A.7. Scientific session: Multihazard preparedness: how should it be done? Integrating behavioural, community and system-level
Abstract
Societal resilience depends on human behaviour, mental wellbeing, and social cohesion, not only healthcare capacity and infrastructure. These dimensions are often under-addressed in preparedness planning. With increasing frequency of overlapping crises due to the climate crisis, there is also a need to move beyond hazard-specific approaches and assess whether multihazard preparedness can be operationalised across contexts. This workshop adds value by addressing how preparedness can be strengthened by integrating individual, community, and system-level approaches, drawing on empirical evidence from multihazard approaches, pandemics, floods, and armed conflict. In short presentations, we first present cross-cutting approaches to multihazard preparedness: RIVM (Netherlands) introduces a validated multidimensional scale of perceived disaster preparedness across four hazard types, developed by public health institutes of Spain, Slovenia, The Netherlands and Ireland. Findings show preparedness spans seven dimensions (e.g. mental, social, motivational), and that motivation alone does not translate into action. Second, work by Heidelberg University and Tampere University (Germany & Finland) address the “missing middle” of preparedness: community networks. Using systems science and empirical data, they demonstrate how social ties and locally owned initiatives shape resilience, introducing ego-network mapping and participatory inquiry methods. Third, DGS (Portugal) presents its national all-hazard RCCE-IM framework: a novel approach to institutionalised capacities for risk communication, community engagement, and behavioural and information monitoring. Next we address hazard-specific health impacts of insufficient preparedness in the real world. ISCIII (Spain) presents mixed-methods evidence from the 2024 Valencia floods, showing persistent mental and physical health impacts, low resilience, and a mismatch between institutional risk assessment and public perception, exacerbated by perceived institutional abandonment. Researchers from European University Cyprus present findings that show how individual resilience can buffer effects of war-related stress, underlining the need to prioritise vulnerable populations. The second half of this workshop will be an interactive bidirectional conversation with audience questions, slido data and moderated discussion with ECDC (Sweden) and UQAM (Canada) experts, drawing on multinational behavioural monitoring (iCARE, BOBy). It will address three themes with moderator feedback: (1) Why do we care about finding common ground across hazards? (2) How should multihazard preparedness be operationalised across contexts? (3) How can societal and community dimensions be systematically embedded in preparedness planning? The workshop aligns with the EPH theme by showing how integrating behavioural science, community engagement, and communication strengthens equitable and climate-resilient public health systems.
Key messages: • Multihazard preparedness requires integrating individual, community, and system-level capacities.
• Bridging gaps between institutions and communities is key to build trust, improve responses, and strengthen resilience to diverse crises.
Related
- Integrating emergency medical services and hospital surge capacity for mass-gathering preparedness: a structured narrative review
- Scientific preparedness for the future of mycology: mapping knowledge gaps to guide priority setting and emerging research opportunities
- Assessing preparedness for extreme weather events in community health centers and free clinics across North Carolina
- Integrating behavioural science into risk and crisis communication in public health
- HIV Knowledge, Stigma, and Care Preparedness among Barangay Health Workers in Leyte: Implications for Community-based Interventions.
BibTeX
@article{euphabehaviouralandsocialsciencesection2026scientific,
title = {{A.7. Scientific session: Multihazard preparedness: how should it be done? Integrating behavioural, community and system-level}},
author = {EUPHA Behavioural and Social Science section, ECDC, RIVM (Netherlands), Université du Québec à Montréal (Canada, LSE (UK), Carlos III Health Institute (Spain), Heidelberg University (Germany), Tampere University (Finland), Directorate-General of Health (Portugal), European University (Cyprus) and Irina Ljungqvist and Kim Lavoie},
journal = {The European Journal of Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.376},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.376},
note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - A.7. Scientific session: Multihazard preparedness: how should it be done? Integrating behavioural, community and system-level
AU - EUPHA Behavioural and Social Science section, ECDC, RIVM (Netherlands), Université du Québec à Montréal (Canada, LSE (UK), Carlos III Health Institute (Spain), Heidelberg University (Germany), Tampere University (Finland), Directorate-General of Health (Portugal), European University (Cyprus)
AU - Irina Ljungqvist
AU - Kim Lavoie
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - The European Journal of Public Health
DO - 10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.376
UR - https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.376
AB - Societal resilience depends on human behaviour, mental wellbeing, and social cohesion, not only healthcare capacity and infrastructure. These dimensions are often under-addressed in preparedness planning. With increasing frequency of overlapping crises due to the climate crisis, there is also a need to move beyond hazard-specific approaches and assess whether multihazard preparedness can be operationalised across contexts. This workshop adds value by addressing how preparedness can be strengthened by integrating individual, community, and system-level approaches, drawing on empirical evidence from multihazard approaches, pandemics, floods, and armed conflict. In short presentations, we first present cross-cutting approaches to multihazard preparedness: RIVM (Netherlands) introduces a validated multidimensional scale of perceived disaster preparedness across four hazard types, developed by public health institutes of Spain, Slovenia, The Netherlands and Ireland. Findings show preparedness spans seven dimensions (e.g. mental, social, motivational), and that motivation alone does not translate into action. Second, work by Heidelberg University and Tampere University (Germany & Finland) address the “missing middle” of preparedness: community networks. Using systems science and empirical data, they demonstrate how social ties and locally owned initiatives shape resilience, introducing ego-network mapping and participatory inquiry methods. Third, DGS (Portugal) presents its national all-hazard RCCE-IM framework: a novel approach to institutionalised capacities for risk communication, community engagement, and behavioural and information monitoring. Next we address hazard-specific health impacts of insufficient preparedness in the real world. ISCIII (Spain) presents mixed-methods evidence from the 2024 Valencia floods, showing persistent mental and physical health impacts, low resilience, and a mismatch between institutional risk assessment and public perception, exacerbated by perceived institutional abandonment. Researchers from European University Cyprus present findings that show how individual resilience can buffer effects of war-related stress, underlining the need to prioritise vulnerable populations. The second half of this workshop will be an interactive bidirectional conversation with audience questions, slido data and moderated discussion with ECDC (Sweden) and UQAM (Canada) experts, drawing on multinational behavioural monitoring (iCARE, BOBy). It will address three themes with moderator feedback: (1) Why do we care about finding common ground across hazards? (2) How should multihazard preparedness be operationalised across contexts? (3) How can societal and community dimensions be systematically embedded in preparedness planning? The workshop aligns with the EPH theme by showing how integrating behavioural science, community engagement, and communication strengthens equitable and climate-resilient public health systems. Key messages: • Multihazard preparedness requires integrating individual, community, and system-level capacities. • Bridging gaps between institutions and communities is key to build trust, improve responses, and strengthen resilience to diverse crises.
SN - 1101-1262
SN - 1464-360X
ER -