Integrating weather and health risks into local governance: insights from Local Resilience Forums
Abstract
Background: Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of adverse weather across Europe, with growing impacts on population health, emergency preparedness and local resilience. In England, Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) develop Community Risk Registers (CRRs) to guide multi-agency preparedness and response. A recent national audit (Jung et al., 2025) found substantial variation in how weather and health risks are represented in CRRs but did not explain why.
Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives from nine LRFs across England, including emergency preparedness and public health leads. Interviews explored how weather and health risks are assessed, prioritised and operationalised through CRRs and related plans. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis informed by multi-level governance and inter-organisational coordination theory.
Results: Effective integration was supported by strong multi-agency collaboration, flexible local arrangements and recognition of increasing weather severity. Barriers included unclear public health roles within LRF governance, limited local capacity, low public awareness of some risks, and challenges translating national guidance into local action. Heat-health and longer-term climate risks were under-prioritised compared with flooding and cold weather. While awareness of alerting systems was high, thresholds for action varied, with inconsistent responses to lower-level alerts.
Conclusions: These findings help explain variation in CRRs and highlight health equity concerns, as weather-related impacts are unevenly distributed and inconsistently addressed. Improving integration requires clearer impact-based national guidance, better use of health data, defined public health roles, and stronger cross-regional learning. Insights are relevant to wider European efforts to align local preparedness with national climate–health strategies.
Related
- Managing generative-AI health information resilience: human resource capabilities and multilevel public health governance
- Insights from a workshop on climate-resilience in health systems in Japan and Germany: strategies to counteract social isolation and heat health risks for older adults
- Rebuilding GeoHealth: Science, Governance, and Resilience After 2025
- Extreme Weather as an Emerging Public Health Challenge for Youth Sports.
- Responsible use of large language models in digital health: an equity-first governance framework
BibTeX
@article{blake2026integrating,
title = {{Integrating weather and health risks into local governance: insights from Local Resilience Forums}},
author = {DM Blake and E Loud and K Brooks and C Petrokofsky and R Thompson and A Jung and P Coleman},
journal = {The European Journal of Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.666},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.666},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Integrating weather and health risks into local governance: insights from Local Resilience Forums
AU - DM Blake
AU - E Loud
AU - K Brooks
AU - C Petrokofsky
AU - R Thompson
AU - A Jung
AU - P Coleman
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - The European Journal of Public Health
DO - 10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.666
UR - https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.666
AB - Background: Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of adverse weather across Europe, with growing impacts on population health, emergency preparedness and local resilience. In England, Local Resilience Forums (LRFs) develop Community Risk Registers (CRRs) to guide multi-agency preparedness and response. A recent national audit (Jung et al., 2025) found substantial variation in how weather and health risks are represented in CRRs but did not explain why. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives from nine LRFs across England, including emergency preparedness and public health leads. Interviews explored how weather and health risks are assessed, prioritised and operationalised through CRRs and related plans. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis informed by multi-level governance and inter-organisational coordination theory. Results: Effective integration was supported by strong multi-agency collaboration, flexible local arrangements and recognition of increasing weather severity. Barriers included unclear public health roles within LRF governance, limited local capacity, low public awareness of some risks, and challenges translating national guidance into local action. Heat-health and longer-term climate risks were under-prioritised compared with flooding and cold weather. While awareness of alerting systems was high, thresholds for action varied, with inconsistent responses to lower-level alerts. Conclusions: These findings help explain variation in CRRs and highlight health equity concerns, as weather-related impacts are unevenly distributed and inconsistently addressed. Improving integration requires clearer impact-based national guidance, better use of health data, defined public health roles, and stronger cross-regional learning. Insights are relevant to wider European efforts to align local preparedness with national climate–health strategies.
SN - 1101-1262
SN - 1464-360X
ER -