At least 20% of people have not implemented measures to adapt to climate change in Europe, reflecting in part the lack of financial means, especially in less wealthy regions. It has been highlighted in the report "Overheated and underprepared: Europeans' experience of living with climate change”,  jointly developed by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound).

“Just over 22% of respondents did not have any of the listed measures at home. Measures against heat include shading (reported by 49% of respondents), roof/wall insulation (48%), and air conditioning or ventilation (32%). More than 40% of respondents reported having home insurance covering extreme weather events. A much lower percentage of respondents have prepared an emergency kit (14%) or secured access to a backup power source (8%)”, said the authors in the report.

The report is based on an online survey of over 27,000 respondents across 27 European countries.
During the presentation, Michele Consolini, researcher officer at Eurofound, and Sasha Mosky, consultant at Ramboll, underlined that large swaths of the population are vulnerable, but unaware. However, even aware respondents experience issues in implementing measures.  

“Over 38% of all respondents stated that they could not afford to keep their home adequately cool in the summer; the percentage increases to 66% amongst respondents who have experienced financial difficulties”, reads the report.

Around 46.1% of respondents in central-eastern Europe report not being able to afford to keep their homes adequately cool in summer, with respect to 36.8% in Southern Europe, 36.9% in Western Europe, and 30.1% in Northern Europe.

On a continental level, 49% of renters can’t afford cool apartments, compared to 29.1% among owners.
In general, the report finds that poorer people, renters and respondents in poor health reported adopting household-level climate resilience measures.

The researchers also underlined that low trust in public policies and institutions also negatively affects the decisions to invest in climate adaptation measures. “If they are incentive-based, it is important to remember how social media is used to communicate notions”, the researchers said during the presentation.
Considering that the respondents took their time to answer, the sample is likely to be under-representative. In other words, it is very likely that way more than 20% of the European population did not take any measures to adapt to climate change.

Regarding household-level resilience, a higher percentage of those living in the open countryside had implemented climate resilience measures at home compared to those living in more urbanised areas, reads the report.

“Around three times as many respondents in the countryside had rainwater collection systems compared to those in cities (47.6% and 15.9%, respectively) or a backup power supply/generator (14.8% compared to 5.3%). This can be explained by: a higher percentage of people in rural areas living in houses rather than apartments; higher instances of home ownership in rural areas; a greater need for self-reliance in rural areas due to low population density alongside sparse infrastructure and facilities”.

As in the case of farmers taking measures to adapt as soon as possible to save crops, the rural population seems more aware and active in this regard. At the same time, they may not have the political power to request public intervention in less densely populated areas.

“On the other hand, most of the authority-led climate resilience measures had been observed by a higher percentage of respondents in cities and towns compared to respondents from villages and rural areas (with the exception of water use restrictions and flood prevention which were more likely to be reported by rural inhabitants),” said the report.

According to EEA, which analysed adaptation actions by the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy signatories, it may also reflect the higher capacity of larger cities to act on adaptation.

“Municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants were more likely to implement actions targeting high temperatures, such as tree planting and urban greening, compared to smaller municipalities”.

Overall, 82.2% of respondents reported having seen at least one of the authority-led climate resilience measures listed in the survey in their local area

According to the report, warnings or alerts for extreme weather (experienced by 57%), awareness campaigns on risks and actions to take in case of extreme weather (43%) and water use restrictions during dry periods (42%) were the most common measures identified by the respondents.

“Overall, 36% of respondents reported that they had noticed tree planting or improvements in access to green spaces in their area.  Local flood prevention measures and the provision of cooling centres were not reported as commonly observed”.

The report underlined that the climate resilience measures listed can be aligned with different stages of the crisis management cycle: prevention (minimising the effects of a crisis or disaster before the event); preparedness (planning how to respond); response (actions during a crisis or disaster to minimise its impact); recovery (return to how things were before a crisis or disaster.

“More than 80% of survey respondents reported being affected by at least one climate-related issue (heat, flooding, wildfires, water scarcity, wind, mosquito/tick bites) in the last 5 years. Heat was the most commonly reported issue: nearly half of respondents felt too hot in their home, work, or place of education, while over 60% of respondents reported feeling too hot outside in their neighbourhood”, explains the report.

Climate impacts were most experienced by respondents in southern and central-eastern Europe, where they are also the most concerned. Women, the youngest respondents (16-29 years old) enter this category too.

Overall, 34% of respondents reported a perceived increase in mosquito or tick bites over the last 5 years.
"The abundance of vectors, the length of the biting season, and the likelihood of disease transmission are influenced by the changing climate”, reads the report.

Some climate impacts emerge as issues affecting particularly low-income citizens.

“Four times as many respondents from households with the lowest financial means had experienced problems with access to safe and clean water (15% compared to 4%). Likewise, twice as many had been affected by wildfires and associated smoke compared to respondents from households with the highest financial means (11% compared to 5%). Two-thirds of those with difficulties making ends meet were unable to keep their home adequately cool in the summer compared to just over 9% of those making ends meet either very easily or easily”.