Suraje Dessai

As climate-related risks intensify across Europe, there is growing demand for decision-relevant information among climate-sensitive organisations. This paper presents findings from a large-scale survey of 1,864 professionals working across sectors, regions, and operational scales in Europe, aimed at assessing how organisations perceive climate risks, use weather and/or climate information, and identify unmet information needs. Results show widespread concern about climate and economic risks, with operational impacts commonly attributed to extreme heat and heavy rainfall. While 77% of respondents actively use weather and/or climate information (primarily for short-term planning), the uptake of long-term climate information, such as climate projections and decadal predictions, remains low. Organisations access different types of climate information from diverse sources. Ordered logit models show that exposure to extreme events is positively associated with greater climate concern and a higher likelihood of engaging in climate risk management. Key drivers of information use include risk to human safety, prior climate-related experience, and regulatory obligations. Among current users, satisfaction with the quality of weather and climate information is high, though affordability, understandability, accessibility, usability, and tailoring remain areas for improvement. Non-users also expressed strong interest in future use, especially regarding high-impact events. These findings underscore the need for weather and climate information services that are not only scientifically robust but also accessible, understandable, and aligned with users’ operational realities and planning horizons. The study highlights persistent barriers to uptake and calls for greater investment in user engagement, training, and tailored service design to enhance climate resilience across sectors in Europe.

Decision-making around climate adaptation is a complex challenge for climate-sensitive organizations, involving a wide range of considerations. Climate service prototype efforts play an essential role in supporting these decisions by creating relevant climate information, and communicating it in user-friendly ways. However, the impact of such efforts depends on whether prototypes effectively support decision-making. Co-production with sector experts or end-users is a good approach to incorporate users’ needs. But an important question is whether this co-produced knowledge is also useful for a broader pool of potential users across regions or sectors, which has been termed ‘horizontal upscaling’. There is, however, little empirical research addressing this question. Therefore, this study aims to examine the extent to which co-produced climate information from the ASPECT project is also useful and usable for meeting the decision needs of other similar potential users. The research addresses the following questions:How understandable is the co-produced climate information for other potential users?How do they evaluate the usefulness and quality of the climate information?How useful would the climate information be in supporting their adaptation decision-making process?How do they feel that the climate information could be improved?To answer these questions, a survey was conducted in December 2025. The respondents are practitioners from the pension, agriculture, governance, and humanitarian sectors, with around 33 respondents per sector. The survey tested early-stage climate service prototypes, co-produced with ASPECT users and delivered in the form of a storyboard, a website, a bulletin, and a presentation. Results show that the understandability of co-produced climate information needs to be further improved for use by a broader range of users. Respondents agreed that this information could support their decision-making in several ways.

To support risk reduction, severe weather warnings need to be received, understood and appropriately acted upon by their intended audience. While a growing body of work is striving to establish best practice in ensuring that warnings are interpreted as intended, important gaps remain in our understanding of why people do not respond to them. In a survey of 1,100 members of the UK public, we asked participants about: 1) how long they estimated it would take to perform protection behaviours after receiving a warning; 2) barriers to undertaking a series of behavioural responses to warnings; 3) reasons for choosing not to act on warnings despite being able to do so; and 4) whether they had preparedness measures and supplies at home. Respondents with caring responsibilities for disabled, ill or elderly adults were also asked about the impact of severe weather on the people they care for. Descriptive analysis of barriers to acting on severe weather warnings showed that a substantial proportion of respondents reported difficulties following guidance to change working patterns (25%), challenges leaving home during flood or wildfire if advised to do so due to lack of transport (23%) and difficulty accessing a cool place to stay in hot weather (22%). Amongst carers, over 30% indicated that maintaining thermal comfort was a significant challenge for the person they care for. When respondents chose not to act on warnings, the most commonly selecting reason was perceiving the warning as irrelevant (41%), followed by perceived inaccuracy of warning (18%) and feeling that the benefits of not acting outweighed potential costs. Logistic regression revealed that barriers to adhering to advice to cancel travel and avoid exposure to severe weather at work were more common amongst younger respondents. Men were more likely to report being unable to avoid outdoor exposure to severe weather and physical exertion during hot weather in the workplace. Barriers related to movement, taking physical protective action and maintaining thermal comfort were all associated with poorer health. These findings suggest that individuals most vulnerable to the impacts of severe weather remain less likely to be able to undertake key protective behaviours. We discuss the implications of these results for improving public-facing weather warning communication.

Decision-making around climate adaptation is a complex challenge for climate-sensitive organizations, involving a wide range of considerations. Climate service prototype efforts play an essential role in supporting these decisions by creating relevant climate information, and communicating it in user-friendly ways. However, the impact of such efforts depends on whether prototypes effectively support decision-making. Co-production with sector experts or end-users is a good approach to incorporate users’ needs. But an important question is whether this co-produced knowledge is also useful for a broader pool of potential users across regions or sectors, which has been termed ‘horizontal upscaling’. There is, however, little empirical research addressing this question. Therefore, this study aims to examine the extent to which co-produced climate information from the ASPECT project is also useful and usable for meeting the decision needs of other similar potential users. The research addresses the following questions:How understandable is the co-produced climate information for other potential users?How do they evaluate the usefulness and quality of the climate information?How useful would the climate information be in supporting their adaptation decision-making process?How do they feel that the climate information could be improved?To answer these questions, a survey was conducted in December 2025. The respondents are practitioners from the pension, agriculture, governance, and humanitarian sectors, with around 33 respondents per sector. The survey tested early-stage climate service prototypes, co-produced with ASPECT users and delivered in the form of a storyboard, a website, a bulletin, and a presentation. Results show that the understandability of co-produced climate information needs to be further improved for use by a broader range of users. Respondents agreed that this information could support their decision-making in several ways.

Effective risk communication for severe weather events remains a critical challenge as climate change intensifies global hazard exposure, yet strategies often lack tailoring to diverse national contexts, undermining their impact. To address this, we investigate whether countries can be grouped into clusters with shared characteristics, thus identifying countries facing similar challenges or opportunities in public understanding of climate risks and preparedness behaviours and enabling stakeholders such as meteorological services to adapt strategies efficiently, leveraging insights from one country to benefit others within the same cluster. Such efficiencies can enhance the design of contextually relevant hazard warning systems, policies, and preparedness initiatives. We achieve this grouping using a model-based clustering algorithm. We generate variables summarizing risk perceptions and disaster preparedness across population segments – namely, age cohort-by-gender and income quintile – to capture important sociodemographic differences that shape vulnerability and resilience, as supported by prior research. These summaries, combined with country-level data on disasters, climate projections, wealth, and governance, feed into the clustering process, ensuring within-country heterogeneity informs our results. The clustering algorithm identifies six distinct clusters based on their preparedness for disaster, relative affluence, and concern about severe weather events: Cluster 1 features low preparedness, low affluence, and high weather concern; Cluster 2 shares low preparedness and modest affluence but exhibits low concern; Cluster 3 includes wealthier, unprepared countries with high concern; Cluster 4 comprises affluent, moderately prepared countries with low concern; Cluster 5 reflects wealthy, unprepared nations with varied concern levels; and Cluster 6 contains moderately prepared, less affluent countries with heterogeneous concern. These groupings reveal nuanced patterns in how populations perceive and respond to severe weather risks, highlighting where messaging or warning approaches may succeed or falter. For instance, Cluster 1’s high concern suggests receptivity to urgent messaging, while Cluster 2’s indifference may require awareness campaigns, while comparatively lower levels of affluence in both clusters highlights a need to identify and communication feasible risk reduction actions that can be undertaken at a household level. By pinpointing such distinctions, our approach may reduce development time for tailored interventions, drawing on shared experiences within clusters. Our novel framework should empower policymakers, meteorological services, and NGOs to craft targeted risk communication and preparedness strategies, aligning with specific regional needs and improving resilience against escalating climate threats.

The physical risks associated with a changing climate pose significant threats to societal, economic, and environmental systems. Effectively managing these risks depends heavily on scientific knowledge, including climate science. Adaptation efforts remain uneven across sectors and regions, with varying levels of progress, ambition, and implementation capacity. Quantitative studies are essential for understanding the actions being taken and the drivers behind adaptation. Much of the existing literature in this field often relies on small-sample surveys or interviews and tends to focus on individual sectors, such as agriculture or tourism. However, sensitivity to climate risks and adaptation needs vary widely across sectors and types of organizations. There is a pressing need for a more comprehensive understanding of how users perceive climate risks and how they manage them in practice across different sectors.This study contributes to the literature by exploring the extent to which climate-sensitive organizations in Europe are aware of climate risks and actively integrate climate risk management into their organisational decision-making processes. The research addresses the following questions:How does concern about climate and weather risk compare with concern about other types of organisational risks? What are the main drivers of climate risk management in organisations? To what extent do organisations currently use weather and/or climate information? What are unmet needs for climate information provision? To answer these questions, a large-scale survey was designed and distributed via the Qualtrics survey platform to professionals working in risk analysis and management roles within businesses and organizations across Europe (n=1864) .The results reveal significant concerns regarding physical climate risks, alongside broader concerns about other organizational risks. Organizations with longer planning horizons exhibited higher concern compared to those with only short planning horizons. Risks to human safety and past experiences of extreme events being identified as the strongest drivers of Climate Risk Management (CRM) and climate information use. The ordered logit model shows that experience of weather/climate-related events raises the likelihood of an organisation carrying out CRM by 150%. Although most respondents indicated that their organization’s longest planning horizon for important decisions was between 1–5 years, the most commonly used sources of climate information were weather forecasts, followed by observations, sub-seasonal, and seasonal forecasts, respectively. A small proportion of respondents reported using longer-term climate information. While current users reported generally high satisfaction with the information they currently received, a desire for easier to understand and more accurate/reliable information was expressed. The implications for climate services will be discussed based on the results.

Comprehensively addressing adaptation requires raising the awareness on climate change, recognising the factors influencing engagement and adoption of adaptation options, and understanding perceptions of climate change. However, while there is an extensive literature on public (individual and social) awareness and perspectives on hazards, risk, and impacts, as well as the broader concern for climate change, there are limited insights on organisational perceptions. Nevertheless, there is an inherent importance of focusing on organisational preparedness, adaptation and resilience given the differential impacts of climate change on organisational structure and operations and noting that organisational adaptive capacity is poorly understood.This research offers unique organisational insights through an analysis of a national survey of UK-based organisations’ perceptions about adapting to a changing climate. Administered in spring 2021, the survey examines the responses of 2,400 persons with organisational planning roles on awareness of climate change and its physical risks, as well as ongoing action and perceived challenges to adaptation by organisations in the UK. In this research phase, we focus on the specific awareness of climate information by organisations, including the private sector, local authorities, public health and education sectors, as well as the volunteer sector, and note the indicated frequency, ease of use, and reliability of specified climate information sources across the different sectors. This research offers a platform for dialogue on the need to increase and improve risk communication to interest groups including a variety of organisations, as well as balancing organisational concerns relating to uncertainty and financial bottom-line.

In 2023 areas in southern Europe experienced record-breaking high temperatures. With these events being dubbed Cerberus and Charon, debate has arisen in both the forecasting community and the media as to a) whether severe heat events should be officially named by meteorological services; and b) whether threatening/mythological names should be used. This study was undertaken as a step towards addressing the lack of empirical evidence on whether heat event naming affects public responses to heat protection messaging, and whether the nature of the name (mythological vs non-mythological) matters. We undertook online experiments with regionally representative samples in England (n=2152), where official storm naming exists but heat events are not currently named, and Italy (n=1984), where weather events are not officially named but where there is a tradition of unofficially naming anticyclones after figures from mythology or classical history. Participants were recruited through the market research company Cint and randomly allocated to view a hypothetical heat warning that referred to a forecast for an unnamed event (‘a heatwave’), a mythologically named event (UK=Heatwave Lucifer, Italy=A heatwave caused by anticyclone Lucifero) or a non-mythologically named event (UK=Heatwave Arnold, Italy=A heatwave caused by anticyclone Arnold). Participants were asked to rate how severe they would anticipate the event to be, how concerning it would be, how much they would trust the message and their anticipated behavioural response. Multivariate Analysis of Variance tests indicated that English participants in the mythological name condition reported slightly greater anticipated severity and concern than in the no-name condition. However, while statistically significant the size of this effect was very small, accounting for less than 1% of variance in concern, with factors such as perceptions of the pleasantness of hot weather and concern about heat events increasing in the future having a much stronger effect. Amongst the Italian sample no statistically significant differences were found between those in the unnamed and mythologically named event conditions. However, the mythologically named event elicited slightly greater perceived severity, concern and trust than the non-mythologically named event. As with the English sample, size of the effect was, while statistically significant, very small. No effect on behavioural intention was found in either of the countries. Together, our findings suggests that naming in isolation only has a very small effect on anticipated response to heat messaging, and that the nature of this effect is dependent on cultural context.

Public risk perceptions regarding climate and weather are known to be influenced by demographic factors including direct personal experiences with weather events. These perceptions are dynamic, often shaped by the immediacy and visual impact of weather phenomena and climate-related disasters, alongside evolving scientific understanding and projections of future climatic trends and their potential impacts on the environment and human society. In this paper, we present a multilevel analysis of public risk perceptions on climate and weather, leveraging the 2021 wave of the Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll (WRP), a large survey dataset of 129,992 individuals interviewed across 121 countries. Our project aim is to test whether individual-level factors such as age, gender, education, household income, household size, whether their living environment is urban or rural, and personal experiences of severe weather events shape public risk perceptions on climate and weather. In this study, we also integrate several country level indices into the WRP dataset to generate insight on the relative influence of individual-level versus national-level factors in influencing our outcomes, including EM-DAT data on natural disasters (the number of climatological, geophysical, hydrological, and meteorological disasters in each country), ND-GAIN data on projected changes in hazards (future projections for heatwaves, flooding, and sea-level rises in each country), and WGI data on governance in each country. Using multilevel modelling techniques, we provide empirical validation of the effects of a list of factors that are theorised to shape climate and weather-based risk perceptions. The addition of random slopes (i.e. the intercepts is the same for all countries, but the slopes vary for each nation state) to our multilevel models also allows us to examine how the nature of the relationship of the identified factors and our outcomes varies by national context. The current findings highlight the dynamics between individual factors and larger environmental and governance contexts in shaping public risk perceptions of climate and weather. They form the basis for the future phases of our project development, which include the selection of several countries, representing different climate and social contexts, to use as case studies to test the effectiveness of early warning systems for disaster risk reduction. Our study and research findings offer important insights both for policymakers in crafting more effective, context-sensitive strategies for climate mitigation and adaption, and for national meteorological services in developing early warning systems for severe weather events.

In recent years, shifts in climate patterns, coupled with emerging policy drivers and frameworks, have significantly heightened the demand for high-quality weather and climate information within organisations. This information is critical to support adaptation decision-making across short, medium, and long-term horizons. Despite substantial international efforts in climate services, such as the Copernicus program and the Global Framework on Climate Services, gaps persist in our understanding of how organisations are adapting to this evolving landscape and effectively utilising information. To address this gap, we conducted a quantitative survey in late 2023, involving over 1,800 climate-sensitive organisations across almost all European countries, with particularly high representation from countries with larger populations and economies. This survey focused mainly on perceived organisational impacts due to weather/climate and information use. Our findings highlight that extreme heat and heavy rainfall are the most impactful events affecting these organisations, with significant concerns centred around the safety of people, the integrity of premises, and the continuity of service delivery and production. Notably, 77% of respondents actively use weather and/or climate information, and 51% of non-users anticipate future needs, suggesting that nearly 90% of organisations recognise the value of this information. This widespread utilisation underscores the vital role of information in strategic planning and risk management. However, a strong reliance on weather forecasts and limited adoption of seasonal to decadal forecast information suggest needs are not being fully met. Approximately 30% of climate information users specifically point to issues with the accessibility, reliability, and customisation of climate information as areas requiring improvement. Furthermore, respondents not currently utilising climate information cite a lack of expertise/resources, perceived unreliability or inaccuracy, difficulty in comprehension, and unfamiliarity as major barriers. Both these findings indicate that improvements are necessary in the tailoring and accessibility of climate services. Additionally, there is a need to raise awareness about the value and limitations of climate information, and to assist organisations in building in-house capacity and expertise. This will enable them to confidently understand and effectively utilise information in their decision-making contexts. In conclusion, our study reveals a strong demand for tailored, reliable, and accessible climate information within European organisations. It highlights the importance of continuous improvements in climate service development and the establishment of effective governance mechanisms and structures to ensure their sustainability and effectiveness. As we move forward, fostering better engagement strategies, managing user expectations, and addressing the challenges in providing high-quality climate information will be imperative for integrating actionable climate knowledge into organisational planning and operations, thus enhancing resilience across Europe.