Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER OPINIONS: The opinions of the authors or reproduced in the articles are the ones of those stating them and it is their own responsibility. Should you find any incorrections you can always contact the newsdesk to seek a correction or right of replay. DISCLAIMER TRANSLATIONS: All articles in this site are published in English. The translated versions are done through an automated process known as neural translations. If in doubt, always refer to the original article. Thank you for understanding.
Overheated and underprepared: European survey finds citizens concerned about heat and ability to cope with climate change
A Europe-wide poll of 27,000 people suggests heat is already a household issue—and affordability is the fault line.
Copenhagen/Brussels — 8 February 2026
Summary: Most Europeans say climate change is no longer an abstract future risk. A new Europe-wide survey analysed by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and Eurofound finds that more than 80% of respondents experienced at least one climate-related impact in the last five years, with heat the most common. Yet household readiness remains patchy, with many lacking basic protective measures and a large share saying they cannot afford to keep their homes cool in summer—raising questions about fairness as Europe tries to adapt.
Heat is becoming the everyday climate risk
The EEA’s new snapshot of public experience comes from an online survey of over 27,000 respondents across the EU-27, collected through Eurofound’s Living and Working in the EU e-survey. The results were published on 4 February and analysed in the EEA–Eurofound report “Overheated and underprepared: Europeans’ experience of living with climate change”.
Across the continent, respondents most often described heat as the impact they feel most directly. Nearly half reported feeling “too hot” in their home, workplace, or place of education, while over 60% said they felt too hot outside in their neighbourhood. Concern about the future was also high: just over half said they were very or quite concerned about extremely high temperatures ahead, and almost half expressed similar concern about wildfires.
Heat matters not only because it is widespread, but because it cuts across policy areas: public health, housing standards, labour conditions, education settings, urban planning, and emergency preparedness. In other words, it is not simply a meteorological problem—heat is a governance and social-protection problem.
Preparedness exists, but it is uneven—and often unaffordable
The survey asked about practical, household-level measures designed to reduce risks from extreme weather. The findings point to a persistent “readiness gap”. Around 22% of respondents said they had none of the listed protective measures in place at home, such as shading, ventilation or air conditioning, flood proofing, rainwater collection, insurance against extreme weather, backup power, or an emergency kit.
Even where measures exist, they are not universal. For heat, the most commonly reported home adaptations were shading (about 49%), roof or wall insulation (48%), and air conditioning or ventilation (32%). Yet the most politically sensitive result may be economic: over 38% of respondents said they could not afford to keep their home adequately cool during summer. Among those who reported financial difficulties, that share rose to about 66%.
These numbers underline a basic tension in climate adaptation: Europe can encourage households to prepare, but “do more at home” becomes a hollow message if the costs land on those least able to pay. In the EEA’s framing, household readiness must be paired with affordability and fairness—otherwise adaptation can deepen existing inequalities.
Water access and wildfire smoke: an equity warning
The report additional findings point to unequal impacts, not just unequal preparedness. Respondents with the lowest financial means were far more likely to report problems accessing safe and clean water—about 15% compared to 4% among those with the highest financial means. Exposure to wildfire impacts also showed an income gradient: about 11% of respondents with the lowest financial means reported being affected by wildfires and associated smoke, compared with 5% in the highest-income group.
Other groups also appear structurally disadvantaged. Renters, compared to homeowners, were less likely to report resilience measures in place at home. Respondents with poorer self-assessed health reported being more affected by climate impacts while also being less likely to have protective measures. The report also notes that women and younger respondents (16–29) were among the most concerned about future impacts.
In practical terms, this is what “no one left behind” looks like when tested against heatwaves, drought and smoke: it becomes about access to cooling, water, information, and safe housing—not merely about awareness of climate risks.
Local action is visible—but often non-structural
At neighbourhood level, respondents most commonly reported seeing non-infrastructure measures. The most frequently noticed local actions included warnings or alerts for extreme weather (reported by 57% of respondents), awareness campaigns about risks and what to do (43%), and water-use restrictions during dry periods (42%). Just over a third said they had noticed tree planting or improved access to green space (36%).
By contrast, some measures often discussed in heat preparedness debates—such as cooling centres or more robust flood-prevention works—were not reported as widely observed. The report’s conclusion is not that local authorities are inactive, but that behaviour-oriented measures need to be matched with structural investment where risks are rising.
For Europe, this connects directly to a broader adaptation question already posed in The European Times’ earlier reporting on preparedness and extreme weather: are countries building long-term resilience at scale, or mainly managing immediate risk communication?
Why this matters now for EU policy
The EEA and Eurofound are careful to note that the survey sample is not fully representative of Europe’s population, though weights were applied to better reflect key demographics. Even with those cautions, the report provides a rare Europe-wide view of what people say they are experiencing and doing at home—precisely the level at which policy success or failure becomes real.
The timing also matters. European institutions have increasingly framed resilience as a core pillar of prosperity and security, with the EEA’s European Climate Risk Assessment (EUCRA) warning that many climate risks have already reached critical levels and can become catastrophic without urgent action. The new household-focused evidence adds a social dimension to that risk map: it suggests that vulnerability is not only geographic, but economic.
For policymakers, the report points toward a straightforward, if politically difficult, implication: adaptation is not just about building defences against hazards. It is about ensuring that the ability to cope—cooling a home, getting safe water, reducing smoke exposure, receiving timely warnings—is not reserved for those with higher incomes, better housing, or greater local capacity.
As EEA Executive Director Leena Ylä-Mononen put it, household-level actions must be “affordable and… socially fair so no one is left behind.” In the same release, Eurofound Executive Director Ivailo Kalfin summarised the gap bluntly: climate change affects the lives of four in five citizens, but only a quarter are equipped with appropriate tools to cope.
