Official Statistics

UK Public Survey of Risk Perception, Resilience and Preparedness 2025: Supplementary Sociodemographic Analyses

Updated 15 April 2026

Contact

General enquiries: Lorna Riddle

Email: preparedness.survey@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

Media enquiries: Cabinet Office Press office

Introduction

The UK Public Survey of Risk Perception, Resilience and Preparedness is a nationally representative survey of adults (aged 18+) in the UK that explores attitudes related to emergencies and any steps taken to prepare for them. 

The headline findings from the first annual survey were published in July 2025.

This report provides a summary of findings from supplementary analyses conducted by analysts in the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) Behavioural Science and Insights Unit to identify sociodemographic factors (gender, age, social grade, ethnicity, household factors and disability/chronic health conditions) that were associated with key outcomes related to preparedness, including attitudinal measures and behaviours. 

Notes for interpretation of findings

Due to the large number of analyses completed, a correction to account for multiple analyses has been applied to the results (Bonferroni correction). The Bonferroni correction adjusts the threshold (probability (p) values) at which results are interpreted as statistically significant (i.e., the results are unlikely to be due to chance) due to the increased risk of a type I error (false positive) when conducting multiple statistical tests. 

Associations are only reported where they are statistically significant (following correction (p<.001)).

Further details related to the sample and survey methodology can be found in the technical and headline findings reports. The full question set can be found here: 2025 Final Questionnaire (PDF, 449KB). 

The analyses below refer to ‘social grade’. Social grade is a socio-economic classification developed by the Market Research Society (MRS) which groups individuals based on the occupation and employment status of their household Chief Income Earner. The classifications are:

AB: higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional occupations

C1: supervisory, clerical, and junior managerial, administrative and professional occupations

C2: skilled manual occupations

DE: semi-skilled and unskilled manual occupations, unemployed and lowest grade occupations

Further details related to analyses and sociodemographic groupings (including additional information related to social grade) can be found in Annex 1.

Risk perception 

Anticipated likelihood of emergencies/disasters in the UK

Respondents were asked whether they thought the number of emergencies/disasters in the UK would increase or decrease in the next 10 years. Higher scores reflected higher anticipated likelihood of emergencies/disasters. Lower scores reflected lower anticipated likelihood of emergencies/disasters.

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for anticipated likelihood of emergencies/disasters compared to respondents who identified as male.

Respondents from social grade DE had lower scores for anticipated likelihood of emergencies/disasters compared to respondents from social grade C1.

Belonging to a Black ethnic group was associated with lower scores for anticipated likelihood of emergencies/disasters compared to those belonging to White, Asian and Other ethnic groups.

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for anticipated likelihood of emergencies/disasters.

Perceived likelihood and impact of different types of emergencies/disasters

Respondents were asked about the perceived likelihood and impact of a variety of emergencies and disasters affecting their local area in the next two years. To reduce the number of statistical tests performed, emergencies and disasters were grouped using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), resulting in 5 categories that were used in analysis:

• human instigated (terrorist attack, war, cyber attack on critical infrastructure, rioting or looting)
• adverse weather and air quality (hot weather, cold weather, poor air quality incident, storm)
• environmental (flooding, landslides, wildfires)
• health or biological (large-scale human disease outbreak or pandemic, large-scale animal disease outbreak or pandemic)
• disruption to utilities (power cut, water outage)

Higher scores reflected higher perceived likelihood/impact of emergencies/disasters. Lower scores reflected lower perceived likelihood/impact of emergencies/disasters.

Perceived likelihood 

Human instigated

Being aged 18-24 was associated with lower scores for perceived likelihood of human instigated incidents compared to those aged 25-34 and 35-44. Being aged 65+ was also associated with lower scores for perceived likelihood of human instigated incidents compared to all other age groups (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64).

Belonging to social grade C1 was associated with lower scores for perceived likelihood of human instigated incidents compared to those belonging to social grade C2.

Having children in the household or having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived likelihood of human instigated incidents.

Adverse weather and air quality

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived likelihood of adverse weather and air quality incidents compared to respondents who identified as male.

Being in the 65+ age group was associated with lower scores for perceived likelihood of adverse weather and air quality incidents compared to respondents from all other age groups (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+).

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived likelihood of adverse weather and air quality incidents. 

Environmental 

Being in the 65+ age group was associated with lower scores for perceived likelihood of environmental hazard incidents compared to all other age groups (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64).

Belonging to social grade C1 was associated with higher scores for perceived likelihood of environmental hazard incidents compared to social grade C2.

Health or biological 

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived likelihood of health or biological incidents compared to respondents who identified as male.

Being in the 18-24 age group was associated with lower scores for perceived likelihood of a health or biological incident compared to respondents from the 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 age groups. This was also the case for those belonging to the 65+ age group, where there were also associations with lower scores for perceived likelihood of a health or biological incident compared to respondents from the 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 age groups. 

Belonging to social grade C1 was associated with lower scores for perceived likelihood of a health or biological incident compared to those belonging to social grade AB and C2. 

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived likelihood of a health or biological incident. 

Disruption to utilities 

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived likelihood of a disruption to utilities incident compared to respondents who identified as male.

Being in the 65+ age group was associated with lower scores for perceived likelihood of a disruption to utilities incident compared to those from the 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 age groups. 

Belonging to a Black ethnic group was associated with lower scores for perceived likelihood of a disruption to utilities incident compared to respondents from White, Asian and Mixed ethnic groups. Belonging to a White ethnic group was associated with higher scores for perceived likelihood of a disruption to utilities incident compared to respondents from Asian and Black ethnic groups. 

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived likelihood of a disruption to utilities incident.

Perceived impact

Human instigated

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived impact of a human instigated incident compared to respondents who identified as male.

Being in the 65+ age group was associated with lower scores for perceived impact of a human instigated incident compared to respondents from the 18-24, 25-34 and 35-44 age groups.

Belonging to social grade DE was associated with lower scores for perceived impact of a human instigated incident compared to those belonging to social grade AB, C1 and C2. 

Adverse weather and air quality 

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived impact of an adverse weather and air quality incident compared to respondents who identified as male.

Being in the 65+ age group was associated with lower scores for perceived impact of an adverse weather and air quality incident compared to respondents from the 18-24, 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 age groups. 

Belonging to social grade DE was associated with lower scores for perceived impact of an adverse weather and air quality incident compared to those belonging to social grade AB. 

Respondents from a White ethnic group had a lower score for perceived impact of an adverse weather or air quality incident compared to respondents from an Asian ethnic group.

Having children in the household or having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived impact of an adverse weather or air quality incident.

Environmental 

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived impact of an environmental hazard incident compared to respondents who identified as male.

Being in the 65+ age group was associated with lower scores for perceived impact of an environmental hazard incident compared to respondents from the 18-24, 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 age groups. Being in the 18-24 age group was also associated with higher scores for perceived impact of an environmental hazard incident compared to those aged 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64.

Belonging to social grade C1 or DE was associated with lower scores for perceived impact of an environmental hazard incident compared to those belonging to social grade AB. 

Having children in the household was associated with higher scores for perceived impact of an environmental hazard related incident.

Health or biological 

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived impact of a health or biological incident compared to respondents who identified as male.

Respondents in the 65+ age group had lower scores for perceived impact of a health or biological incident compared to respondents from the 18-24, 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54 age groups.

Belonging to social grade C1 or social grade DE was associated with lower scores for perceived impact of a health or biological incident compared to those belonging to social grade AB. 

Having children in the household or having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived impact of a health or biological incident.

Disruption to utilities 

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived impact of a disruption to utilities incident compared to respondents who identified as male.

Being in the 55-64 age group was associated with lower scores for perceived impact of a disruption to utilities incident compared to respondents from the 18-24, 25-34 and 35-44 age groups.

Belonging to social grade DE was associated with lower scores for perceived impact of a disruption to utilities incident compared to those belonging to social grade C1. 

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived impact of a disruption to utilities incident.

Perceptions of preparedness and resilience

Response efficacy

Response efficacy was measured by asking respondents the extent to which they agreed with the statement: ‘There are effective actions that people can take to prepare for emergencies/disasters’. Higher scores reflected higher levels of response efficacy. Lower scores reflected lower levels of response efficacy. 

Being aged 25-34 was associated with lower scores for response efficacy when compared to respondents aged 35-44. 

Belonging to social grade DE was associated with lower scores for response efficacy compared to respondents who belonged to social grade AB. 

Respondents from a Black ethnic group had a higher score for response efficacy compared to those from White and Asian ethnic groups. 

Self-efficacy 

Self-efficacy was measured by asking respondents the extent to which they agreed with the statement: ‘I am capable of taking action to prepare for emergencies/disasters that might affect my local area’. Higher scores reflected higher levels of self-efficacy. Lower scores reflected lower levels of self-efficacy.

Identifying as female was associated with a lower score for self-efficacy compared to those who identified as male.

Being aged 65+ was associated with a lower score for self-efficacy compared to those aged 45-54 and 55-64. 

Belonging to social grade DE was associated with lower scores for self-efficacy compared to those belonging to social grade AB, C1 and C2. 

Respondents from an Asian ethnic group had a lower score for self-efficacy compared to respondents from White and Black ethnic groups.

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with lower scores for self-efficacy.

Perceived importance of preparing for disasters or emergencies

Perceived importance of emergency preparedness was measured by asking respondents the extent to which they agreed with the statement: ‘It is important to be prepared for emergencies/disasters that are unlikely to happen’. Higher scores reflected higher levels of perceived importance. Lower scores reflected lower levels of perceived importance.

Being aged 25-34 was associated with higher scores for perceived importance of preparing for emergencies compared to those aged 18-24 and 55-64.

Belonging to a White ethnic group was associated with lower scores for perceived importance of preparing for emergencies compared to those belonging to Asian and Black ethnic groups.

Having children in the household was associated with higher scores for perceived importance of preparing for emergencies.

Perceived household preparedness for emergencies

Perceived household preparedness was measured by asking respondents: ‘How prepared, if at all, do you feel your household is for an emergency/disaster?’. Higher scores reflected higher perceived preparedness. Lower scores reflected lower perceived preparedness. 

Identifying as female was associated with lower scores for perceived household preparedness in comparison to those identifying as male. 

Being aged 65+ was associated with higher scores for perceived household preparedness compared to those aged 35-44 and 45-54.

Perceived responsibility for preparing for emergencies

Perceived responsibility of emergency preparedness was measured by asking respondents the extent to which they agreed with the statement: ‘How much responsibility, if any, do you think each of the following should have for preparing for emergencies/disasters that could affect your local area?’ (Self OR External organisations). Higher scores reflected higher levels of perceived responsibility. Lower scores reflected lower levels of perceived responsibility.

Self

Being aged 18-24 was associated with lower scores for perceived self-responsibility for preparing for emergencies compared to respondents aged 25-34 and 35-44. This was also the case for those aged 65+, who had lower scores for perceived self-responsibility for preparing for emergencies when compared to those aged 25-34 and 35-44.

Belonging to social grade C1 was associated with lower scores for perceived self-responsibility for preparing for emergencies compared to those belonging to social grade AB and C2.

Respondents from a Black ethnic group had a higher score for perceived self-responsibility for preparing for emergencies compared to those from White, Asian, Mixed and Other ethnic groups.

Having children in the household was associated with higher scores for perceived self-responsibility for preparing for emergencies.

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with lower scores for perceived self-responsibility for preparing for emergencies.

External organisations

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived responsibility of external organisations for preparing for emergencies compared to respondents who identified as male.

Being aged 65+ was associated with higher scores for perceived responsibility of external organisations for preparing for emergencies compared to those aged 18-24, 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54. 

Belonging to social grade AB was associated with higher scores for perceived responsibility of external organisations for preparing for emergencies compared to those belonging to social grade DE. 

Respondents from a Black ethnic group had a higher score for perceived responsibility of external organisations for preparing for emergencies compared to those from White, Asian, Mixed and Other ethnic groups. Respondents from an Asian ethnic group also had positive associations for perceived responsibility of external organisations for preparing for emergencies compared to those from a White ethnic group. 

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived responsibility of external organisations for preparing for emergencies.

Perceived household resilience for power cuts

Perceived household resilience was measured by asking respondents: ‘Thinking about a power cut that also impacts your gas and water supply… For how long do you think you would be able to meet the basic needs of you and your household before needing supplies or outside help (such as food, water or medical support from friends/family or the authorities)?’. Responses were measured in terms of days (less than 1 day, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, 5 days, 6 days, 7 days or more). Higher perceived household resilience reflected a higher number of days where respondents could meet their basic needs without outside help. Lower perceived household resilience reflected a lower number of days where respondents could meet their basic needs without outside help.

Respondents who identified as female were less likely to report higher perceived household resilience than respondents who identified as male. 

18-24 and 25-34 year olds were more likely to report higher perceived household resilience than those aged 35-44. 18-24 year olds were also more likely to report higher perceived household resilience compared to those aged 35-44 and 65+. 

Respondents from a White ethnic group were more likely to report higher perceived household resilience compared to respondents from an Asian ethnic group.

Information and communication

Seeing or hearing advice in the last 12 months 

Respondents were asked if they had seen or heard advice related to actions they could take to be more prepared for emergencies or disasters in the last 12 months (specific to the UK). 

Respondents who identified as female were less likely to report seeing or hearing advice compared to respondents who identified as male.

Respondents in the 65+ age group were less likely to report seeing or hearing advice than those in all other age categories (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64). This was in contrast to those aged 18-24, who were more likely to report seeing or hearing advice than those aged 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64.

Respondents belonging to social grade AB were more likely to report seeing or hearing advice than all other social grade groups (C1, C2, DE). Respondents from social grade C1 were less likely to report seeing or hearing advice than those from social grade C2. 

Respondents from a White ethnic group were less likely to report seeing or hearing advice than respondents from Mixed and Black ethnic groups. Respondents from an Asian ethnic group were less likely to report seeing or hearing advice when compared to individuals from Mixed and Black ethnic groups.

Respondents who lived alone were more likely to report seeing or hearing advice.

Respondents with children in their household were more likely to report seeing or hearing advice.

How informed people feel about emergency plans in the UK

Respondents were asked the question: ‘How much do you know about what plans are in place in the UK to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters’. Higher scores reflected respondents feeling more informed. Lower scores reflected respondents feeling less informed. 

Identifying as female or in another way was associated with lower scores for how informed respondents felt about UK plans compared to respondents who identified as male. 

Being aged 65+ or 55-64 was associated with lower scores for how informed respondents felt about UK plans compared to all other age groups (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54).

Belonging to social grade AB was associated with higher scores for how informed respondents felt about UK plans compared to all other social grade groups (C1, C2, DE). This was also the case for respondents from social grade C2 compared to respondents from social grade C1. 

Respondents from a Black ethnic group had positive associations and higher scores for how informed they felt about UK plans compared to respondents from White, Asian and Other ethnic groups.

Having children in the household was associated with higher scores for how informed respondents felt about UK plans. 

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with lower scores for how informed respondents felt about UK plans.

Perceived importance of the government sharing information on emergency plans

Respondents were asked how important they felt it was for the government to share information with the public about what plans are in place to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters. Higher scores reflected higher levels of perceived importance. Lower scores reflected lower levels of perceived importance. 

Identifying as female was associated with higher scores for perceived importance of the government sharing what plans are in place to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters compared to those who identified as male. 

Being aged 18-24 was associated with lower scores for perceived importance of the government sharing plans to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters compared to all other age groups (25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+). Additionally, being aged 55-64 was associated with higher scores for perceived importance of the government shar/ing plans to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters (compared to those aged 25-34 and 35-44) as was being aged 65+ (in comparison to those aged 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54). Being aged 25-34 was associated with lower scores for perceived importance of the government sharing plans to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters (compared to those aged 45-54), as was being aged 35-44 (in comparison to those aged 45-54). 

Belonging to social grade DE was associated with lower scores for perceived importance of the government sharing plans to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters compared to respondents belonging to social grade AB and C1.

Respondents from a Black ethnic group had positive associations (i.e., higher scores) for perceived importance of the government sharing plans to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters in comparison to those from White and Asian ethnic groups. 

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived importance of the government sharing plans to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters. 

Perceived importance of the government sharing advice for the public on preparing for emergencies

Respondents were asked how important they felt it was for the government to share information related to what the public could do to be more prepared for large-scale emergencies/disasters. Higher scores reflected higher levels of perceived importance. Lower scores reflected lower levels of perceived importance.

Identifying as female was associated with increased scores for perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness compared to those who identified as male. 

Being aged 65+ was associated with higher scores for perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness compared to those aged 18-24, 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54. Conversely, being aged 18-24 was also associated with lower scores for perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness compared to those aged 45-54 and 55-64. Being aged 55-64 was associated with higher scores for perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness compared to those aged 25-34 and 35-44, and being aged 45-54 was associated with higher scores compared to those aged 25-34 and 35-44. 

Belonging to social grade DE was associated with lower scores for perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness compared to respondents belonging to social grade AB and C1.

Respondents from a Black ethnic group had positive associations (i.e., higher scores) for perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness compared to respondents from White and Asian ethnic groups. 

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness.

Preparedness actions and supplies

Overall preparedness actions

A total score (referred to as overall preparedness actions) was calculated to identify the number of preparedness behaviours completed (e.g., making a household plan) and the number of preparedness-related items possessed (e.g., a torch powered by battery, solar or wind-up) by respondents. Scores ranged between 0 and 28 (with a maximum possible score of 28). A full list of items can be found in the annexes.

Being aged 55+ was associated with having completed a greater number of overall preparedness actions compared to respondents from the 18-24, 25-34 and 45-54 age groups. Being aged 65+ was associated with having completed a higher number of overall preparedness actions compared to respondents from the 55-64 age group, as was being aged 45-54 in comparison to those aged 35-44.

Belonging to social grade DE was associated with completing a lower number of overall preparedness actions compared to respondents belonging to social grade AB, C1 and C2. 

Living with at least one other person was associated with completing a greater number of overall preparedness actions.

Number of preparedness-related items people possessed

The total number of preparedness-related items possessed by individuals was calculated. Scores ranged between 0 and 16 (with a maximum possible score of 16). A full list of items can be found in Annex 2.

Being aged 45-54, 55-64 or 65+ was associated with possessing a higher number of preparedness items compared to those aged 18-24, 25-34 and 35-44. Respondents aged between 55-64 and 65+ also had a higher score for item possession when compared to respondents aged 45-54. Inclusion in the 65+ age group was also associated with possessing a higher number of preparedness items (compared to those in the 55-64 age group).  

Respondents belonging to social grade DE had a lower number of items for the number of preparedness items possessed compared to respondents belonging to social grade AB, C1 and C2. 

Belonging to an Asian ethnic group was associated with possessing a lower number of preparedness items compared to respondents belonging to a White ethnic group.

Living with at least one other person was associated with possessing a higher number of preparedness items. 

Number of preparedness behaviours completed

The total number of preparedness related behaviours completed by individuals was calculated. Scores ranged between 0 and 12 (with a maximum possible score of 12). A full list of behaviours can be found in Annex 3. 

Identifying as female was associated with the completion of a lower number of preparedness behaviours compared to respondents who identified as male.

Being aged between 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64 was associated with completing a lower number of preparedness behaviours compared to those aged 18-24 and 25-34.

Respondents belonging to social grade DE had a lower number of behaviours completed compared to those from social grade AB.

Belonging to a Black ethnic group was associated with the completion of a higher number of preparedness behaviours compared to those belonging to White, Asian, Mixed and Other ethnic groups. 

Barriers to preparedness

To reduce the number of statistical tests performed on the data, responses to the question ‘Which, if any, of the following might prevent you from taking further steps to prepare for emergencies/disasters’ were grouped conceptually. It is possible to group the barriers in multiple ways, but for the purposes of this analysis the following groups were selected:

• Knowledge (I don’t know enough about actions I can take)
• Motivational/attitudinal (I might not be involved in an emergency - I don’t want to think about emergencies as I find it worrying - I don’t need to as it would be provided by authorities if needed - I am not willing to spend money)
• Financial (I do not have enough money)
• Logistical (I don’t have space - I don’t want products to go out of date - I don’t have time)
• Disability/health (I have a disability or health condition that makes it difficult / impossible for me to prepare for emergencies)

Knowledge 

Respondents who identified as female were more likely to report barriers related to knowledge compared to respondents who identified as male.

Respondents from social grade C1 were more likely to report barriers related to knowledge compared to respondents from social grade C2 and DE.

Respondents with children in their household were less likely to report barriers related to knowledge. 

Motivational/attitudinal

Respondents aged 18-24 were more likely to report motivational or attitudinal barriers compared to respondents aged 35-44, 45-54, 55-64 and 65+. Respondents aged 25-34 and 35-44 were more likely to report motivational or attitudinal barriers compared to those aged 45-54, 55-64 and 65+.

Financial 

Respondents who identified as female were more likely to report financial barriers than respondents who identified as male. 

Respondents aged 55-64 and 65+ were less likely to report financial barriers than all other age groups (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54). Respondents aged 65+ were less likely to report financial barriers than those aged 55-64.

Respondents belonging to social grade AB were less likely to report financial barriers than all other social grade groups (C1, C2, DE). Respondents belonging to social grade DE were more likely to report financial barriers than those in social grade C1. 

Respondents from a White ethnic group were more likely to report financial barriers than those from an Asian ethnic group. 

Respondents who lived alone were more likely to report financial barriers. 

Respondents with a disability or chronic health condition were more likely to report financial barriers. 

Logistical 

Respondents belonging to social grade C1 were more likely to report logistical barriers than those belonging to social grade C2 and DE.

Respondents from a Black ethnic group were less likely to report logistical barriers compared to those from White and Asian ethnic groups.  

Respondents with a disability or chronic health condition were less likely to report logistical barriers. 

Disability/health

Respondents belonging to social grade DE were more likely to report disability/health barriers compared to all other social grade groups (AB, C1, C2). 

Respondents with a disability or chronic health condition were more likely to report disability/health barriers. 

Local and community 

Willingness to volunteer

Respondents were asked if they would be willing to volunteer in some way to help their neighbourhood to recover from an emergency or disaster. 

Being aged 65+ was associated with higher scores for willingness to volunteer compared to those aged 45-54 and 55-64. 

Belonging to social grade AB was associated with lower scores for willingness to volunteer compared to all other social grade groups (C1, C2, DE). This was also the case for respondents from social grade C1 and C2 compared to respondents from social grade DE. 

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with higher scores for willingness to volunteer. 

Priority service register awareness

Respondents were asked whether they were aware of the priority service register. 

Respondents in the 65+ age group were more likely to be aware of the priority service register than all other age groups (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64). Respondents in the 18-24 age group were less likely to be aware of the priority service register than all other age groups (25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+).

Respondents belonging to a White ethnic group were more likely to be aware of the priority service register than those belonging to an Asian ethnic group. 

Respondents who reported having a disability or chronic health condition were more likely to report awareness of the priority service register.

Having neighbours who could need support

Respondents were asked: ‘Do you have any neighbours you think could need additional support from others during an emergency or disaster’. 

Respondents from social grade AB were more likely to report having neighbours who may need support than those from social grade DE.

Respondents with a disability or chronic health condition were more likely to report having neighbours who may need support.

Previously helping neighbours who needed support

Respondents were asked whether they had previously provided support to a neighbour in a previous emergency or disaster situation. 

Respondents aged 65+ were less likely to have previously provided support to neighbours compared to respondents aged between 25-34.

Respondents from social grade AB were more likely to have previously provided support to neighbours compared to those from all other social grade groups (C1, C2, DE). This was also the case for respondents from social grade C1 compared to social grade DE. 

Respondents from a Black ethnic group were more likely to have previously provided support to neighbours compared to those from an Other ethnic group. 

Respondents who lived alone were less likely to have previously provided support to neighbours.

Respondents who had children in their household or had a disability or chronic health condition were more likely to have previously provided support to neighbours. 

Summary of characteristics with multiple associations

Identifying as female was associated with:

• higher scores for anticipated likelihood of emergencies/disasters compared to respondents who identified as male
• higher scores for perceived likelihood in the next two years of adverse weather and air quality, health or biological, disruption to utilities and human instigated incidents compared to respondents who identified as male
• higher scores for perceived impact of an environmental hazard, a health or biological or a disruption to utilities incident compared to respondents who identified as male
• a lower score for self-efficacy (perceived capability for preparing for emergencies) compared to those who identified as male
• lower scores for perceived household preparedness in comparison to those identifying as male
• higher scores for perceived responsibility of external organisations for preparing for emergencies compared to respondents who identified as male
• lower scores for perceived household resilience during a power cut affecting gas and water supply compared to respondents who identified as male
• being less likely to report seeing or hearing preparedness advice in last 12 months compared to respondents who identified as male
• lower scores for how informed respondents felt about UK plans compared to respondents who identified as male
• higher scores for perceived importance of the government sharing what plans are in place to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters and perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness compared to those who identified as male
• the completion of a lower number of preparedness behaviours and being more likely to report barriers related to knowledge and finance compared to respondents who identified as male

Being aged 65+ was associated with:

• lower scores for perceived likelihood of human instigated incidents, adverse weather and air quality incidents, environmental hazards, health or biological incidents and disruption to utilities incidents compared to younger age groups (specific groups varied depending on risk, see main results)
• lower scores for perceived impact of human instigated incidents, adverse weather and air quality incidents, environmental hazards and health or biological incidents compared to younger age groups (specific groups varied depending on risk, see main results)
• lower scores for self-efficacy (perceived capability for preparing for emergencies) compared to those in age groups between 45-64
• higher scores for perceived household preparedness compared to those in age groups between 35-54
• higher scores for perceived responsibility of external organisations for preparing for emergencies compared to those in age groups between 18-54 
• lower scores for perceived household resilience during a power cut affecting gas and water supply compared to those aged 18-24
• being less likely to report seeing or hearing preparedness advice in last 12 months than those in all other age groups (18-64)
• lower scores for how informed respondents felt about UK plans compared to those in age groups between 18-54
• higher scores for perceived importance of the government sharing plans to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters compared to those aged 18-24
• higher scores for perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness compared to those in age groups between 18-54
• having completed a higher number of overall preparedness actions compared to respondents from the 55-64 age group
• higher scores for item possession when compared to respondents in age groups between 45-64
• a lower likelihood of reporting attitudinal or financial barriers compared to younger age groups (specific groups varied depending on barrier, see main results).
• higher scores for willingness to volunteer to help recovery efforts compared to those in age groups between 45-64 
• being more likely to be aware of the priority service register compared to all other age groups (18-64)
• being less likely to have previously provided support to neighbours in a previous emergency or disaster situation compared to respondents aged between 25-34

Having a disability or chronic health condition was associated with:

• higher scores for perceived likelihood of human instigated incidents, adverse weather and air quality incidents, health or biological incidents and disruption to utilities incidents
• higher scores for perceived impact of adverse weather and air quality incidents, health or biological incidents and disruption to utilities incidents
• lower scores for self-efficacy (perceived capability for preparing for emergencies)
• lower scores for perceived self-responsibility for preparing for emergencies 
• higher scores for perceived responsibility of external organisations for preparing for emergencies
• lower scores for how informed respondents felt about UK plans
• higher scores for perceived importance of the government sharing plans to deal with large-scale emergencies/disasters
• higher scores for perceived importance of the government providing information related to preparedness
• a higher likelihood of reporting financial or disability/health barriers and a lower likelihood of reporting logistical barriers
• higher scores for willingness to volunteer to help with recovery efforts 
• being more likely to be aware of the priority service register
• being more likely to report having neighbours who may need support
• being more likely to have previously provided support to neighbours in a previous emergency or disaster situation

Annex 1: Analysis 

Multiple regression analysis was performed for each outcome variable, with the specific type of regression determined by the type of outcome variable (i.e., linear, ordinal, binary). Sociodemographic predictor variables were identical for each analysis: 

• Gender identity (Male, Female, I identify in another way)
• Age (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+)
• Social grade (AB, C1, C2, DE)
• Ethnicity (White, Mixed, Asian, Black, Other)
• Household (Single, Other) 
• Children in household (Yes, No)
• Disability or chronic health condition status (Yes, No)

Social grade is a socio-economic classification developed by the Market Research Society (MRS) which groups individuals based on the occupation and employment status of their household Chief Income Earner (the individual who earns (or earned) the highest salary). The Office for National Statistics (ONS, for England and Wales) and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA, Northern Ireland) produce an approximate count of people in each social grade using data from their censuses, however, at the time of this survey, no equivalent information was available for Scotland. On the advice of Scottish analysts, Savanta assigned respondents in Scotland to a social grade based on their personal occupation and employment activity.  Further information is available on request. 

For analyses involving composite variables (e.g., overall preparedness actions), items or behaviours were only included in totals where all respondents were asked about the item or behaviour (e.g., items related to children or other household members were not included in the total, as this may not apply to all respondents). A sensitivity analysis was performed to test a proportional outcome (i.e., totals expressed as a % of all items asked). Significant sociodemographic predictors were identical to the original model, and as such, results are not reported here.

Annex 2: Household preparedness items included in calculation of totals

SOURCE: Q25. Which of the following items (if any) do you have at home?

• FM radio powered by battery, solar or wind-up (not including a car or mobile phone radio)
• Torch powered by battery, solar or wind-up (not including a torch on a mobile phone)
• Spare batteries for radio/torch
• A first aid kit (or a selection of first aid items stored separately)
• Supplies of any essential medication that will last you at least 7 days
• A smoke detector
• A carbon monoxide detector
• A water/rain butt outside
• Gas or paraffin heater for indoor use (that does not require electricity/batteries) or a wood-burning stove or fireplace
• Some cash (£10 or more per person living in the household)

SOURCE: Q26. Which of the following items, if any, do you have at home?

• Non-perishable food (food that can be stored in a cupboard rather than a fridge) that doesn’t require cooking and would last your household approximately 3 days
• Fruit/vegetables that you grow yourself
• Animals/birds you keep for milk/eggs
• Camping stove
• Hand sanitiser
• Wet wipes

Bottled water was not included in the preparedness items due to concerns surrounding the accuracy of responses received in the 2025 survey, as indicated in the headline findings report. 

Annex 3: Preparedness behaviours included in calculation of totals

SOURCE: Q23. Do you currently have any of the following?

• A household plan, one that you either create yourself or by using a template downloaded from a website e.g. from GOV.UK/Prepare. This would contain up-to-date information such as radio station frequencies, important phone numbers, meeting points for family/friends or a list of items you might need to take if you needed to leave your home quickly. 
• Some essential items that you would need to take if you had to leave your home quickly, e.g. copies of important documents such as birth certificates, insurance information, essential medication, spare phone charger, spare glasses. These would be stored in one place, such as in a cupboard or in a ‘grab bag’. 
• Some essential items needed for power cuts (e.g. torches, radio, important phone numbers) stored in one place, such as in a cupboard. 
• Important phone numbers or information (e.g. numbers of emergency contacts, your child’s school, insurance company) written down on paper or in hard copy (i.e. not on an electronic device).
• A meeting point that you have agreed with family/friends for a situation where you are unable to contact them (such as when phones/mobiles/internet are not working).

SOURCE: Q24a. Please select as many of the following statements that apply to you. I am currently…

• a member of a neighbourhood instant messaging group (e.g. Whatsapp group) or other closed social media group for your building, street or neighbourhood (this can include school/nursery groups if local). 
• a member of a community/volunteer group or social club that is active in emergency preparedness, response or recovery. 
• signed up for flood alerts, weather alerts or other warnings. 
• protecting one or more of my most important accounts (such as email, banking, social media and online shopping) with 2-step verification. (This is where you are sent a PIN or code, often by SMS or email, before you can log in). 
• aware of how to turn off one or more of the following: water, electric or gas supplies.

SOURCE: Q24b. Have you done any of the following, in the last 12 months?

• Had at least one conversation with someone outside your immediate household about preparing for emergencies.
• Completed a first aid course or a refresher course.