Aug 16, 2026 01:47 AM
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1140055
EXCERPT: The survey results suggest that seven in ten people encountered a Heat Health Alert. Among them, 41% did nothing to protect themselves. The reason given most often was that they did not see themselves as personally at risk. Some did not recognise what they were looking at when it came to the alert, while others were unsure what they were supposed to do or found the alert hard to understand.
The UN University publication explains why. Only 18% of people in England report a high perception of heat risk, and around 30% say they know little or nothing about the actions that would protect them. A similar percentage had come across no alerts or heat protection information at all, a separate group from those who saw the information and did not know what to do with it.
The system leans heavily on digital channels, which spread information fast but reach unevenly, and social media was the least trusted source of heat information, particularly among older adults. The channels carrying the warning are often the ones least likely to reach the people most vulnerable to heat.
“People aren’t ignoring these alerts because they don’t care,” said Dr Mehri Khosravi, Research Fellow, Behavioural Change and Risk Communication at UNU-INWEH and lead author of the Policy Brief. “They read them and think, this isn’t about me. Heat still gets treated as good weather, or as something that only happens to the very old and the very ill. Until that changes, we can send perfect warnings and watch very little happen.”
Interviews with the heat risk experts describe a system built for institutions rather than households. Informing the public was not the dominant communication objective, cited by 76% of interviewed practitioners, with far less emphasis on motivating action or enabling it. Communication does most of its work coordinating national agencies, local authorities, health services and emergency responders once a heatwave is under way.
The publication argues that the deeper problem lies outside the alerting system altogether. Housing conditions, deprivation, existing health problems and environmental exposure shape who suffers in a heatwave, and none of them are addressed by a warning. International guidance holds that a heat health action plan should pair short-term alerts with long-term measures that reduce vulnerability, yet England’s approach remains weighted towards the warning component.
To close that gap, the authors call for heat resilience to be built into housing standards, planning policy and retrofit programmes, with stronger enforcement and implementation of Part O of the Building Regulations. They also call for investment in the institutional capacity of local authorities and community organisations, and for wider use of trusted intermediaries such as libraries, faith groups, voluntary organisations and social care providers to reach people that digital channels miss.
Few organisations currently measure whether their communication changes behaviour, and the brief argues that evaluation should track whether alerts prompt protective action rather than how many people saw them. (MORE - missing details, no ads)
EXCERPT: The survey results suggest that seven in ten people encountered a Heat Health Alert. Among them, 41% did nothing to protect themselves. The reason given most often was that they did not see themselves as personally at risk. Some did not recognise what they were looking at when it came to the alert, while others were unsure what they were supposed to do or found the alert hard to understand.
The UN University publication explains why. Only 18% of people in England report a high perception of heat risk, and around 30% say they know little or nothing about the actions that would protect them. A similar percentage had come across no alerts or heat protection information at all, a separate group from those who saw the information and did not know what to do with it.
The system leans heavily on digital channels, which spread information fast but reach unevenly, and social media was the least trusted source of heat information, particularly among older adults. The channels carrying the warning are often the ones least likely to reach the people most vulnerable to heat.
“People aren’t ignoring these alerts because they don’t care,” said Dr Mehri Khosravi, Research Fellow, Behavioural Change and Risk Communication at UNU-INWEH and lead author of the Policy Brief. “They read them and think, this isn’t about me. Heat still gets treated as good weather, or as something that only happens to the very old and the very ill. Until that changes, we can send perfect warnings and watch very little happen.”
Interviews with the heat risk experts describe a system built for institutions rather than households. Informing the public was not the dominant communication objective, cited by 76% of interviewed practitioners, with far less emphasis on motivating action or enabling it. Communication does most of its work coordinating national agencies, local authorities, health services and emergency responders once a heatwave is under way.
The publication argues that the deeper problem lies outside the alerting system altogether. Housing conditions, deprivation, existing health problems and environmental exposure shape who suffers in a heatwave, and none of them are addressed by a warning. International guidance holds that a heat health action plan should pair short-term alerts with long-term measures that reduce vulnerability, yet England’s approach remains weighted towards the warning component.
To close that gap, the authors call for heat resilience to be built into housing standards, planning policy and retrofit programmes, with stronger enforcement and implementation of Part O of the Building Regulations. They also call for investment in the institutional capacity of local authorities and community organisations, and for wider use of trusted intermediaries such as libraries, faith groups, voluntary organisations and social care providers to reach people that digital channels miss.
Few organisations currently measure whether their communication changes behaviour, and the brief argues that evaluation should track whether alerts prompt protective action rather than how many people saw them. (MORE - missing details, no ads)
