Aware, not yet prepared: Part 2 – Practitioners’ perspectives on disaster preparedness

In our previous post, we shared what 261 members of the general public across 20 countries told us about disaster preparedness: their experiences, knowledge gaps, their willingness to engage and how they want to be reached. The picture that emerged was of a public more ready to participate than institutions might assume, but not yet given the opportunity to translate that willingness into action.

Now, we turn to practitioners. The 80 emergency first responders, representatives of civil protection authorities, NGOs and volunteer organisations involved in civil protection and policy and decision-makers who participated in our survey largely confirmed what citizens revealed. At the same time, their responses shed light on something less visible from the outside: the challenges practitioners themselves face when it comes to information, training and resources.

Barriers to preparedness look (almost) the same from both sides

When asked about the most significant barriers to preparedness, practitioners’ answers closely mirrored those of citizens. Lack of awareness about local risks was placed on top of the list (59%), followed by lack of training (54%) – very close to citizen responses (57% and 55% respectively). This alignment is compelling: when both the general public and professionals identify the same two obstacles, investing in risk communication and training is no longer a matter of debate, but one of urgency.

Practitioners flagged another two barriers that add an important nuance. Lack of trust in emergency alerts was cited by 46% of practitioners, compared to just 29% of citizens. This difference is worth noting and monitoring, as it may mean that trust in alerts is less of a problem than practitioners perceive. And the perception that ‘emergencies will not affect me’, which 46% of practitioners also highlighted as a barrier, echoes what citizens’ responses also revealed: without credible, locally relevant risk information, underestimating the threat may be a predictable consequence.

Common grounds and some telling differences

On alerting, the two groups are closely aligned. Practitioners confirmed that SMS (73%) and push notifications on mobile phones (68%) are the most effective channels for reaching citizens in an emergency, in near-perfect agreement with general public’s preferences of 67% and 69% respectively. The case for investing in mobile-based public warning infrastructure is therefore endorsed from both sides.

On how to inform citizens about risks and preparedness more broadly, however, a revealing gap emerges: members of the general public ranked websites and digital platforms first (64%), followed by periodic training and drills (57%) and awareness campaigns (48%).

Practitioners, by contrast, placed school programmes at the top (75%), ahead of periodic awareness campaigns (61%), training and drills (58%) and television (56%). The divergence on school programmes is striking: 75% of professionals see them as the most effective tool, compared to just 42% of citizens. This likely reflects a conviction that preparedness culture needs to be built early and systematically, while citizens, understandably, think more about what is available and accessible to them today. Both perspectives point to real needs and a comprehensive strategy has to work on both levels. School programmes offer a structured, systematic platform for building preparedness habits from an early age, but they leave a large share of the population outside their scope. As revealed by the survey, digital platforms, training opportunities and awareness campaigns are what citizens are asking for. The challenge for authorities is not to choose between the two, but to ensure that preparedness information is accessible and reaches all age groups.

What about innovation?

Practitioners were also surveyed about innovation in disaster risk management, an area where the ARTEMis project has a particular stake.

When asked which areas most need innovation, communication with the public (68%) and early warning and alert systems (64%) came out on top, echoing what citizens said they need most. Inter-agency coordination (51%) rounded out the top three.

However, the innovation landscape is uneven. Only 54% of practitioners mentioned being aware of technological innovations in disaster risk management, such as Earth observation and Artificial Intelligence, and just 44% declared they receive information about new technologies. Most strikingly, only 26% receive training on such technologies, meaning that nearly three quarters of the professionals responsible for managing disasters are not being trained on tools that exist to help them do it better.

When it comes to obstacles standing in the way of adopting innovation, insufficient funding or high costs (61%), inadequate infrastructure or equipment (51%), and lack of technical skills or training (50%) are the most cited, pointing towards a need for a coordinated, whole-of-system approach. These findings highlight a significant gap between the availability of technologies and their adoption in practice. Tools and systems may exist, but they cannot support disaster management effectively if professionals do not have the information, training, infrastructure and resources needed to use them.

What would help?

When asked what would increase readiness to adopt innovation, practitioners pointed overwhelmingly to training and awareness programmes (79%) and joint exercises and drills (65%). Experience exchange programmes (55%) and adapting innovations to local contexts (50%) also featured prominently.

Once again, the pattern is consistent across both groups: whether the question is about citizen preparedness or professional capacity, training and exercises seem to be the answer. The appetite for learning is there on both sides; the challenge now is to meet it with opportunities that are accessible and sustainable.

This blog post is based on survey findings from the ARTEMis (AleRT and impact-forecast standards for Emergency Management) project. For more information about ARTEMis, please visit artemis-horizon.eu.

This project has received funding from the Horizon Europe Framework Programme (2021-2027) under the grant agreement No 101225852.
The blog post reflects only the view of the author and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.