Building a Security Culture as a Tool for Soft Targets Protection

  • Ladislav Hofreiter
  • Martin HalajEmail author
  • Richard Jankura
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


The soft targets protection becomes the priority of individuals, social groups and the state. Ensuring their protection will minimize damage to property and reduce the number of injured or victims. There are several ways and tools to protect soft targets.

The aim of this article is to analyze the relationship between the security culture and the soft targets protection. Individual levels of security culture support the soft targets protection, influence response to attacks on soft targets, and determine the scale of activities after attacking soft targets.

It is necessary to focus on the security awareness of individuals who can affect the active soft targets protection, or they are only their visitors. Security awareness is reflected in the behavior and actions leading to the soft targets protection. It is also important for the state to create positively influence on the security environment to minimize attacks on soft targets. One way of creating such an environment is to take into account the soft targets protection when new regulations and laws are adopted.


Security Protection Soft targets Security culture 


  1. 1.
    Kubíková Z, Halaj M (2017) Soft targets in the local environment. In: Security in the local environment SECULIN 2017. EDIS, Žilina, pp 97–107Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Soft Targets and Crowded Places Security Plan Overview, vol. 26. Retrieved from, last accessed 2018/10/10
  3. 3.
    Kalvach Z (2016) Basics of soft targets protection – guidelines. Soft Targets Protection Institute, PragueGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malánik Z (2016) Citizen as part of a soft target. Košická bezpečnostná revue 2/2016 2:228–238Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    SBPStřediskoBezpečnostníPolitiky,., last accessed 2018/10/10
  6. 6.
    Kavický V, Jangl Š, Gašpierik L (2015) Terrorism the threat of time. Citadella, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kerstan S et al (2013) A literature review of safety culture. Sandia National Laboratories, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halaj M (2017) How to measure the safety culture of organizations. In: Innovations in science and education 2017. Central Bohemia University, Prague, pp 616–621Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cox S, Cox T (1991) The structure of employee attitudes to safety: a European example. Work Stress 5(2):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hale AR (2000) Editorial: culture’s confusions. Saf Sci 34:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooper MD (2000) Towards a model of safety culture. Saf Sci 36(2):111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mohamed S (2003) Scorecard approach to benchmarking organizational safety culture in construction. J Constr Eng Manag 129(1):80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richter A, Koch CH (2004) Integration, differentiation and ambiguity in safety cultures. Saf Sci 42(8):703–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brvnišťan M (2016) Security awareness in the context of the fight against modern security threats. In: Security forum, vol 2/2016. UMB publishing, Banská Bystrica, pp 520–528Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halaj M (2016) Security culture as an aspect of organization security. In: Współczesność I perspektywy rozwoju badan and bezpieczeństwiem. Edis, Žilina, pp 35–45Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loveček T, Veľas A, Ďurovec M (2016) Level of protection of ciritcal infrastructure in Slovak republic. In: Production management and engineering sciences. Routledge, pp 163–168. ISBN 978-84-608-8860-4.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Security EngineeringUniversity of ŽilinaŽilinaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations