It is a summer of extremes in Europe. Heat and drought cost human lives, destroy crops, and cause immense economic damage.
However, such events—which are still currently extraordinary—also carry a possibility for change: They can trigger a so-called “opportunity window.” In these phases of high attention, it becomes possible to initiate decisive changes toward greater climate protection and adaptation.
This post is part of the series “Studies of the month” in cooperation with klimafakten.de, where this post can be read in German. In the series, members of the climate communication lab (PI: Prof. Dr. Michael Brüggemann) share their expertise on noteworthy recent studies.
Which questions do the studies address?
Niall McLoughlin et al. (2023) investigate how climate communication can respond to heatwaves in a targeted way so that people better understand risks and adopt preventive and protective behaviors.
Marthe Linda Kirs Wens et al. (2026) pool findings from international drought research to highlight what is required on an institutional level to prevent and better manage drought risks over the long term.
Valeria Di Fant et al. (2026) explore the question of how opportunity windows can be systematically identified and used to drive societal and political climate adaptation forward.
What methodology was used, and why is it reliable?
McLoughlin et al. (2023) base their findings on a survey of experts from the research field of hydrology (water science). The specialised knowledge of these practitioners and academic researchers allows for valid conclusions regarding effective risk communication.
The work by Wens et al. (2026) is a well-founded review study. The authors utilise their years of expertise in the field to summarise key findings on heat communication and drought prevention.
Di Fant et al. (2026) combined theoretical approaches from risk management with systematic causal analysis based on a wide range of data (legislative texts, media reports, scientific studies, etc.). In doing so, they built on their expertise to identify and analyze 34 past, present, and future opportunity windows.
All works were reviewed as usual in renowned academic journals following the peer-review process, which guarantees high quality.
What are the key findings, and why are they relevant for climate communication?
Reframing heat risks and training trusted figures
Heat must no longer be portrayed in the media as a reason for joy or purely as “swimming weather.” The media must communicate heat as a health risk so that citizens anchor it as such in their consciousness (McLoughlin et al., 2023). Furthermore, communication works best when a focus on risks is linked with concrete self-efficacy.
This requires specifically trained intermediaries, such as care staff, doctors, or weather presenters. As McLoughlin et al. (2023) emphasise: “there is now a need to place greater emphasis on training different types of communicators to engage audiences on climate resilience issues, including heat risks” (p. 4).
Understanding drought protection as a complex social system
Drought protection is highly complex because climate, environmental factors, and human behaviour interact closely. For example, rivers are used for irrigation, shipping, and cooling power stations—and these users come into conflict with existing ecosystems, particularly during water shortages.
Effective drought protection can only succeed through cross-level political cooperation (EU, national, regional, and local levels) and the protection of natural resources. Wens et al. (2026) state: “Healthy ecosystems are essential for coping with drought impacts” (p. 714).
Last but not least, droughts affect different population groups unequally, which is why adaptation measures must take social inequalities into account.
Utilising drivers of opportunity windows
Opportunity windows arise from various drivers that can mutually reinforce one another: necessary infrastructure maintenance, new legislative initiatives, resource availability (especially financial), technological progress, and shifting societal values (Di Fant et al., 2026, p. 2).
Extreme events, such as droughts and extraordinary heatwaves, offer the chance, in interaction with technological innovations (such as heat pumps, solar power, or electric mobility), to initiate new climate action. The prerequisite, however, is sustained public pressure on politics and business.
With regard to the Fridays for Future movement, Di Fant et al. (2026) emphasize: “the declining number of votes for Green Parties in the 2024 EU Parliamentary elections may suggest that the associated value-driven opportunity window is closing”.
Hendrik Meyer, a researcher in climate communication at the University of Hamburg, comments on this: “As recently as May this year, parts of the scientific assessment of the climate crisis were dismissed by members of the CDU as hysterical and damaging to industry.”
This stands in stark contrast to the official commitment to sustainability and climate targets that the CDU adopted in 2019. This demonstrates that conservative political parties also follow public pressure in their policy positions — but may revert to less climate-friendly positions when this pressure subsides.
What can be concretely derived from the studies for practical application?
First of all, it should be made clear that a shift in mindset is needed: heat and drought are serious problems that need to be communicated as such. Europe is particularly severely affected by these phenomena, and progress in climate adaptation measures is required alongside increased climate protection.
From the findings, concrete recommendations can be derived for different stakeholder groups to actively utilise opportunity windows following extreme weather events:
For the media
Sharpen language and framing: The media should consistently communicate heat and drought periods as serious risks and avoid downplaying extreme summer temperatures through positive symbolic imagery (e.g., people celebrating at a bathing lake). In some other countries, such as India, this is already partly successful, as demonstrated in the Al Jazeera report “Too Hot to Handle.”
Link solutions and warnings: Risk warnings must always be linked to concrete options for action. Reporting should address both individual protection (avoiding the sun, supporting the elderly) and the discussion of policies to be implemented politically, such as drought protection plans.
Prof. Michael Brüggemann (University of Hamburg) shares this assessment: “Communicatively, the heat and the threat to life and limb that comes with it can bring climate change closer to home. Put simply: grandma could die earlier because we do not engage in sufficient climate protection and do not adequately prepare for the heat. Journalism and NGOs could point out these grievances whilst simultaneously highlighting examples of how politics in other countries, in individual municipalities, or at individual employers is already preparing for heat.”
For practice & policy
Network institutional levels: In order to effectively prevent drought and water shortages and implement heat protection measures, political decision-making levels from the EU to the municipality must work closely together, and public communication must be coordinated.
Strengthen infrastructure and ecosystems: Investments in intact ecosystems are the most effective shield against the consequences of drought. Renewal cycles of infrastructure should be used foresightedly for climate adaptation. In doing so, heat, drought, and water management should all be kept in mind.
Utilise communicators: To implement measures effectively, citizen participation is required. Different target groups can be better addressed with the help of different intermediaries. For example, street workers and social workers reach homeless people, whilst care and healthcare professionals reach older people. People who may not speak German should also not be forgotten.
For activists & civil society
Build public pressure: Technological innovations alone are not enough. Following extreme events, civil society and activists must shape the narrative to turn public dismay into political pressure for reform-oriented laws. Here, it is not enough to stress how bad the situation is in order to “wake up” the public and politicians; rather, specific measures (such as a drought protection plan) should be targeted and demanded.
Seek alliances with intermediaries: Activists should work closely with practitioners and those affected, such as healthcare professionals or farmers, as these act as trusted voices across the wider population. Scientists from various disciplines (hydrology, health, forestry, and agricultural sciences) also often enjoy a high level of trust.
Further Reading
Di Fant, V., Middelkoop, H., De Bruin, K., Petersen, A.-K., Van Den Hurk, B., & Haasnoot, M. (2026). Opportunity windows accelerate action and expand options for climate adaptation in Europe. Communications Earth & Environment, 7(1), 321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-026-03332-2
McLoughlin, N., Howarth, C., & Shreedhar, G. (2023). Changing behavioral responses to heat risk in a warming world: How can communication approaches be improved? WIREs Climate Change, 14(2), e819. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.819
Wens, M. L. K., Hagenlocher, M., Shyrokaya, A., Werner, M., Toreti, A., Alencar, P. H. L., Amanambu, A. C., Bell, J. E., Nam, W.-H., Rastogi, S., Rivera, J., Sánchez, C. R., Zampieri, M., Sabino-Siemons, A.-S., Smith, K., Tootoonchi, F., Trambauer, P., Van Vliet, M. T. H., Van Thiel, M., … Masih, I. (2026). Ten key insights and gaps to inform drought risk research, policy and practice. Nature Water, 4(6), 711–721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-026-00651-8