individual buildings of Trenčín Castle and Stará Ľubovňa Castle are not divided into fire zones, and therefore, no fire closures are installed.

In the second step of the fire risk analysis, we focused on the protection of the interior furnishings of historic buildings and potential sources of risk (

Table 5. The fire risk analysis—continuation of Part A of analytical form.

Castle	Fire Load	Points
	combustible furniture—minimal	1
	potential ignition sources—electrical appliances	6
Kežmarok Castle	potential ignition sources—large-scale cultural event	10
	risk of fire spread from neighboring areas—location in the urban area	2
	materials of cultural objects—wood, textiles, paper	5
Total points		24
	combustible furniture—significant quantity of upholstered furniture	6
	potential ignition sources—electrical appliances	6
Trenčín Castle	potential ignition sources—electrical wiring over 30 years old	10
	potential ignition sources—large-scale cultural event	10
	potential ignition sources—restoration works by contractors	10
	potential ignition works—frequent lightning strikes	6
	risk of fire spread from neighboring areas—forest fire, grass fire	6
	materials of cultural objects—wood, textiles, paper	5
Total points		59
	combustible furniture—significant quantity of upholstered furniture	6
	potential ignition sources—electrical appliances	6
	potential ignition sources—electrical wiring over 30 years old	10
Stará Ľubovňa Castle	potential ignition sources—large-scale cultural event	10
	potential ignition sources—restoration works by contractors	10
	risk of fire spread from neighboring areas—forest fire, grass fire	6
	risk of fire spread from neighboring areas—danger of arson	6
	materials of cultural objects—wood, textiles, paper	5
Total points		59

).

The interior of Kežmarok Castle is furnished with items with an increased risk of fire (small amounts of flammable furniture: wooden furniture, paintings, curtains, documents, and books). Trenčín Castle and Stará Ľubovňa Castle contain a large amount of combustible furniture, which represents a very high fire risk (wooden furniture, upholstered furniture, paintings, curtains, books, etc.). In the literature [33], arson, electrical short circuits, handling of open flames, and smoking have been identified as the most common causes of fires in historic buildings. Apart from flammable furniture, the main source of fire at Kežmarok Castle is the electric accumulation furnaces (Figure 9a) used for heating in the interior. As the historical building is situated directly in the town, it is surrounded by other buildings and open space, which reduces the risk of fire (Figure 9b).

Among the possible sources of fire risk of Trenčín Castle, we can include fire from the Brezina Forest Park (Figure 10a,b) or the surrounding vegetation, where there are several gazebos and fireplaces. We can also include the handling of open fires during various cultural events and the operation of heating electrical appliances that are not located at a safe distance from combustible objects. The castle has an outdated electrical installation that is more than 30 years old. In the interiors of the individual buildings of the castle, electric light fittings are installed directly on the wooden substrate. Last but not least, lightning can also be a source of fire. Lightning conductors are installed on the castle buildings, but they are not fully functional and would need repair.

For Stará Ľubovňa Castle, the spread of fire during the burning of grass and the Roma settlement to the forest vegetation and shrubs surrounding the castle from the eastern side can be considered as a possible source of fire (Figure 11a). Possible sources of the fire in this case are also the lack of distance between the heating equipment and combustible objects, and the obsolete electrical installation. Other risk factors are maintenance and renovation work (Figure 11b). As a final cause, negligent behavior such as smoking, throwing cigarette butts, use of open flames, or neglect of fire regulations by visitors or employees can be cited.

Security devices in historic buildings play a key role in protecting not only human lives but also the cultural heritage of incalculable value. When installing them, it is essential to take into account the specifics of listed buildings. Effective interconnection of these devices and a restoration approach is therefore the basis for the sustainable protection of cultural monuments. In the analyzed historic buildings, we have assessed the level of fire protection measures (

Table 6. The fire risk analysis—Part B of analytical form.

Castle	Fire Protection Devices	Points
	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—no	0
	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—evacuation system	5
Kežmarok Castle	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—smoke detectors	5
	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—alarm system	5
	automatic stationary fire suppression systems—no	0
	regulation of fire gas and smoke ventilation—no	0
	fire equipment—portable fire extinguishers	4
	fire equipment—internal fire water supply equipped with wall hydrant	3
Total points		22
	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—automatic fire detection in main rooms	3
	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—permanent connection of the FAS to the Fire and Rescue Service	3
Trenčín Castle	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—alarm system	5
	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—evacuation system	5
	automatic stationary fire suppression systems—no	0
	regulation of fire gas and smoke ventilation—manual	1
	fire equipment—portable fire extinguishers	4
	fire equipment—internal fire water supply equipped with wall hydrant	3
Total points		24
	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—automatic fire detection in main rooms	3
	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—alarm system	5
	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—evacuation system	5
Stará Ľubovňa Castle	fire detection, warning, and evacuation systems—smoke detectors	5
	automatic stationary fire suppression systems—no	0
	regulation of fire gas and smoke ventilation—manual	1
	fire equipment—portable fire extinguishers	4
	fire equipment—internal fire water supply equipped with wall hydrant	3
Total points		26

).

Throughout the entire Kežmarok Castle complex, only four passages are equipped with fire closures. For initial fire response, fire extinguishers (powder, water, and CO₂ types) are distributed within the castle, along with two wall-mounted fire hydrants. Underground hydrants are also available outside the castle grounds, located 40 m and 20 m from the castle. At Trenčín Castle, fire protection equipment includes portable fire extinguishers (powder type) installed throughout the premises. One building is equipped with an electric fire alarm system. The Stará Ľubovňa Castle complex also contains two wall-mounted fire hydrants, and there is a 25 m³ water tank located in the courtyard. In terms of fire safety, the castle is equipped with a fire reporting station, a fire patrol, an evacuation plan for each building, a hydrant network, a fire water reservoir, portable fire extinguishers, lightning rods, and in 2024, an electric fire alarm system was installed in some buildings.

The success of fire suppression is dependent on reporting the fire to the fire department as quickly as possible, knowledge of the building, and combat deployment as quickly as possible, given the scale and accessibility of the fire scene. The analytical form also assesses the availability of technical resources for the intervening units. The castles analyzed have only one access road. Kežmarok Castle, situated in the town, reduces the fire risk due to its location and the availability of external hydrants (total points = 10). The arrival of firefighting units from the time of reporting a fire is within 15 min. Trenčín Castle has the most complicated access for firefighting equipment, which only reaches the first gate (total points = 23). In the close vicinity of Stará Ľubovňa Castle, there is the headquarters of the firefighting unit, i.e., the reach in case of a fire is within 15 min. The newly reconstructed access gate, which is adapted for the passage of firefighting equipment, reduces the risk of fire (total points = 28).

The calculation of the resulting fire risk for the historic buildings analyzed was based on the difference between the number of points of the analytical form, Part A and Part B. Kežmarok Castle reached the level of low fire risk (13 points). Trenčín Castle has a level of increased fire risk (63 points), and Stará Ľubovňa Castle showed the same increased fire risk (50 points).

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to analyze the specifics of fire risk and to identify appropriate forms of protection in historical buildings with a focus on three Slovak castles—Trenčín, Ľubovňa, and Kežmarok. All three buildings are national cultural monuments that are partially renovated and open to the public, which increases their vulnerability and complicates the implementation of standard technical solutions for fire protection. The results showed that the fire safety of these objects is currently based mainly on passive measures and a technical condition that does not reflect current threats, such as extreme climatic conditions, increased incidence of forest fires, or reconstruction works using open flames [34]. The biggest weaknesses were in the areas of detection, automatic fire extinguishing equipment, as well as the lack of crisis evacuation plans and untrained personnel. These findings directly fulfill the aim of the thesis—to highlight the specific risks of cultural monuments and to propose systemic solutions without compromising their historical authenticity [34]. Compared to international practice, where research is focused mainly on museums, archives, and sacral buildings (e.g., Fielden House in London, Abbotsford House in Scotland, or Lófstád Castle in Sweden), Slovak castles represent a special category. In international studies, a performance-based design approach is increasingly being applied, which allows for the design of technical interventions tailored to a specific building based on simulations of fire behavior and evacuation [34].

A similar approach is recommended in the conditions of Slovak castles, where classical prescriptive solutions encounter legislative and technical constraints. One of the key recommendations is the use of water mist as an alternative to classical sprinkler systems. Several studies confirm the effectiveness of this technology in historical buildings, especially in sensitive environments with the presence of book collections, paintings, or wood [35]. In the case of Kežmarok Castle, which contains extensive museum displays and archival materials, such a system is particularly appropriate. Water mist technology has been successfully applied, for example, at Fielden House in London (Fireworks Ltd., n.d. London, UK), and its implementation has been recommended in several European castles (Vipond Fire Protection, n.d.) [35]. At the same time, however, the need for quality maintenance of the system as well as the choice of technology with respect to moisture limits, corrosive effects, and technical serviceability in less accessible locations should be highlighted. In contrast to other research that has focused primarily on material properties and reaction to fire—such as a study focusing on religious buildings in eastern Slovakia—this work also emphasizes organizational factors of protection. Specifically, this concerns staff preparedness, evacuation drills, and cooperation with firefighting units. International reports on the Notre-Dame fire or cases of neglected drills in Spain and Norway confirm that the failure to protect cultural objects is often due to insufficient staff training, not technical means [36].

The evaluation also identified risks associated with renovations—so-called “hot work”—that often cause fires during renovations. This phenomenon was the cause of the fire at Krásná Hôrka, where insufficient security of the work led to the destruction of part of the historic roof. It is therefore recommended that a system for authorizing risky activities, monitoring them, and providing intervention routes should be put in place. From an environmental point of view, climate change, in particular the risk of forest fires and drought, appears to be an important factor. In the case of Ľubovňa Castle, which is surrounded by forest cover, we propose to create buffer zones, remove dry vegetation near the walls, and introduce monitoring by drones and thermal cameras, as also recommended in the European report on risks to heritage [37]. Despite these benefits, the study has its limitations—particularly the lack of empirical testing of the different technical measures. The evaluation was carried out through analytical tools, not real simulations or experimental verifications. Therefore, we recommend that future research should include testing the effectiveness of specific technologies, such as fire-retardant coatings, water mist systems, or digital evacuation models (e.g., BIM/CFD), with respect to both their technical effectiveness and heritage compatibility [38,39]. In conclusion, this study provides an original perspective on a specific category of cultural heritage—castles as publicly accessible and historically layered objects—and offers practical recommendations for their protection.

In the Slovak context, this is the first systematic attempt to assess the fire risks of castles in their complexity. This research opens the way for modernizing the protection of national monuments and making them more resilient to 21st-century risks [40,41]. In terms of crisis management and contingency preparedness, they represent another key dimension of fire safety, but one that was underestimated in the original analysis. In the literature, crisis plans are defined as a set of procedures involving prevention, rapid response, and recovery after an event [42,43]. Effective crisis management in historic properties must include regular staff training, simulated evacuation drills, and meaningful collaboration with local fire departments and emergency services. Examples from abroad, such as the fire plans for Windsor Castle (U.K.) or the Palace of Versailles (France), demonstrate that such an approach increases preparedness and significantly reduces damage to cultural heritage [43]. The case studies highlight the unique fire risks in historic buildings and the need to situate them within existing fire regulations and crisis management frameworks. While regulations provide essential guidelines, they must be adapted to preserve the authenticity of heritage sites. Our findings emphasize that effective fire protection requires a combination of technical measures with comprehensive crisis management, including disaster prevention, staff training, evacuation planning, and collaboration with emergency services. Integrating these elements creates a holistic approach that improves fire safety and protects cultural heritage more effectively, aligning with best practices observed in international studies.

5. Conclusions

No historical building is identical to another; therefore, the assessment of fire risk, as well as the corresponding fire protection measures, must be evaluated individually in each case. In the process of restoration and maintenance of historical buildings, materials with lower flammability should be preferred, and the use of fire-retardant coatings should be considered, as they can reduce the flammability of existing surfaces. It is also important to carry out regular inspections and maintenance of highly flammable materials found in the interiors of historical buildings, such as museums and galleries. Roof structures represent a significant aspect of fire protection measures in cultural heritage sites. These structures, often made of wood and other combustible materials, are not only architecturally valuable but also highly vulnerable to fire. Due to their age and the materials used, they may exhibit degraded mechanical properties and increased sensitivity to external factors, which heightens the risk of fire ignition and spread.

An important part of fire protection for roof structures is the regular inspection and maintenance of wooden elements, as well as the application of fire-retardant coatings. Within the documentation of cultural heritage sites, it is essential to carry out historical–technical surveys to ensure that the required interventions in existing structures do not compromise their historical value. Special fire protection measures, such as the installation of fixed fire suppression systems or detection devices, can enhance safety standards. Fire protection contributes not only to the physical safeguarding of the buildings but also to the preservation of the cultural and historical value of the site. To ensure this protection, continuous education and training of staff are necessary, along with organizing simulated drills that strengthen the ability to respond to fire threats.

The research focused on the analysis of fire risk in three specific historical buildings—Slovak castles—each of which possesses unique architectural, material, and operational characteristics. As a result, the findings cannot be broadly generalized to all historical buildings, since there is no universal approach to fire protection for cultural heritage sites. Another limitation of the study is that it did not focus on experimentally evaluating the effectiveness of specific technical interventions, such as the application of fire-retardant coatings or the installation of automatic fire suppression systems. Instead, it highlighted their potential contribution in the context of preserving cultural heritage. For these reasons, the research serves as a qualitative contribution to the issue of fire protection in historical buildings, with recommendations for further empirical and experimental studies focused on a broader range of heritage structures and technical solutions.

The novelty of this study lies in its focus on a specific category of historical structures—castles designated as national cultural monuments. Unlike many international studies, which primarily concentrate on museums, archives, or religious buildings, this study reflects the specific conditions of partially reconstructed historical sites open to the public, which present unique challenges in terms of fire protection. While countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Norway, and Japan already have extensive documentation of case studies, fire risk management plans, and technological innovations for the protection of heritage buildings, Slovakia has so far lacked a systematic analysis of the fire resistance of castles as a distinct segment of cultural heritage. This study fills that gap and contributes to the broader understanding of fire safety in cultural heritage within the Central European context.

A significant limitation of the current study was the lack of empirical assessment of specific fire protection technologies. The evaluation of fire risk sources was conducted solely based on an analytical form, without physical simulation of fire scenarios. This approach, while useful for comparative risk assessment, may not fully capture the dynamic behavior of fire or the effectiveness of passive and active protection systems in real conditions. Future research should experimentally test the effectiveness of various technical interventions, such as fire-retardant coatings on historical materials (e.g., wood, textiles); different types of automatic fire suppression systems (e.g., water mist, inert gas); and fire detection and alarm systems adapted to heritage structures. These experiments should consider both technical efficiency and heritage compatibility to determine optimal solutions for fire prevention and crisis response.