At least 20% of Europeans have taken no measures to adapt to climate change, partly due to a lack of financial means, especially in less wealthy regions. This is according to “Overheated and underprepared: Europeans’ experience of living with climate change,” a joint report 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 more than 27,000 respondents across 27 European countries.

Presenting the report, Michele Consolini, research officer at Eurofound, and Sasha Mosky, consultant at Ramboll, noted that large parts of the population are vulnerable without realising it. Yet even those who are aware of the risks often struggle to take action. 

“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,” the report states.

In Central-Eastern Europe, 46.1% of respondents say they cannot afford to keep their homes adequately cool in summer, compared with 36.9% in Western Europe, 36.8% in Southern Europe and 30.1% in Northern Europe.

Across the continent, 49% of renters cannot afford to keep their homes cool, compared with 29.1% of homeowners.

Overall, the report finds that poorer people, renters and respondents in poor health were less likely to report adopting household-level climate resilience measures.

The researchers also highlighted that low trust in public policies and institutions discourages investment in adaptation. “If they are incentive-based, it is important to remember how social media is used to communicate notions,” they said during the presentation.

Because the survey was conducted online and relied on voluntary participation, it is likely to over-represent people already engaged with the issue. The true share of Europeans who have taken no adaptation measures may therefore be considerably higher than 20%.

People living in the open countryside were more likely to have implemented climate resilience measures at home than those in more urbanised areas, the report finds.

“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”.

Much like farmers, who often adapt quickly to protect their crops, rural residents appear more aware of climate risks and more willing to act. At the same time, they may lack the political leverage to secure public intervention in sparsely 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.

Respondents in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe reported experiencing climate impacts most often, and were also the most concerned about them. Women and younger respondents (aged 16–29) were also among the most concerned.

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 fall disproportionately on 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”.