Ensuring Sustainable Preservation: Fire Protection of Timber Sacral Buildings in Eastern Slovakia

Abstract

Timber heritage buildings reflect the character and specifics of the region in which they are located and in which they were built. They form part of memory and history, preserving the traditions and culture of a community. The fact that their building material is timber makes them more susceptible to fire. The purpose of the article is to evaluate the current state of fire protection of timber heritage buildings. Having established this status, we will analyze the results and list the main problems we have identified. We will propose measures to reduce the risk of fire occurrence and spread. For the purposes of our research, we followed the developed methodologies for fire protection assessment of heritage buildings. We developed a checklist which we used for data collection. We analyzed the results, and then used synthesis to look for areas of correlation between the different buildings. The most common shortcomings in the fire protection of sacral timber buildings are the absence of fire protection coatings, missing or non-functioning electric fire alarms, and the absence of a stable fire extinguishing system. The presence of combustible materials in the building or its immediate vicinity, water sources, access roads or the travel time of the fire brigade to the building were also problematic. The main challenge to increasing fire protection of heritage timber buildings in Slovakia is the lack of funding. Without funds, it will not be possible to equip the buildings with fire-fighting equipment and the sustainability of these objects for future generations will not be possible.

1. Introduction

Timber as a basic construction element has been used for millennia [1]. Until the second half of the 20th century, the most common building material in the rural environment in Slovakia was timber. This was due to its easy availability in this environment and its lower price compared to other building materials. Stone and brick buildings were mainly found in urban environments or were built by wealthier members of society. However, most of the villages in our area were made of timber, which was the cause of the destruction of entire villages by fire. When more modern and sophisticated building methods and construction materials were used, new religious buildings in the villages were the first to be built in these conditions, while the original ones were often destroyed as they were no longer considered necessary. Many of these religious buildings have stood in place for several centuries.

The first conservation actions in our territory began in the second half of the 19th century, but folk architecture was not considered at that time. Interest in the protection of timber architecture revived only after the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic. Lists of heritage objects were created and active protection or rescue of timber churches in Slovakia began [2].

Heritage buildings stand as one of the most valuable historical assets for any civilization or country [3]. Heritage buildings represent a priceless part of cultural heritage, and their vulnerability to fire requires a specific approach. The conservation of heritage structures is crucial not only for their cultural and historical significance but also for their unique characteristics, including architecture, ornamentation, and the valuable objects they house. Heritage buildings cannot be rebuilt to comply with today’s standards and, therefore, will not be considered completely safe. Neither the architecture nor the structural elements of these buildings must be altered because of their heritage significance, so we must take a different approach to fire protection for these buildings. The fact that these are buildings of social value means that their preservation and protection from fire are at the forefront. Identification and action against fire must, therefore, be taken as soon as possible after it has started [4]. Fire hazards pose a significant challenge to the conservation of heritage structures. The risk of fire is notably higher in these buildings due to their construction methods and material properties [5].

Heritage timber structures embody a rich legacy of craftsmanship, as well as structural and material expertise. Studying heritage construction techniques is vital not only as a model for modern construction but also for identifying the most effective conservation methods [6].

For centuries, sacred architecture has been an integral part of the European cultural landscape, shaping its character, nature, identity, and values. It also appears in unique historic compositional landscapes. Religious elements of various scales and sizes have helped to shape the traditional visual character of the European landscape and have become an important cultural heritage in many cultural and ethnic regions of Europe. They range from stone monoliths of religious significance to more recent manifestations of Christianity in rural and urban cultural landscapes [7]. Wooden churches were built using the horizontal log cabin technique, which was common in Central, Eastern and Northern Europe. These churches were characterized by complex spatial structures, which usually included a tower, nave, chancel, and outer galleries. Due to the natural nature of wood, cultural heritage made from it is highly susceptible to fire, which poses a major threat to its sustainability for future generations.

The development of a fire takes place in four stages: ignition phase (initiation), development phase (propagation), full development phase, and extinction phase (termination). The first two phases, ignition and development, are the most important from a fire protection point of view because intervention in these phases gives the best chance of saving the building. The ignition phase represents the start of the fire. It starts with ignition and subsequent flame spread, which causes an increased release of energy. This phase is characterized by exothermic reactions and a temperature rise above ambient temperature. It is followed by the development phase. Here, further growth of the fire is dependent on the available fuel due to excess oxygen (air). As the volume of combustion products increases, hot gases accumulate under the ceiling. When the surface area of these hot gases equals the surface area of the ceiling, smoke starts to spread [8].

Heritage timber churches are architectural and cultural treasures, but they are prone to fires. Timber as a building material poses challenges and risks that can threaten the existence of these unique religious buildings. These objects are often located outside of larger cities, are more difficult to access, or do not have sufficient water supplies to fight fires. This makes it difficult to take prompt action when such a building catches fire. Researchers [9] outlined in their paper the problem of fireproof coating, as its life span is set in the range of 10 to 15 years. Tsapko et al. [10] discussed thermal conductivity and flame propagation through timber where they compared treated timber with fireproof coating, and untreated timber. The results showed that the treated timber lasted up to 570 s instead of the original 52 s before the flame spread over the surface. It shows that fireproofing reduces the spread of fire, which is essential for the preservation of this type of building.

Timber heritage buildings are particularly susceptible to fire damage. As Liu et al. [11] found, the aging process decreases the fire resistance of wood, making it more susceptible to ignition. This increased flammability accelerates the spread of fire in wooden structures, leading to rapid temperature rise and significant smoke production. As a result, the risk of fire in heritage timber buildings increases significantly. Although aging does not change the basic patterns of flame and smoke propagation, it accelerates the progression of the fire, leading to higher temperatures and greater smoke development. This highlights the need for a thorough fire risk assessment and the introduction of robust protection measures for heritage timber buildings, particularly regarding the effect of timber aging on fire behavior [11].

Kincelova et al. [12] pointed out that passive and active protection systems are crucial elements of the protection of timber buildings. They reduce the risk of ignition and fire spread and also protect the building structure from damage that would lead to possible destruction of the building.

Other problems that can be encountered with this type of heritage object are presented. These are the lack of electrical fire alarm systems, the failure to equip the building with fire extinguishers, inadequate lighting, lack of water supplies, and lightning protection [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23].

The sources of fire in heritage buildings can be varied. If there were fires in the seats that are found in churches, this would be a serious problem. Chang et al. showed in their research how much energy a single burning pew can produce. When one pew burns, after six minutes, so much energy is released that at a height of one meter above the pew, the temperature rises to 260 °C after more than six minutes, which is the temperature needed to ignite the wood. They also pointed to the short distance between the benches, which is sometimes only 45 cm, which would make it easy for the fire to spread [24].

The Polish National Committee of ICOMOS [25] warned about the threat of damage to the objects during thefts when the object could be set on fire to disguise the theft [26].

In addition, there is a dispute regarding the increase of fire safety of the objects and the monument protection of the objects, so that the character of the building is not interfered with and that it is not visibly altered by modern elements. Therefore, many modern elements of passive protection cannot be applied. It is also not possible to create new escape routes as this would be a structural intervention into a standing building. That is why it is necessary to find a balance between fire protection and building conservation, as attempted in the paper [26].

In the Nordic countries, especially in Norway, great attention is paid to the preservation of timber heritage buildings. Fire protection is not only focused on the building, but also on the surroundings around it, where attention is focused on limiting vegetation near these buildings, improving the water supply, or fire drills for neighbors located near the heritage building. This model of fire protection can also be applied to detached buildings near dwellings. Fire detectors, infrared cameras, and fixed sprinkler systems are cited in the literature as appropriate elements of active fire protection. IR cameras were designed to monitor the surroundings of the building where they could quickly spot the spread of fire in the vicinity of the building [27].

There is a debate about whether to apply the device with a water extinguishing agent or with extinguishing gas. At low water flow rates, nozzles can be suitably positioned so that the walls are not wetted. The disadvantage is that this type of building is not heated in winter, so there is a risk of water freezing in the pipes and possible cracking. The dry system is mentioned in the article as being less efficient compared to the wet system. Stable equipment with a gas extinguishing agent has the advantage of not creating a risk when extinguishing against the internal equipment of the objects. The disadvantages are the higher cost of the equipment and the impossibility of using this type of equipment for external protection of the building. Another problem is the protection of the occupants of the building or the emergency services that enter the building during an intervention [28].

The Swedish National Testing and Research Institute has proposed seven recommendations for the operation of a stable fire extinguishing system [29]. Four of the suggestions dealt with how to heat the system so that the water does not freeze and how to use antifreeze so that the water does not freeze in the winter months. Another option was to delay starting the equipment until the area around the pipes had warmed up. Other options were to use higher water pressure, use wider pipes, or use flexible hoses to take the water to the first pipe.

Simon Kincaid, in his article, stated that fire occurrence from electrical short circuits accounted for 12% to 14% of the reasons for fire occurrence in the period 2018 to 2021 [30]. In 1995, it was as high as 22% [31]. For heritage timber buildings, the risk of fire spread is greater as the electrical wiring has not been repaired or replaced and the subsequent damage is incalculable.

Cultural heritage buildings in rural areas face many problems. One of them is the decreasing population in these areas. Local communities can effectively help to protect these buildings, and tourist interest in these objects may help as motivation for local people to stay in these areas, make a profit, and protect heritage buildings. [32] There is also a problem with an aging population, which is particularly noticeable in rural areas. [33] We cannot forget the importance and significance of volunteer fire brigades, which are very popular. Volunteer fire brigades and professional fire brigades form one large integrated unit whose task is rescue and disposal work during emergencies. Their importance is particularly evident in areas where the arrival time of professional firefighters is high [34].

There is also a problem with ignorance, indifference, and lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities in the field of fire protection of timber buildings. These shortcomings pose huge problems in the field of fire protection of listed timber buildings, where it is not clear how to approach the protection of monuments, especially from a financial point of view [35].

In our territory, there are over 60 timber sacral buildings [36]. Of these, 27 are Greek-Catholic churches that are national cultural monuments, three of which are on the UNESCO World Heritage List [37]. In 2010, the project Rescue of timber churches on the International Timber Way was announced, but it was primarily intended for the reconstruction of selected objects. During the repairs, a fireproof coating was applied to some of the objects, and new fire extinguishers or electrical fire systems were supplied. The subject is rarely, if at all, dealt with in our area from a fire safety point of view. We have not come across any professional output in our research that addresses the fire protection of these buildings. These are very vulnerable buildings. If they were to be affected by a fire, their reconstruction would not be possible due to the nature of the building material. Heritage structures play a vital role in passing culture from one generation to the next, ensuring the sustainability of cultural knowledge and helping people today gain deeper insights into the lives of those in ancient times [38]. These buildings have a unique value in terms of the architecture and artistic elements that people have been able to produce in their environment. Most of these buildings are still used for religious ceremonies and are an integral part of their beliefs and an integral part of our society.

History of Fires in Our Region

Throughout the history of timber religious buildings in the Slovak Republic, many fires have been recorded. Often, they were associated with fires when the whole village burnt down, as at that time, timber was used as the main building material in the rural environment.

Examples from the past when the village burnt down together with the church—the town of Košice (1556) [39], the village of Rafajovce (beginning of the 18th century) [40], the village of Jasenová (1718) [41], the village of Spišské Hanušovce (1788) [42], the village of Buclovany (1850), [43] and the village of Liptovský Peter (1786, 1830, 1875) [44].

Next, we will list examples when a separate building succumbed to the consequences of fire in the villages—Andrejová (1882), Nižná Jedľová (1906), Harhaj (1908), Regetovka (1904), Šarišské Čierne (1905), Ondavka (1949), and Krajná Porúbka (1956) [45].

During the Second World War, when the front moved to our territory (1944), as a result of the fighting, the buildings in the villages of Nižný Mirošov, Nižný Orlík, and Príslop burnt down [45].

In recent history, a timber church burned down in our territory in Horna Marikova on 12 August 2016. When the fire brigade from Považská Bystrica arrived, the building was completely in flames. The distance of the object from the fire brigade station Považská Bystrica is 26.3 km and the time of arrival was 35.07. However, the building was unable to be saved. The fire was reported at 3:30 at night [46].

In the Czech town of Třinec, on 2 August 2017, a fire occurred in a timber church from 1563, which was destroyed because of the fire. The cause of the fire was arson. The time of the fire was estimated to be just after midnight [47].

On 28 October 2020, a timber church in Prague burned down and was destroyed by fire. The fire was reported at three o’clock in the afternoon [48].

The aim of this paper is to identify the fire risk of selected heritage timber buildings using a checklist developed by us to evaluate the actual condition of these buildings. This study should provide potential data and theoretical support for future related work.

The basic question was whether these objects were protected in any way from the threat of fire. We were also interested in the current state of fire protection for these buildings, whether there is any thought being given to increasing fire protection, and whether activities are being undertaken to increase fire protection. We also addressed the issue of how to increase the protection and resilience of these buildings at little or no financial cost. We focused also on how the requirements for fire safety can be effectively combined with the requirements for the preservation of the heritage value of historic wooden churches and what are the advantages and disadvantages of different fire protection systems in terms of their effectiveness, reliability, and impact on the appearance of the church.

2. Materials and Methods

In order to determine the current state of fire protection of heritage timber sacral buildings in Eastern Slovakia, we followed the above-mentioned literature. We developed a checklist which we followed for each object. This is a qualitative method of data acquisition, which helps to find critical points in the system. It is also suitable for conducting larger data collection where information could be distorted, neglected, or omitted [49]. Slovakia is located in the northern hemisphere, in central Europe. It borders countries such as Poland and Ukraine, where there is also a large number of heritage timber sacral buildings. The location of Slovakia within the continent can be seen in Figure 1.

As this is a specific type of object, a special checklist had to be drawn up. The specificities that occur with this type of heritage building were considered. Consideration was also given to the specificities that have been mentioned in the literature. Only after studying these specificities could this checklist be created. We also followed the methodology of fire protection assessment of monuments created by the Czech National Heritage Institute [51]. In this methodology, they defined thematic categories for building specifics, such as the type of building material, the age of the building, the presence of fire protection coating, the control of electrical equipment and wiring, or lightning protection. Furthermore, we also looked at fire equipment, its presence, its functionality or its absence; electrical fire alarms; water supply; interaction with the nearest fire station; and evacuation of people [51].

The Fire and Safety Engineering Association has issued a methodological procedure for a different way of meeting the technical conditions for fire protection. In this methodological procedure for the assessment of fire parameters, they created three monitored categories (headings). In the first category, the whole building, construction materials, access roads and entrance areas, fire load of rooms, combustible materials, fire spread, and many others were considered. The second part will concentrate on fire equipment, evacuation methods, escape routes, fire brigade intervention, fire prevention, and fire safety management. In the third part, they cover the building occupants, their number, ability to move knowledge of the building and so on [52].

The causes and consequences of fires in historic buildings around the world, for the period 1990 to 2019, were analyzed in the article [53]. The authors of the article used a comparative analysis to determine the main causes of fire. They identified five main causes of fire, namely vandalism, activities during renovation, electrical short circuits, accidents, and undetected causes [53]. Vandalism occurs in this type of building, which is a great pity, given its historical value. There are several reasons why this happens. One reason may be to mask theft from inside the church—a fire is set to disguise the theft. Further, the remoteness of these buildings, with a low risk of detection of the perpetrators, may be a tempting factor. Confessional differences and disputes may also be a factor that makes vandalism occur. In Norway, there are known cases of arson in which Satanic adherents have been behind the arson [54]. Alcohol and drugs also have their place, among the factors of vandalism on these objects. Drunken people may misjudge the situation when handling fire if they want to shine within the group, so they commit this act.

Heritage buildings, with their significant architectural and cultural value, face a severe threat from fires. Garcia-Castillo et al., in their article, conducted an extensive literature review. They used specific keywords related to fire safety and historic buildings to filter relevant studies. The main issues were insufficient water for firefighting; difficult access for fire and rescue services; outdated and unsafe electrical equipment; high fire loads; low fire resistance due to aging structures that are predominantly made of wood; poor or non-existent fire safety management, in many cases this is the lack of regular maintenance and the lack of upgrading fire safety equipment; lack of knowledge and awareness of fire safety; and low financial support for fire safety improvements [55].

The data collection took place in January 2024, when we visited all the objects selected by us, considering the meteorological conditions that affect the availability of objects during the seasons. The checklist consisted of closed questions where yes-no answers were given and open questions where numerical values were recorded. Topics and specifics from a fire point of view were covered in the checklist:

• Type of building substrate, type of building material, insulation, and lightning rods.
• Fire protection coating, electric fire alarm system, stable fire extinguishing system, and portable fire extinguishers.
• Number of escape routes and emergency lighting.
• Combustible materials inside and outside the building.
• Maintenance of grassland in the vicinity of the building.
• Water source and elevation of the building from the road.
• Volunteer fire brigade of the municipality.
• Access road, approach area and permanent access to the building.

The objects were selected in the eastern part of Slovakia, mainly in the Svidník and Snina districts. These objects were selected based on their location, distance from each other, and the willingness of the object managers. The location, where a larger number of these monuments are located in a relatively small area, also weighed in. These objects are located in areas with low population density, in the mountainous areas of the Carpathian Arc. These are monuments of the Ruthenian population living in this area. These objects are often poorly treated and maintained due to the negative demographic development. In addition, in winter, during higher snowfalls, some of them are inaccessible due to their location on elevated sites outside the center of the villages. These were 21 timber churches located in the villages, Figure 2 shows where the objects are located:

• Marked with a blue marker—Brežany.
• Marked with a red marker, shown in Figure 3b—Kožany, Potoky, Ladomirová, Krajné Čierno, Šemetkovce, Dobroslava, Korejovce, Nižný Komárnik, Hunkovce, Príkra, Miroľa, Bodružal.
• Marked with a yellow sign, shown in Figure 3a—Uličské Krivé, Ruský Potok, Topoľa, Kalná Roztoka, Šmigovec, Hrabová Roztoka, Ruská Bystrá, Inovce.

3. Results

We have to admit that there were difficulties during our research. Communication with some of the property managers was a problem, due to their time constraints as well as the availability of information during the visit. As we were not given access to the fire safety documentation of the buildings, some information about the buildings was retrieved from online sources, such as whether the building had been treated with fireproof paint. Also, a problem in collecting information may have been a partial distrust of the building managers towards the researcher, resulting in vague or evasive answers. A limitation in our study was certainly the influence of the weather. The research was conducted in winter, which perfectly showed the shortcomings of this time of year. However, the disadvantage was that we could only rely on information from the interviewees to gather information about the maintenance of the grassland near the property as well as the clearing of fallen leaves. Also, a problem was the lack of knowledge about the remit of the municipal volunteer fire brigades. We obtained this information online in cooperation with members of the voluntary fire protection. A limitation was the knowledge of water sources, where not all the people who did the reconnaissance with us were aware of the nearest water source.

3.1. Timber Sacral Buildings

The buildings we studied were constructed between 1658 and 1938 [56]. One building was built before 1700 (Topoľa), seven buildings were built between 1700 and 1750 (Brežany, Ladomirová, Krajné Čierno, Dobroslava, Topoľa, Uličské Krivé, and Ruská Bystrá), eleven buildings were built between 1750 and 1800 (Kožany, Potoky, Šemetkovce, Korejovce, Hunkovce, Príkra, Miroľa, Kalná Roztoka, Ruský Potok, Hrabová Roztoka, and Šmigovec), one was built in 1836 (Inovce), and one was built in 1938 (Nižný Komárnik). A lightning rod has been installed on each of the buildings. Each building has stone as a building base, whereas originally the building base was timber embedded in the ground. The stone base also forms the pavement around the buildings, with an average pavement width of 50 cm. The isolation of the buildings was solved by laying timber so that no gaps were created and thus no filling was needed for 15 buildings. In three cases moss was used as isolation (Uličské Krivé, Ruská Bystrá, and Inovce). In the other three cases, clay was mixed with either hay (Brežany, Bodružal) or lime (Kalná Roztoka).

3.2. Fire Resistant Coating

Fire protection coating was applied to 12 buildings. In two buildings, timber plaster was also applied, these are also the buildings where the fire protection coating was applied. There were four buildings without fire protection coating and an electrical fire alarm system (Brežany, Kožany, Hunkovce, and Ruský Potok). Fire protection coating was applied between 2007 and 2014. The average lifetime of the fire protection coating is 10 to 15 years, which is a short period of time for this type of building.

3.3. Electric Fire Alarm System

Electric fire alarm systems were installed in 17 buildings. In four of them (Uličské Krivé, Ruská Bystrá, Inovce, and Šmigovec), it did not work. It was manually disconnected as it triggered false alarms during the use of the building. In four buildings (Brežany, Kožany, Hunkovce, and Ruský Potok), there were no systems at all. In all 17 buildings, the detectors were optical-smoke detectors, as shown in Figure 4a. In 5 buildings (Ladomirová, Korejovce, Nižný Komárnik, Príkra, and Bodružal), there were also flame detectors, as shown in Figure 4b. Push-button detectors were not present in any of the buildings. The output of those electric fire alarms that were working was, in 12 cases, through a message to the parish priest and, in 10 cases, to the village administrator in addition to the parish priest. In 10 cases, voice fire alarms were also installed. In one case, the signal was not reported by text message but only by voice fire alarm. The signal from the electric fire alarm was not sent from either building to the fire brigade switchboard or to the nearest station.

3.4. Fire Extinguishers

Portable fire extinguishers were installed in 20 buildings. In each of them, there was at least one extinguisher with a powder extinguishing agent and, in 4 cases, also with a water extinguishing agent. In 16 cases, there were at least 2 extinguishers in the building, usually one at the entrance to the building as shown in Figure 5a,b, and the other at the furthest point from the entrance to the building. In four cases, (Korejovce, Hunkovce, Ruská Bystrá, and Hrabová Roztoka), there was only one fire extinguisher in the building. (Figure 5).

3.5. Stable Fire Extinguishing Equipment

A fixed fire extinguishing system was not installed in any of the buildings surveyed. We were told in the church in Ruska Bystrá, which is on the UNESCO Cultural List, shown in Figure 6, that there are plans to install a gas-powered stable fire extinguishing system. We did not obtain further information on the planned project.

3.6. Evacuation

There was always only one escape route from the buildings. In one case, there was a door not only at the entrance to the building but also from another part, but this door did not work because it was not functional, i.e., it did not serve as an escape route. Evacuation from the building may be problematic as there may be people with reduced mobility on the premises. There are no regular masses held in the buildings; they are buildings with occasional occupancy.

3.7. Flammable Material

When assessing combustible material, we divided the category into two parts, namely combustible material located inside the building and combustible material located near the building.

The combustible material inside the buildings was similar in most cases. It was material necessary for the use of the building for the purpose it was built. These were mainly benches for seating, the altar, the iconostasis, carpets, tablecloths, and candles, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. Carpets were not placed in five of the objects, and pew cloths and candles were not in two objects. This is a type of combustible material which cannot be removed from the objects, as its functionality would be made impossible. In two cases, other material unrelated to the purpose of the building was also found; tables, ladders, boxes with paper, wreaths, vases, cupboards, picture frames, etc. were found inside. It would be advisable to remove these materials from the combustible structural unit so that they do not increase the amount of combustible materials in the building.

The combustible material in the vicinity of the properties were mainly timber fences enclosing the property, trees on the premises, timber bell towers on the properties, and wreaths and candles. Trees were located close to the objects, some less than 5 m away, as shown in Figure 9a,b. There is a risk with trees placed in this way. When the leaves are falling, a continuous layer of leaves could form over which a fire could spread, as shown in Figure 9a. There is also a risk of the tree falling. We can see the location of trees in Figure 9b, for example, where, in the event of a lightning strike, it could damage the building itself.

3.8. Maintenance of Grassland near the Building

Grassland maintenance in the vicinity of the buildings was found to be ongoing at all of the properties surveyed. Grass cutting was carried out at least once a month during the period when grass was growing. Grass was not stored or collected in the vicinity of the property but was immediately removed from the site. The intervals between mowings varied, always depending on rainfall and the rate of grass growth. Mowings were carried out so that the grass did not exceed 5 cm.

3.9. Water Source

In four cases, we were unable to identify the source of water at the properties, there was no municipal water supply or fire hydrant installed in the municipality, and the creek as a water source did not have a sufficiently abundant flow to draw water from it. A fire hydrant was the source of water in eight cases, and a river flowing close to the property in nine cases. For hydrants, the closest distance from the property was 10 m and the greatest distance was 400 m. The average distance was 101.25 m. With a stream as the water source, the closest distance to the object was 10 m, and the greatest distance was 500 m. The average distance was 175.55 m. The elevation from the access road ranged from 0 m to 20 m. The average elevation was 8.1 m.

3.10. Voluntary Fire Brigades

We also monitored the presence of voluntary fire brigades in the villages near these objects. From the interviews, we found that voluntary fire brigades are established in nine municipalities, but of these, two voluntary fire brigades do not have the necessary equipment to carry out the intervention and four voluntary fire brigades are inactive. Of the five active voluntary fire brigades, a tactical exercise was carried out only in one brigade to test the capabilities of the volunteer firefighters in a possible intervention in these objects.

3.11. Access Communications and Boarding Areas

The landing area at 14 objects meets the conditions defined by the Decree of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic 94/2004 § 83 [57]. The distance of the boarding areas ranged from 3 m to 220 m. Six objects had a boarding area in the immediate vicinity of the entrance to the premises of the object—10 m. The average distance was 51.29 m. Of these boarding areas, only one was not permanently vacant.

The access roads met the conditions specified in the Decree of the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic 94/2004 § 82 [57]. All of them were paved with asphalt. In the immediate vicinity of the building in two cases, there was an unpaved road made of earth, and in two other cases, of gravel.

There was permanent access to the objects in 14 cases. Because in the winter period, in case of a snow calamity, it was not possible in 7 cases to get to the vicinity of the object with the intervention equipment. This is related to the elevation of the object from the main road and the type of road material. There were 10 cases where there were paved paths in the area of the facility.

The travel time of the fire department from the nearest fire brigade station to the building was calculated and results can be found in Table 1. The arrival time was calculated according to Equation (1) [58]:

$$t_j={\displaystyle \frac{60\ast L}{v_j}}$$

(1)

where:

• tj—time of arrival of the firefighting unit
• L—distance to the place of fire (km)
• vj—average speed of fire trucks = 45 km·h⁻¹

Table 1. Resulting values of the Fire Brigade’s arrival time.

Building in Village	Year of Construction	Fire Station	Distance (km)	Arrival Time (min:s)
Brežany	1727	FS Prešov	15.4	20:32
Kožany	1760	FS Giraltovce	17.8	23:44
Potoky	1773	FS Stropkov	6.4	8:32
Ladomirová	1742	FS Svidník	4.8	6:24
Krajné Čierno	1730	FS Svidník	8.8	11:44
Šemetkovce	1752	FS Svidník	10.2	13:36
Dobroslava	1715	FS Svidník	7.5	10
Korejovce	1764	FS Svidník	10.6	14:08
Nižný Komárnik	1938	FS Svidník	13	17:20
Hunkovce	1799	FS Svidník	8.7	11:36
Príkra	1776	FS Svidník	16.2	21:36
Miroľa	1770	FS Svidník	16.8	22:24
Bodružal	1658	FS Svidník	13.6	18:08
Kalná Roztoka	1750	FS Snina	14.4	19:12
Topoľa	1700	FS Snina	24.9	33:12
Ruský Potok	1750	FS Snina	31.5	42
Uličské Krivé	1718	FS Snina	35.9	47:52
Ruská Bystrá	1730	FS Sobrance	24.8	33:04
Inovce	1836	FS Sobrance	19.6	26:08
Hrabová Roztoka	1750	FS Sobrance	28.4	37:52
Šmigovec	1780	FS Sobrance	26.1	34:48

Table 1. Resulting values of the Fire Brigade’s arrival time.

Building in Village	Year of Construction	Fire Station	Distance (km)	Arrival Time (min:s)
Brežany	1727	FS Prešov	15.4	20:32
Kožany	1760	FS Giraltovce	17.8	23:44
Potoky	1773	FS Stropkov	6.4	8:32
Ladomirová	1742	FS Svidník	4.8	6:24
Krajné Čierno	1730	FS Svidník	8.8	11:44
Šemetkovce	1752	FS Svidník	10.2	13:36
Dobroslava	1715	FS Svidník	7.5	10
Korejovce	1764	FS Svidník	10.6	14:08
Nižný Komárnik	1938	FS Svidník	13	17:20
Hunkovce	1799	FS Svidník	8.7	11:36
Príkra	1776	FS Svidník	16.2	21:36
Miroľa	1770	FS Svidník	16.8	22:24
Bodružal	1658	FS Svidník	13.6	18:08
Kalná Roztoka	1750	FS Snina	14.4	19:12
Topoľa	1700	FS Snina	24.9	33:12
Ruský Potok	1750	FS Snina	31.5	42
Uličské Krivé	1718	FS Snina	35.9	47:52
Ruská Bystrá	1730	FS Sobrance	24.8	33:04
Inovce	1836	FS Sobrance	19.6	26:08
Hrabová Roztoka	1750	FS Sobrance	28.4	37:52
Šmigovec	1780	FS Sobrance	26.1	34:48

Alarming findings were in the calculation of the travel time to the buildings, especially for those objects to which the units would go from the fire station in Snina or Sobrance. The average travel time to these objects is 34:16 min. Especially in this area, the installation of a stable fire extinguishing system would help, as during the fire brigade’s arrival time, there would be a high probability that the fire would develop to its full phase and the rescue of the object from the fire would be impossible. The arrival time from the Svidník fire station was more favorable, the fastest arrival time was 6:24 min, the longest arrival time was 22:24 min, and the average arrival time was 14.7 min. However, there is also a risk for properties where the arrival time is over 15 min. By the time the fire brigade arrives, the fire will have developed to its full stage, resulting in the loss of a heritage monument. In total, 11 properties had an arrival time of over 20 min and 3 properties had an arrival time of between 15 and 20 min.

4. Discussion

4.1. Timber Sacral Buildings

From the results we have found, there are a number of findings, but also issues that need to be eliminated or conditions created for their elimination. A positive finding was that each of the objects had a stone base. The timber does not touch the ground and there is no risk of degradation caused by pests or moisture from the ground. Also, if a fire were to occur to one of the trees near the building and the root spread of the fire were to occur, the structures would be protected from this impact, as shown in Figure 10a. It is common practice in the Nordic countries for timber churches to have a stone base to prevent fire transmission through root burning. An example of timber churches from Norway can be seen in Figure 10b. This is a building from the village of Fantoft.

We must also not forget the impact of climate change, which is affecting our environment. In Poland, these changes and their impact on these objects are being emphasized. Also in the Nordic countries, where they regulate the surroundings of churches by strict forest management and forest fire prevention as well as by fire prevention within communities, meteorological monitoring, and community education. As a consequence of the threat of climate change, Sweden has adopted an effective fire prevention strategy, including the use of fire paint and regular fire drills [60].

4.2. Fire Resistant Coating

In the fire protection coating, it was found that 12 objects had fire coating applied, as shown in

Table 2. Checklist for fire-resistant coating, fireproof lining and lime. Legends: ✓—present; x—absence.

	Brežany	Kožany	Potoky	Ladomirová	Krajné Čierno	Šemetkovce	Dobroslava	Korejovce	Nižný Komárnik	Hunkovce	Príkra	Miroľa	Bodružal	Kalná Roztoka	Topoľa	Ruský Potok	Uličské Krivé	Ruská Bystrá	Inovce	Hrabová Roztoka	Šmigovec
Fire resistant coating	x	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	x	x	✓	x	x	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	x	✓
Fireproof lining	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Lime	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	✓	x	x	x	x	x	x	✓

. However, nine objects did not have it applied and those on which it was applied had passed their estimated average time of effectiveness. It would, therefore, be necessary, at a minimum, to retrofit the fire coating on those structures where it has not been applied. When parts of buildings are next reconstructed or repaired, it would be advisable to include fire-resistant coatings. The problem is that some of the buildings have paintings on the inside of the walls which, because of their historical and religious value, cannot be covered with a fire-resistant coating, as they could be damaged or degraded, which would not be approved by the heritage office.

Kozlowski, in his paper on wooden churches in Poland, discussed fire-resistant coatings. Specifically, it was a foam-forming coating that created an insulating layer, thus protecting the wooden structure. This type of coating is particularly useful in the peripheral parts of the building, where there is no risk of damaging the paintings which are part of the heritage monument [9]. For internal use in areas where there are paintings or other decorative elements, the use of a fire-resistant coating that does not create an insulating layer and protects the surface to which it is applied will be appropriate.

4.3. Electric Fire Alarm System

We consider the electrical fire alarm system to be one of the most important elements of fire protection. If a fire is detected in time, it can save a larger part of the building or extinguish the fire before it can cause damage to the internal equipment of the building. Therefore, we see it as a negative finding that it was functional in only 13 cases, as shown in

Table 3. Checklist for electric fire alarm system. Legends: ✓—present; x—absence; N—not working; S—shut down.

	Brežany	Kožany	Potoky	Ladomirová	Krajné Čierno	Šemetkovce	Dobroslava	Korejovce	Nižný Komárnik	Hunkovce	Príkra	Miroľa	Bodružal	Kalná Roztoka	Topoľa	Ruský Potok	Uličské Krivé	Ruská Bystrá	Inovce	Hrabová Roztoka	Šmigovec
Present	x	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	S	N	N	✓	N
Flame detector	x	x	x	✓	x	x	x	✓	✓	x	✓	x	✓	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Optical-smoke detector	x	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Push-button	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x

. Particularly at night, when activity around the buildings is reduced, it is the only way to spot a fire in time.

An appropriate solution to the situation would be to provide a report to the person responsible for the municipality and to the nearest fire station. This would reduce the reaction time and the fire development time, which could lead to the saving of the monument. To increase fire protection, the equipment of other buildings where there is no electrical fire alarm system would be an important factor. Also, in those buildings where it has been disconnected or has not worked for other reasons, it can be repaired and non-functioning detectors replaced. This is a financially demanding measure, so it would be advisable if sponsors, possibly the Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic or funds from the European Union, could be obtained to help with the financing. Another possible institution that could help with funding is ICOMOS, the International Council on Monuments and Sites, which is dedicated to the conservation and protection of heritage sites. For example, in 2022, 440 water-mist fire extinguishers were delivered to this type of building in Ukraine, demonstrating the company’s interest in protecting heritage timber religious buildings [61]. In Poland, every museum must submit proposals to the National Institute of Museums and Collections Protection detailing the installation of electrical fire alarms and other specialized fire safety equipment. Electric fire alarms are widely used abroad for the protection of this type of building. In Poland, the installation of this equipment is considered commonplace, where the alarm is in most cases connected directly to the nearest fire station [62]. Similarly, in Sweden, most buildings have electric fire alarms. It is considered to be the basic protection for these buildings, which is followed by other elements of fire protection. In this country, electric fire alarms have become a common element of fire protection and are considered to be automatic in these buildings [63].

4.4. Fire Extinguishers

The presence of fire extinguishers was a favorable discovery, except for one building. After inspection and communication with the responsible facility managers, it was recommended that this facility also be equipped with a portable fire extinguisher, which had a positive response. For fire extinguishers with a water extinguishing agent, there is a question of suitability, as they could damage the building material or the equipment of the building, which in many cases is part of a national cultural monument. They could also damage the paintings on the inside of the building. We, therefore, recommend replacing fire extinguishers with this extinguishing agent with another extinguishing agent. Powder seems to us to be the most suitable extinguishing agent, as it could be used even if the fire were to occur on the outside of the building, in which case the gas would not be effective as an extinguishing agent. In those buildings where there is only one extinguisher, they could be retrofitted with one more extinguisher, placed at the entrance to the building and at the furthest point from the entrance. With fire extinguishers, it is possible to extinguish a fire in its initiation phase. The type and quantity of fire extinguishers are shown in

Table 4. Checklist for fire extinguishers. Legends: Legends: ✓—present; x—absence.

Type of Extinguishing Agent	Brežany	Kožany	Potoky	Ladomirová	Krajné Čierno	Šemetkovce	Dobroslava	Korejovce	Nižný Komárnik	Hunkovce	Príkra	Miroľa	Bodružal	Kalná Roztoka	Topoľa	Ruský Potok	Uličské Krivé	Ruská Bystrá	Inovce	Hrabová Roztoka	Šmigovec
Powder	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x
Quantity	1	1	3	3	3	3	2	1	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	x
Water	✓	✓	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	✓	✓	x	x	x	x	x	x
Quantity	1	1	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	1	1	x	x	x	x	x	x

.

4.5. Stable Fire Extinguishing Equipment

There is no stable fire extinguishing system in any of the buildings surveyed. This is the financially largest item in terms of fire protection. This could be addressed financially in the same way as for electric fire alarm systems.

This raises the question of installing a stable fire extinguishing system with a suitable extinguishing agent. A gas-powered fixed fire extinguishing system can only be placed to protect the interior of the building, whereas a system with a water extinguishing agent can be placed to protect both the interior and the shell of the building. The disadvantage of a water extinguishing agent is that it could damage the interior of the building. A suitable solution from our point of view would be to install a water mist with a setting so that the pipes would not deliver water to the walls of the building, as mentioned in [10]. If the installation were to take place, another question would arise as to which type to use, wet pipe or dry pipe, as the water in the pipes could freeze in winter. We prefer a dry pipe. Although it would increase the time to start extinguishing, it would reduce the risk of water freezing in the pipes and making the extinguishing efficiency ineffective.

In Poland, Norway, and Sweden, but also in other countries, the practice of installing a stable fire extinguishing system is quite widespread. Most often water is used as the extinguishing agent. In Sweden, a water mist system is used; in some cases, it is combined with a conventional sprinkler system. Water mist is always placed in the interiors of buildings as this reduces the amount of water used and protects the interior from water damage. Conventional sprinkler systems are mainly installed on the outer perimeter of the building, but water mist is also used. This combination effectively increases fire protection in these buildings. As this is a Nordic country, there tend to be harsh winters where water could freeze during their transport to the pipes. For this reason, they use a dry system or have antifreeze additives [63]. In Poland, 46 wooden listed buildings were secured with low-pressure water mist by 2015. The number of protected buildings increases every year, but there is still a problem with funding, with many other wooden churches wanting to have this element of fire protection [62].

4.6. Evacuation

During the evacuation, the presence of only one escape route in the building did not surprise us. Due to the historical value of the building, it is not possible to create a new escape route as there would be structural intervention in the building. A negative observation was that there was no emergency lighting at the exit in any of the buildings, which could contribute to disorientation and panic during evacuation from the building. It would be advisable to install this signage in the facilities, but it is not a requirement.

4.7. Flammable Material and Maintenance of Grassland near the Building

In most cases, the combustible material inside the building, shown in

Table 5. Checklist precombustible materials in the interior of the building. Legends: Legends: ✓—present; x—absence.

Type of Material	Brežany	Kožany	Potoky	Ladomirová	Krajné Čierno	Šemetkovce	Dobroslava	Korejovce	Nižný Komárnik	Hunkovce	Príkra	Miroľa	Bodružal	Kalná Roztoka	Topoľa	Ruský Potok	Uličské Krivé	Ruská Bystrá	Inovce	Hrabová Roztoka	Šmigovec
Bench	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓
Carpet	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	x	x	x
Tablecloth	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓
Candle	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	x	✓
Other	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	✓	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	✓	x	x	x

, cannot be removed as this would reduce its historical value, character and presence. It would also disturb the natural environment and character of the building. In those cases where combustible material unrelated to the character of the building has been found within the building, this material should be removed. There will be no financial cost and fire safety will be improved by removing some of the fire fuel.

It is possible to remove combustible material in the area around the building, but in many cases, this would be an insensitive intervention in the environment. The presence and kind of combustible material in the area around the buildings are shown in

Table 6. Checklist for combustible materials in the exterior of the building. Legends: Legends: ✓—present; x—absence.

Type of Material	Brežany	Kožany	Potoky	Ladomirová	Krajné Čierno	Šemetkovce	Dobroslava	Korejovce	Nižný Komárnik	Hunkovce	Príkra	Miroľa	Bodružal	Kalná Roztoka	Topoľa	Ruský Potok	Uličské Krivé	Ruská Bystrá	Inovce	Hrabová Roztoka	Šmigovec
Is near by	x	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Wooden objects	x	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Garland	x	✓	x	✓	✓	x	✓	x	✓	✓	✓	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Plastic	x	x	x	✓	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Others	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	✓	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x

. An appropriate solution would be not to plant trees in the future in the vicinity of the property less than 1.5 times the distance from the average height to which trees of a given species grow. Furthermore, regular leaf raking could be introduced at short intervals in the autumn period to avoid the formation of a continuous layer next to the property. An option to remove the risk of fire spreading on grass would be to replace the grass around the building with gravel or other material that would not spread fire. This would also solve the problem of grass maintenance. Of course, this will not be possible in all cases, because of the uneven surface on which the objects are located or because of its location in the middle of the cemetery. As regards the maintenance of the grass areas around the building, we appreciate the regular maintenance and mowing as well as the immediate disposal of grass clippings from the vicinity of the building.

In the Nordic countries, they have dealt with combustible materials near buildings by creating a buffer zone around the building where trees cannot be planted, as shown in Figure 11. Also, there must not be any combustible materials there. The advantage of many churches is that they are in the middle of cemeteries, so creating a buffer zone is not that difficult. The surroundings of the buildings are also protected by CCTV, with infrared sensing, to spot fires that may be approaching the building. The security of these churches includes fire protection as well as protection against vandalism and theft [62]. These buildings are equipped with motion sensors and CCTV systems in addition to standard cameras and thermal imaging cameras [27,62]. This is also an opportunity to increase fire protection for these buildings. Installing CCTV around the buildings with IR sensors would increase the response time for the fire brigade to intervene before the fire spreads to the church buildings. It would also reduce the risk of vandalism and arson as it would be easier to identify the perpetrators, which could deter them from this activity.

4.8. Water Source

Water sources could be better marked and permanently visible as responding units may not be aware of where they are, which would delay the start time of fire suppression. We show the presence and kind of water sources we show in

Table 7. Checklist for water sources. Legends: Legends: ✓—present; x—absence.

Type of Water Source	Brežany	Kožany	Potoky	Ladomirová	Krajné Čierno	Šemetkovce	Dobroslava	Korejovce	Nižný Komárnik	Hunkovce	Príkra	Miroľa	Bodružal	Kalná Roztoka	Topoľa	Ruský Potok	Uličské Krivé	Ruská Bystrá	Inovce	Hrabová Roztoka	Šmigovec
Hydrant	x	✓	✓	✓	x	x	x	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	✓	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Distance (in metres)	x	20	400	70	x	x	x	10	40	50	x	20	10	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Creek	x	x	x	x	✓	x	x	✓	x	x	x	x	x	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Distance (in metres)	x	x	x	x	100	x	x	30	x	x	x	x	x	60	80	10	100	500	500	200	50

. In such cases where the water source is a stream, regulating the stream so that a dip is created close to the building to collect water and provide a sufficient supply even in the summer months could help with the water source capacity. It would be helpful if the water sources were also known at the respective fire stations. The firefighters would know immediately before their arrival where the water source is and what the water source is.

Wooden historical religious buildings are often located in remote areas. It is similar abroad, when these buildings are in areas where there is no fire pipeline or are in elevated places where there is no water source. In Norway, therefore, they have created a fire reservoir at each church that feeds a stable firefighting system but also has sufficient capacity to serve as a water source for the fire brigade. Climate change will also play an important role in the sufficiency of water resources. This may result in a reduction in yield to the extent that it will not be possible to draw water from rivers. Research on climate change and its impact on the fire safety of heritage timber churches has been carried out in the Polish environment around Kraków. They pointed out similar problems encountered in our research, such as the density of water systems being low and the terrain elevation being high [60].

4.9. Voluntary Fire Brigades

We assessed the state of the voluntary fire brigades as unsatisfactory. However, given the demographic conditions in the municipalities where the facilities are located, it is not surprising. Demographic data on the number of inhabitants of the municipalities where timber religious buildings are located, which we address in the paper, 16 municipalities had less than 200 inhabitants, 4 municipalities had between 200 and 600 inhabitants, and 1 municipality had more than a thousand inhabitants. The reason for the absence of active volunteer fire brigades in the municipalities may be the low human potential in these municipalities. With a population of less than 200 inhabitants, the establishment of municipal volunteer fire brigades would be a difficult task, and in many cases, materially and technically impossible [65,66]. We propose to establish a volunteer fire brigade in those municipalities with a population of at least 200 inhabitants. A possible solution would be to form a single volunteer fire brigade from the citizens of several surrounding municipalities in which they could operate. This would reduce the financial costs per municipality and allow for greater human potential in terms of the number of people who could be members [67].

5. Conclusions

Setting fire protection for timber religious buildings faces many problems. One of them is the desire to protect the building from architectural interventions and from such interventions that would lead to visible changes to the building. Here a compromise has to be found between the community that is concerned with the conservation of buildings and the community that is concerned with fire protection. Thanks to modern tools, we have new possibilities to protect these monuments, which is what both communities are trying to do. The problem with this equipment is often its high cost, as we outlined in the paper. We have reviewed the positive and negative findings that we have gathered during our research into these properties. Among the positives, we can include the following:

• Building base made of non-combustible materials.
• Possibility to remove combustible material from the surroundings of the objects.
• Presence of fire extinguishers in the premises except one.

We came up with more negative facts, especially in the area of active and passive protection methods, in the following situations:

• The electric fire alarm system was functional in only 11 buildings.
• There is no stable fire extinguishing system in any of the buildings.
• Fire protection coating was applied to 12 buildings, but many of them were already past their expected lifetime.

Responding units in the event of a fire would benefit from better communication between building managers when they would have knowledge of the following:

• Water sources, where they are located and what the water source is.
• Access and approach areas, and their distance from the objects.
• Accessibility to the facility during the winter months.

We perceive the evacuation from the buildings as negative, but it is not possible to solve it as it would have to be structural interventions, which is not desirable in this type of building. The same applies to the state of the voluntary fire brigades as these are less populated areas, and it is not easy to create a separate brigade in each municipality so that it is technically and professionally equipped.

The calculation of the range of the fire brigades from the nearest fire stations to the buildings was very negative. The travel time to the buildings was over 20 min for 11 buildings. This only confirmed our efforts to strengthen fire protection with electric fire alarm systems, stable fire equipment and fire protection coating.

Research on fire risk assessment was limited. Difficulties were encountered in obtaining the data, especially regarding the building managers’ knowledge of the level of fire protection, especially passive features such as fire protection coating and to whom the output from the electric fire alarm signals goes (fire station or resident in the village). It was also a problem to identify the source of water, as often the administrators themselves were not aware of this information. But thanks to the human approach, a large amount of data was obtained, which will serve to improve the state of fire protection of the studied objects and will serve for further research.

Overall, it turned out that the state of fire protection of timber religious buildings in the territory of Eastern Slovakia has gaps and differences that can be solved. The addition of equipment and implementation of measures would help to protect these buildings and ensure their sustainability and preservation for future generations.