CORE project developed a toolkit for the execution of safety culture measurement campaign, supporting the investigation in a geographic community meant as group of individuals brought together by common ties such as shared access to resources and services and shared cultures, beliefs and attitudes, which can relate to different spatial scales. The combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was considered crucial to the significance of the results (Churruca et al., 2021), implementing a predetermined three-phase approach, consisting of three tools (techniques) based on a common framework of indicators, specifically adapted for each of three intended target groups: citizens, public organizations directly involved in Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and other public institutions indirectly involved in DRM. Citizens include individuals and civil society organizations; public servants belong to authorities responsible of direct and indirect provision of services that might affect the probability or the extent of the consequences of a disastrous event (i.e., social services, territorial planning, infrastructure management); practitioners are members of public authorities or professionals in volunteering association responsible of preparedness, early warning, first response and reaction.

Proposed methodology consists of three techniques/tools specifically tailored for each intended target group (Duca et al., 2024). The measurement campaign shall always rely on the combined use of all the tools, according a predetermined three steps approach. First step is an initial collection of quantitative data, it consists of large scale survey for quick and not expensive data gathering from a large panel/population, unveiling the high-level traits of the safety culture in the investigated community. Questionnaire for citizens includes 29 questions, questionnaire for public servants consists of 35 questions and the one for practitioners presents 39 items. Each question is formulated in order to transversally provide insights on one of the elements and one of the dimensions identified. Then the second step implements a qualitative data collection and analysis, with semi-structured interviews. Interviews support the deeper understanding of the rationale behind the results from the large-scale survey, highlighting mechanisms, causes, effects and interrelations among the issues emerged from the survey. They provide an insight of the elements constituting the positive and negative aspects of safety culture in a community and is thus based on the eight elements previously mentioned. Finally the third, qualitative, step consists of focus groups, aimed at building insights into a diversity of perspectives, collective sense-making, and the opportunity to observe culture in action. Focus groups help the unveiling of unclear or misunderstood dynamics among the actors/groups and create a shared space that is a foundation stone for future improvements paths.

The toolkit includes a detailed guidance on the execution of each step, in order to ensure data validity and relevance in the view of policy making and improved preparedness to disasters. Each data collection instrument was designed in a specific version for each category; the explanation of the methodology, question sets, and instructions for the correct use of each instrument are part of a replicable toolkit. The tools have been designed in English and then translated in local languages, namely in Italian for what concerns the study presented in this article (CORE Project, 2023) (see Figure 1).

The CORE safety culture measurement methodology was applied to conduct a comparative analysis of safety culture in six European regions; each region considered a specific type of event, characterizing the tool items with respect to the specific case. The following regions were used: Campania and Veneto in Italy (flood), Alsace in France (earthquake), Bavaria in Germany (terrorist attack), Great Manchester in United Kingdom (terrorist attack) and Sweden (wildfire—whole Country, given the population density). The online survey was conducted between June and September 2023. Interviews were conducted in September and October 2023, and focus groups were held in November and December 2023. The online survey was initially administered to individuals through direct contact, and data collection subsequently also utilized social media to reach as many participants as possible. For the citizen target group, attention was paid to disseminating links in forums where there would be a broad representation of people from diverse social groups. Participants in other activities were selected to represent the social diversity of the study area as closely as possible and invited through direct contact. All activities were conducted in the native language, translating and appropriately adapting the standard instruments from English. The focus group was conducted by bringing together professionals from the Civil Protection Mechanism and representatives of the entities and functions indirectly involved in DRR activities.

Italy was the country with the highest number of participants in all phases of data collection. The online survey also included people from regions outside the study, and their data were included in the overall analyses and treated as “other regions” in the comparative analyses. Flooding was explicitly mentioned as a reference event in all data collection activities to facilitate understanding the questions and the development of examples or evidence.

The two regions examined and compared have been selected for their rather significant sociocultural difference with respect to the main risks faced. Campania is exposed simultaneously to major volcanic (Vesuvius, Campi Flegrei), seismic, hydrogeological and landslide risks in densely populated urban areas such as Naples and its hinterland, while Veneto is dominated by flood and hydro-meteorological risk (riverine floods, pluvial floods, “aqua alta” in the Venetian lagoon) and by climate-change-driven intensification of rainfall and sea-level rise. For what concerns the socio-economic aspect Campania and Veneto sit at opposite ends of Italy’s long-standing North–South socio-economic divide, with marked differences in income, employment and social conditions: Veneto is among the high-income “North-East & Centre” regions, while Campania is grouped with the most disadvantaged southern European regions. Moreover, Campania and Veneto differ markedly in urban form: Campania is dominated by a very dense, often irregular coastal metropolis around Naples, while Veneto is characterised by a more diffuse, polycentric network of medium-sized cities and towns. In Campania, hyper-dense, often irregular coastal urbanisation and high levels of informal construction complicate risk management for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and hydro-geological hazards, while in Veneto, dispersed polycentric urbanisation requires region-wide coordination of land-use and mobility policies but offers multiple centres for services and governance, which can support distributed adaptation strategies (e.g., along river basins and flood-prone corridors). The heterogeneity of regional specificities provided the necessary conditions to test reliability and sensitivity of the toolkit for the Safety Culture measurement campaign.

The study did not include formal statistical (inferential) analysis because the overall design, aims, and data characteristics were qualitative-dominant and exploratory rather than hypothesis-testing or generalizable in a statistical sense. The primary objective was to understand meanings, perceptions, and experiences in depth, not to test predefined hypotheses or estimate population parameters, which are the typical purposes of statistical analysis. Accordingly, the study was conceptualized as a mixed-methods design with a qualitative core, where the survey served mainly as a mapping and framing tool for subsequent interviews and focus groups.

It is important to note that, given the unique nature of the broader research project in which the safety culture analysis was conducted, we sought to reach a panel of participants as representative as possible of the actual demographic composition of the areas analyzed. However, given the voluntary nature of participation, it is likely that the segment of people sensitive to the proposed topic may be overrepresented. Another aspect to consider is that the activity carried out had the aim, among other things, of validating the developed analysis method, representing a sort of small-scale prototype study; a more extensive study would likely produce more markedly defined results (see Table 1).

As positive aspects of safety culture pattern in investigated communities, the analysis revealed a growing awareness across all groups of the fundamental need for cooperation—both within each group and across the three stakeholder categories considered. This shared understanding underscores the interdependence of actors in achieving collective resilience and effective coordination. A common thread emerging in all groups is the strong propensity to take an active role in prevention and preparedness. Rather than relying solely on external intervention, these groups show initiative and a willingness to contribute proactively to reducing risks and mitigating potential impacts. This is complemented by a (self-attributed) notable capacity for adaptation and autonomous action in times of emergency, suggesting an underlying flexibility and resourcefulness. At the same time, participants demonstrate a realistic awareness of the finiteness of available resources. This consciousness translates into more measured demands and expectations, reflecting a pragmatic understanding of institutional and material limitations. Respect for established rules also appears as a collectively recognized value: citizens, in particular, express a strong expectation that violations should be appropriately sanctioned—consistently and in proportion to their severity. Moreover, citizens display a clear preference for receiving information and communication from authoritative and trustworthy sources, which enhances credibility and compliance during critical situations. Finally, it emerges that direct or indirect experience of a risk event significantly heightens citizens’ awareness of vulnerability and risk, sometimes fostering greater attentiveness and willingness to engage in protective behaviors.

Negative aspects emerged from the analysis show persistent gap between the commitment demonstrated by institutional actors in information and communication activities and the actual extent to which citizens engage with or utilize information disseminated through official channels. This disconnect undermines the effectiveness of public communication strategies and indicates a need to better align institutional efforts with citizens’ preferred information practices and trust dynamics. A second critical issue concerns the discontinuity and fragmentation of initiatives and programs targeting both citizens and professionals who are indirectly involved in Civil Protection activities. Such inconsistency hampers the creation of a coherent and sustained culture of prevention, limiting the long-term impact of communication and training efforts. Among citizens, there is evident uncertainty about the most appropriate actions to take in the face of current challenges or emergencies. This often coincides with uneven levels of awareness regarding the potential negative consequences their individual actions may have on others, leading to inconsistent or counterproductive behaviors. These dynamics are further compounded by a sense of disenchantment and fatigue. Limited resources have fostered feelings of resignation and distrust toward collective capacity for improvement, while bureaucracy is often perceived as an obstacle rather than a support mechanism. This creates a climate where confidence in institutions diminishes, and motivation to participate collectively is weakened. Additionally, enforcement practices appear inconsistent: in some cases, rules are applied strictly and transparently, while in others, enforcement is lax or perceived as arbitrary. Such variability contributes to perceptions of unfairness and reduces public confidence in governance systems. Citizens also face difficulties in translating their general perception of risk into concrete preventive measures or adaptive behaviors during emergencies. Even when awareness of risk is present, the capability to act appropriately remains fragmented. Compounding this challenge is the high likelihood that citizens seeking risk-related information—especially during ongoing events or early warning phases—will rely on non-institutional or informal communication channels rather than verified official sources. Finally, planning and policy initiatives often fail to adequately consider the specific needs and characteristics of vulnerable populations. This gap highlights an important shortcoming in inclusivity and accessibility within current risk communication and preparedness strategies (see Figure 2).

The study revealed that citizens are generally aware of the risks surrounding them and recognize the importance of prevention because they consider disasters an integral aspect of life in a given area (information and behavior related to safety—psychological and behavioral dimensions). Citizens tend to have an ambivalent attitude toward institutions, expecting a certain degree of trust in information and local care (information and flexibility—psychological dimension) but believing them, due to bureaucratic rigidity and a lack of resources, to be incapable of being effective (behavior related to safety—behavioral and situational dimension) and responding adequately to requests (reporting—situational dimension). The experience of a critical event appears to increase risk sensitivity (risk perception—psychological dimension) but does not lead to a genuine increase in knowledge or improved ability to adopt safe behaviors for themselves and others (learning—situational and behavioral dimension). In Veneto, there is a greater expectation regarding compliance with rules and the importance of proper behavior for everyone’s safety (justice and fairness, flexibility—psychological dimension), although in both regions there is a moderate distrust of the widespread sense of collective responsibility (justice and fairness, flexibility, behavioral dimension). In Campania, citizens stand out for their proactiveness in seeking information (information and learning—behavioral dimension) but at the same time show disenchantment with the institutions’ ability to effectively manage risk (justice and fairness—psychological dimension) and prevent disasters with adequate territorial control (justice and fairness—situational dimension). For all, official communication is lacking in clarity and completeness (information—situational dimension), pushing Campanian citizens in particular to turn to local associations for information. In all of them, an ambiguous attitude emerges according to which the safety of a territory depends on the correct behavior of citizens (attitude towards safety—behavioral dimension) but at the same time it is believed that the safety of citizens is primarily the responsibility of the institutions (psychological dimension), which must constantly and coherently address risks (see Figures 3, 4).

Civil Protection practitioners report the lack of a structured system for exchanging information and data between different organizations (information—situational dimension). Internally, the use of informal messaging channels often fills the gaps in data exchange (information—behavioral dimension), while information and training on the risks inherent in the area in which they operate are generally more satisfactory. At the local level, citizen reports are appreciated for the opportunity to raise awareness of the specific characteristics and problems of the area and its citizens (reporting—psychological aspect), but the difficulty of structuralizing the management of both the reports and the information necessary for their duties is noted (information and reporting—situational dimension). Institutions and hierarchical structures are seen as obstacles to effective cooperation due to bureaucratic red tape (flexibility and risk perception—behavioral dimension). Compliance with rules is perceived as essential both in prevention and during critical incidents, but the need to be able to make accurate assessments is recognized when a lack of resources or the novelty of a situation requires decisions to be made, even by bending the rules to be effective (safety-related behavior—behavioral aspect). There is evidence of difficulty in aligning with other actors/agencies in correctly assessing or understanding the extent of risks and the severity of alarms and pre-alarms (risk perception—psychological and situational dimension). Everyone reports the need to improve information campaigns (information—behavioral and situational dimension). Internally, in general, an open discussion of mistakes and lessons learned is promoted internally (justice and equity); Plans and procedures are being revised in accordance with the law, but the progress that could be achieved from past experiences is perceived as slow and limited, due to the lack of systemic approaches or constructive processes for analyzing lessons learned across the board (learning—situational dimension). In Veneto, there is a growing awareness of the harmfulness of political administrators’ instrumental use of the security topic, highlighting the urgent need to separate investment and risk prevention priorities from politics (attitude toward security and risk perception—situational dimension). In Campania, concern is emerging over the inefficient use of limited available resources (flexibility and risk perception—situational dimension) and the lack of human resources (see Figures 5, 6).

Public sector personnel indirectly involved in Civil Protection report the lack of a permanent system for cooperation with all the high-level local bodies directly and indirectly involved in DRR (information, attitudes toward safety—situational dimension). Internally, cooperation is facilitated by the spontaneous sharing of knowledge and responsibilities among peers, adopting private messaging channels for the exchange of information (information—behavioral dimension). The management of citizen reports is seen as potentially useful but burdensome to manage, especially compared to feedback reporting (situational and psychological dimension). Open and transparent dialogue among peers is appreciated, in Veneto even at higher hierarchically levels, with greater fears of negative repercussions in Campania (justice and equity—behavioral dimension). Institutions implement initiatives that are sometimes proudly reported, sometimes considered sporadic, to inform citizens (information, learning—situational dimension). However, citizens are generally perceived as having little awareness of the extent of the risks to which they are exposed (risk perception—psychological dimension) and not always capable of adopting appropriate behaviors, including compliance with rules (flexibility, safety-related behaviors—behavioral dimension). Social services representatives in both regions believe that the needs of vulnerable citizens, both in terms of information/communication addressed to them and in considering their needs in planning, are insufficiently considered (flexibility—situational and psychological dimension). Technical staff in Veneto believe they have a good understanding of public safety risks (risk perception—psychological aspect), while in Campania, there is an expectation that training should be geared more toward specific problems rather than fulfilling formal obligations (risk perception—situational dimension). In both regions, this group also believes that lessons learned from past events are not being sufficiently capitalized upon, while noting that improvements always occur (learning—situational dimension); the size and complexity of the specific community can impact the capacity for collective improvement (see Figures 7, 8).