New research: Feeling at risk does not necessarily make people more prepared
People who perceive a threat as serious are not necessarily more prepared to respond to it. New research by CfSR-affiliated researcher Ieva Birka finds a persistent gap between threat perception and household preparedness across cities in Finland, Latvia, and Germany.
How prepared are Europeans for the next crisis? According to a new study by Ieva Birka, Affiliated Researcher at the Center for Security and Resilience (CfSR), many urban households remain underprepared - even when they identify specific threats as major personal concerns.
Published in the Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, the study examines how people in Helsinki, Riga, Berlin, Hamburg, and Munich perceive risks ranging from cyberattacks and military conflict to supply disruptions and severe weather. The findings reveal a consistent “perception–action gap”: recognizing a threat does not necessarily translate into taking recommended preparedness measures.
A gap between awareness and action
Using survey data from more than 3,000 respondents, the study evaluates both material preparedness - such as food, water, cash reserves, and emergency radios - and cognitive preparedness, including knowledge of emergency shelters, warning sirens, and family emergency plans.
While many respondents considered issues such as cyberattacks, disinformation, military conflict, and supply disruptions to be significant threats, relatively few had taken basic preparedness measures. Even among those who viewed a specific threat as a major personal concern, preparedness was generally no higher than among other respondents.
The findings suggest that raising awareness alone is not enough to strengthen societal resilience.
Why are people not preparing?
Rather than a lack of concern, the study identifies several barriers that may prevent people from preparing. Respondents frequently reported a lack of information, time, or financial resources, or that they simply did not perceive an immediate need to prepare. Psychological barriers also played an important role.
The research argues that current preparedness strategies often assume individuals will naturally translate concern into action. Instead, the findings suggest that preparedness requires clearer guidance, practical support, and communication tailored to everyday urban life.
Implications for European resilience
As the EU and NATO increasingly emphasize whole-of-society resilience, the study raises important questions about how preparedness policies are implemented at the household level.
The authors conclude that if governments expect citizens to contribute to societal resilience, preparedness guidance must become more concrete, actionable, and adapted to the realities of urban living. Clear thresholds, practical tools, and locally relevant communication may be just as important as raising awareness of risks.
The research contributes to ongoing discussions about total defense, civil preparedness, and societal resilience - areas central to the work of the Center for Security and Resilience.
Read the full article:
Research team:
- Ieva Birka
- Didzis Kļaviņš, University of Latvia
