Understanding Public Perception and Preparedness for Flood Risks in Greece

Abstract

The present study examines perceptions and preparedness for flooding in Greece, a country increasingly impacted by natural hazards, particularly due to the effects of climate change. Despite the frequent occurrence of floods, public preparedness remains insufficient in many areas. Through a survey of 1282 respondents from various regions of Greece and using R statistical software to process and analyse data, the research explores the relationship between individual flood risk perceptions, prior experiences, and household-level preparedness. The findings show most participants are aware of governmental flood plans, but a significant gap exists between perceived flood risks and actual preparedness, especially regarding insurance and relocation willingness. The findings reveal that a majority of participants are aware of governmental flood management plans; however, outcomes concerning flood insurance and the willingness to relocate highlight the significant gap between perceived flood risks and actual preparedness efforts. Many respondents expressed dissatisfaction with current measures to address flood risks, leading to a diminished trust in the respective authorities. To enhance public awareness and engagement in flood preparedness, the study underscores the importance of localized risk communication strategies tailored to different demographic groups. Given the observed gap between awareness and actual preparedness, efforts should focus on bridging this disconnect through practical, community-driven initiatives. Recommendations include implementing targeted awareness campaigns, promoting trust in government efforts through transparent policies, and providing financial incentives such as subsidized flood insurance to encourage protective actions, and, additionally, fostering community involvement in disaster risk management, particularly in historically flood-prone regions, to strengthen the resilience against future flooding events.

1. Introduction

Understanding the concepts of risk and flood risk is crucial in a world increasingly affected by natural hazards and climate change [1]. Risk can be defined as the probability of adverse effects or expected losses occurring from a specific hazard on any particular aspect of risk or peril over a specific period [2]. This concept underpins decision-making processes across disciplines, including environmental science, engineering, and public policy, enabling the development of strategies to mitigate potential losses [3]. Flood risk encloses both the likelihood of flooding and the resulting impact it can have on communities, ecosystems, and infrastructure [4]. Globally, floods rank among the most frequent and destructive natural hazards, leading to significant economic losses, infrastructure damage, displacement, and fatalities [5].

Recent catastrophic events highlight the severe consequences of inadequate flood preparedness and infrastructure. The 2023 floods in Libya resulted in thousands of deaths and widespread displacement due to extreme rainfall and dam failures [6]. Similar events, such as the 2011 floods in Thailand [7], the 2021 floods in Western Europe [8], and the 2022 Pakistan flood [9], further emphasize the importance of integrating social, economic, and infrastructural factors into flood risk management.

Greece, like many Mediterranean countries, faces recurring high flood risks due to its climatic and topographical characteristics. Several significant events in recent decades have underscored the vulnerability of communities [10]. For instance, the 2017 floods in Mandra, near Athens, resulted in 24 fatalities and extensive damage to residential and commercial areas [11]. Similarly, the 2019 floods in Crete caused infrastructural and agricultural losses amounting to millions of Euros. Recently, in one day, floods by Storm Daniel in September 2023 decimated Greece, especially the Thessalian plain, resulting in €2.25 billion in damages, infrastructure destruction, and 17 fatalities [12].

Integrated Flood Management (IFM) in Greece faces multifaceted challenges, encompassing the social, economic, technical, and environmental dimensions, to minimize disruptions and ensure quality of life in flood-prone areas. Despite the emphasis of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction on public involvement in disaster prevention [13], Greece has encountered difficulties in updating its flood risk management plans. In March 2024, the European Commission referred Greece to the EU’s top court for failing to revise these plans, which are essential for effective flood preparedness [14].

The social aspect of IFM is crucial, as it fosters awareness and community resilience by encouraging active public participation in flood management processes. Studies have shown that, in Greece, factors such as awareness and confidence significantly influence citizens’ flood preparedness and their intention to take precautionary measures [15]. However, there remains a gap between risk perception and the adoption of mitigation measures. Research indicates that the public perception of flood risk varies, and this disconnection between authorities and the public can lead to the failure of risk management plans [16,17].

Risk perception studies have been popular in Western societies for many years [16]. The differences among public risk perceptions and scientific risk assessments have become the focus of European programs [18], highlighting the gap between the public and experts perspectives [19]. However, other alternatives suggest a positive correlation between real (as determined by experts) and perceived flood risk (people’s subjective assessments) [20]. Flood risk perceptions also identify the flood management strategies and measures posed by local authorities [21].

Research indicates that the public perception of flood risk is shaped by prior experiences, awareness levels, and access to accurate information [22]. These perceptions directly influence individual and community responses to flood events [17,23]. Effective risk communication strategies that address the gaps in local knowledge and provide accessible tools for coping with floods are essential for building community resilience and minimizing the potential loss of life and property [24].

Data from the National Observatory of Athens reveal a sharp rise in severe weather events in Greece over the past two decades, further emphasizing the need for enhanced flood risk management strategies [25]. Between 2000 and 2023, the total number of weather events with socioeconomic impacts increased by 70%, rising from 215 recorded events in the first 12-year period (2000–2011) to 365 in the second half (2012–2023). Severe weather events (Category 3), which include major floods, rose by 44%, from 84 events in the first period to 121 in the second. Most concerning is the 77% increase in fatalities caused by weather-related disasters, with 103 deaths recorded between 2000–2011, compared to 182 between 2012–2023 [25].

Despite these trends, flood risk perception studies in Greece remain limited. Most existing research has focused on technical flood modeling, with insufficient attention being paid to public risk awareness, preparedness behaviors, and trust in government interventions [17]. Identifying these knowledge gaps is crucial for improving public engagement, enhancing preparedness, and strengthening national flood resilience. Similarly, Mediterranean countries like Greece experience frequent flooding; yet, studies addressing public perception and preparedness strategies are scarce. For example, in Morocco, research has primarily emphasized flood hazard modeling and technical assessments, leaving a notable gap in understanding public flood awareness and community-driven mitigation efforts [26,27]. Thus, this study not only provides critical insights for Greece but also serves as a valuable example for other countries like Morocco, demonstrating the need for integrated, public-focused approaches to flood risk management that can be adapted to other Mediterranean contexts.

In this scope, there is an urgent need for Greece to adopt more robust flood preparedness policies, risk communication strategies, and stronger institutional responses. As climate change continues to accelerate the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, a more proactive and integrated approach to flood risk management is essential [28]. However, despite this increasing threat, studies on flood risk perception and preparedness in Greece remain limited [29]. Most existing research focuses on technical flood modeling rather than understanding public awareness, preparedness behaviors, and trust in government interventions [17]. Identifying these knowledge gaps is essential for enhancing public engagement, improving preparedness levels, and ultimately strengthening national flood resilience.

Furthermore, trust in government institutions plays a crucial role in public engagement with flood risk management policies. Research suggests that, when trust in local authorities is high, individuals are more likely to adopt protective behaviors, whereas low trust levels can lead to skepticism and inaction [29,30]. Strengthening public trust, improving communication strategies, and increasing community involvement are, therefore, essential for enhancing flood preparedness.

Despite Greece’s frequent exposure to flooding, many regions still face significant gaps in household-level preparedness. This research examines flood risk perceptions and preparedness among 1282 participants residing in both flood-prone and non-flood-prone areas. Previous studies have highlighted that, while risk perceptions are influenced by prior experiences and information access, they often do not translate into adequate protective behaviors [16,19]. The current study aims to fill critical research gaps by carrying out the following:

• Examining flood risk perception and preparedness among 1282 participants across both flood-prone and non-flood-prone areas in Greece;
• Investigating key factors influencing flood preparedness, including socio-demographic drivers, prior flood experiences, and trust in authorities;
• Suggesting flood risk management approaches derived from neighboring countries and global best practices.

By examining how personal experiences, such as past flood encounters and risk awareness, influence preparedness behaviors, the study offers valuable insights for designing targeted policy interventions and community-based initiatives. These insights can enhance the effectiveness of communication campaigns and promote more integrative and participatory strategies enhancing community resilience and minimizing the impact of future flood events [23,31].

2. Methodology

This study was conducted to evaluate public awareness, perceptions, and preparedness regarding flood risks across Greece. It employed a structured questionnaire, distributed online between November and December 2020, to ensure widespread accessibility and compliance with COVID-19 restrictions. Participants were recruited from all 13 administrative regions of Greece, including Attica, Central Macedonia, Crete, Thessaly, and Western Greece, ensuring a geographically representative sample, as well as a diverse range of participants with regard to their exposure to extreme weather phenomena.

The administrative regions along with the spatial distribution of extreme weather events that occurred between 2000 and 2020 by prefecture is shown in Figure 1. The historical extreme weather data presented in this figure have been retrieved from the National Observatory of Athens database (available online: https://meteo.gr/weather_cases.cfm, accessed on 10 December 2024). The distribution by type of event presented for the most affected areas indicates that flood events rank by far as the most frequent type. Floods are consistently occurring with various frequencies in most regions and years examined, while the rest of event types have been occurring irregularly during the above period.

2.1. Survey Instrument

The questionnaire was designed to cover all aspects of flood risk knowledge and preparation, following common practices in risk perception studies [16]. It consisted of four sections (Figure 2):

• Section 1. Demographic Characteristics: Collected demographic details such as age, gender, education, occupation, and proximity to flood-prone areas, enabling analysis of socio-demographic influences on risk awareness [32,33];
• Section 2. Knowledge of Flood Risks: Assessed participants’ understanding of flood drivers, including anthropogenic and natural causes [34,35];
• Section 3. Personal Experiences and Preparedness: Investigated prior flood encounters and household safety precautions;
• Section 4. Attitudes toward Flood Management: Examined awareness of government policies and trust in authorities’ risk management capabilities.

2.2. Data Collection and Ethical Consideration

A convenience sampling method [36] was employed to distribute the questionnaire, resulting in a voluntary sample. This method allows for the rapid collection of a large number of responses within a short timeframe, making it particularly useful for this study.

To reach the participants, social media platforms, email networks, and community organizations were involved, ensuring diverse regional representation [37]. The questionnaire was distributed nationwide by researchers to their networks, including family, friends, and acquaintances. The use of online tools allowed for efficient data collection, although potential biases were acknowledged, such as the underrepresentation of populations with limited internet access. Each participant was required to provide digital informed consent before completing the survey, ensuring transparency about the study’s objectives and guaranteeing confidentiality.

2.3. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

The collected data were preprocessed using R statistical software R version 4.2.0. Initial steps involved cleaning the dataset by identifying and addressing missing values and inconsistencies in categorical data entries. Likert-scale responses were numerically coded to facilitate statistical analysis, following best practices for handling ordinal data [38]. Descriptive statistics, such as frequency distributions and measures of central tendency (mean, and standard deviation), were used to summarize participants’ characteristics and responses.

The survey utilized a Likert scale to assess participants’ attitudes and perceptions regarding flood risk, with responses ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. These ordinal responses were numerically coded to facilitate statistical analysis, including ordinal logistic regression to model the impact of factors like education and flood experience on risk awareness. This approach ensures a robust analysis of how socio-demographic factors influence flood preparedness and awareness [39,40].

To examine relationships between demographic factors and various aspects of flood risk awareness, perceptions, and management, a combination of statistical tests was employed. Non-parametric bivariate statistical analyses were conducted due to the asymmetric distribution of most variables: (i) Spearman’s correlation, (ii) Kruskal–Wallis test, (iii) Mann–Whitney U-test, and (iv) Chi-square test of independence. Spearman’s Rho was used to evaluate monotonic relationships between ordinal variables, such as age and awareness of flood response plans or tree planting as a flood prevention measure. The Kruskal–Wallis test as a non-parametric variance analysis was applied to compare the mean ranks of responses across independent categorical groups, such as occupation and knowledge of reasons for flooding phenomena. The Mann–Whitney U-test was employed to analyze relationships between binary demographic characteristics (e.g., gender) and perceptions of flood risk management. Finally, the Chi-square test of independence was utilized to examine associations between categorical variables, such as urban/rural residency and previous flood experiences or awareness of early warning systems. p-values were calculated to assess the statistical significance of these relationships, with a significance threshold of 0.05, while Pearson Chi-square values were reported for Chi-square tests.

2.4. Visualization Techniques

The analysis was complemented by data visualizations created using R packages such as ggplot2 and reshape2 [41]. Heatmaps were used to illustrate response frequencies across flood risk dimensions, providing a clear visual representation of Likert-scale data. Radar charts were employed to visualize public responses on preferred sources of information on floods and male and female perceptions of flood causes, impacts, and management measures. This visualization method was chosen because radar charts effectively display multidimensional data [42], allowing for easy comparison across different categories, while bar charts summarized categorical variables such as regional distribution and household preparedness measures.

3. Results

3.1. Survey Results

The analysis of social and demographic characteristics presented in this section provides valuable insights into the diversity of the studied population and its implications for flood risk management. Specifically, the results examine the public awareness of flood causes and impacts, considering both anthropogenic and environmental factors, as well as concerns related to human, economic, and structural consequences. The survey findings highlight key perceptions and experiences related to flood risks, including respondents’ views on prevention strategies, preparedness levels, and responsibility distribution. The final part of this section systematically evaluates flood management preparedness by assessing public trust in government, financial readiness, and the perceived effectiveness of existing measures. Additionally, it explores preferred sources of flood-related information and community priorities for prevention strategies, offering a comprehensive perspective on the factors shaping resilience and response efforts.

The graph in Figure 3a highlights the gender and age distribution of the survey participants. A clear pattern emerges, showing a higher participation rate among younger age groups (20–30 years), where females represent 57.5% compared to 42.5% males. This trend shifts slightly in older age categories, such as the 30–40 and 40–50 ranges, where the percentages for males and females are relatively balanced, with males slightly dominating. In the older age groups (60+), male participants become notably more represented, peaking at 75% in the 80–90 age group. This distribution reflects a diverse demographic representation and suggests the active engagement of younger individuals in online surveys, possibly due to their familiarity with digital tools. These findings emphasize the need for strategies that address barriers to engagement, particularly for older residents, to ensure that flood resilience efforts are inclusive and effective across all age groups. The relationship between educational attainment and professional categories is illustrated in Figure 3b. University graduates, such as Master’s, Ph.D., or other schools, constitute the largest group across nearly all professional categories, highlighting the emphasis on higher education in most professions, especially among private employees and state employees. In contrast, farmers and ranchers show a stronger prevalence of secondary or high school education, reflecting traditional pathways to this profession. The data underline the diverse educational backgrounds across professions, showing clear correlations between higher education levels and employment sectors such as private and state organizations.

The analysis from the survey results of residence characteristics provides valuable insights into the geographical distribution and flood vulnerability of participants. The length of residence data shows a majority of participants have lived in their current locations for up to 20 years, with a peak between 5 and 15 years, indicating relatively stable settlement patterns. A regional analysis reveals that most respondents are concentrated in Attica, Central Macedonia, and North Aegean, reflecting their larger populations and/or likely greater exposure to flood-prone areas. Conversely, regions such as the Ionian Islands and West Macedonia reported fewer participants, possibly due to smaller populations or reduced survey reach. Linking these findings, the majority of participants (55.2%) reside in low-altitude areas, which are more susceptible to flooding risks. These interconnected data emphasize the importance of focusing flood risk management and preparedness efforts on densely populated and low-altitude regions, where residents may face greater exposure to flood hazards.

The responses to different questions on flood causation indicate a clear consensus on certain key issues (Figure 4). The majority of respondents (93%) agree that human activities are a major contributing factor to floods, followed closely by severe weather conditions (92%) and overflowing rivers (89%). Overflowing rivers, and urbanization and deforestation are also recognized by 89% and 88% of participants, respectively, as significant contributors. This high level of agreement underscores the widespread awareness of anthropogenic and environmental factors as critical drivers of flood events. In contrast, only a small proportion (8.5%) attributed floods to divine punishment, suggesting a predominantly scientific understanding of flood causation among participants. However, the notable disagreement (37%) regarding the reliability of weather forecasts highlights the need for improving meteorological communication to enhance public trust.

Meanwhile, Figure 5, using a Likert scale, assesses respondents’ awareness of flood impacts across various domains. Loss of life emerges as the most critical concern, with the highest intensity of responses at the upper scale level, demonstrating the public’s heightened sensitivity to the human cost of floods. Other significant impacts include infrastructure damage, economic losses, and psychological effects, which are consistently acknowledged across the response levels. The emphasis on these dimensions highlights the need for integrated flood risk management strategies that address both immediate and long-term consequences.

A majority view flooding (Figure 6a) as a moderate risk following heavy rainfall, with 60.2% of respondents assigning a mid-range likelihood rating of 2 or 3. Specifically, 36.9% rated the likelihood as moderate (3), and 24.5% rated it as low to moderate (2). Only a smaller percentage (17.5%) rated the likelihood as high (4), while an even fewer 7.1% gave it the maximum rating (5).

According to the survey (Figure 6b), just 35% of respondents had firsthand experience with flooding, while 64.7% had no such interactions. Despite having fewer direct experiences, 59.5% said their families had been affected by flooding, demonstrating the community’s pervasive indirect effects. When asked about the potential of flood protection, respondents were almost evenly divided: 52% disagreed, and 48% agreed.

The pie chart (Figure 6c) demonstrates the perception of flooding as a growing concern, with 71.1% of respondents believing that flood frequency has increased in recent years. In contrast, 24.2% feel it has remained stable, and a minimal 4.8% think it has decreased. This prevailing view of rising flood occurrences aligns with the heightened public awareness of climate change and its role in driving extreme weather events, leaving only a small fraction perceiving a reduction in flood risks (Figure 6c).

The survey responses to the open question “What does the term “flood” mean to you?” indicate that the public perception of floods is largely shaped by fear and the immediate, catastrophic consequences, rather than an interest in understanding their origins or underlying causes. This is evident in the emphasis on emotionally charged terms such as “destruction”, “death”, and “disaster” mentioned in Figure 7, reflecting a heightened sense of vulnerability and fear associated with flooding events. In contrast, terms that point to the natural origins or processes of floods, such as “river”, “overflow”, or “heavy rainfall”, appear far less frequently. This fear-based mindset highlights the critical necessity for specific educational initiatives that not only tackle the dangers of flooding but also foster a comprehensive awareness of their origins and prevention methods.

Most respondents (70.3%) reported being aware of authority plans, and 71.5% stated they had received sufficient information on managing floods (Figure 8). Additionally, 84.2% actively followed weather updates and Civil Protection instructions, demonstrating high levels of engagement with official guidance. However, gaps remain in certain areas. Only 23% of participants had flood insurance, indicating limited financial preparedness, and just 15.3% expressed a willingness to relocate in the event of a flood, reflecting a reluctance to consider relocation as a risk mitigation strategy. These findings point to both strengths and areas for improvement in flood preparedness and awareness efforts.

The radar chart (Figure 9) illustrates the preferred sources of flood-related information among respondents. Messages on mobile phone are the most popular source, preferred by 33.6% of respondents, followed by the Internet at 30.6% and TV at 19.2%. Less commonly used sources include social networks (6.1%) and schools (3.4%), while word of mouth, and printed materials are minimally preferred, each below 2%. A small portion (2.4%) did not specify any source. These findings suggest that people primarily rely on digital platforms, especially the messages on mobile phone, the Internet, and TV, for flood updates, while traditional media like newspapers remain somewhat relevant.

In response to the question, “Which of the following ways/means do you think contribute to the prevention of flood risks?”, respondents were given five options and rated their importance on a scale from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important). The bar chart (Figure 10) shows that funding flood protection measures is the highest priority, with 47.7% of participants rating it as extremely important (5) and 27.8% as very important (4). Awareness campaigns follow closely, with 48.4% assigning maximum importance and 26.5% rating them highly (4). Stricter building regulations are also significant, with 42.1% considering them extremely important. Conversely, tree planting and dam construction are rated lower, with 39.1% and 37%, respectively, assigning them the highest importance, reflecting mixed views about their effectiveness. These results concerning funding and awareness campaigns highlight their prioritization by the community, suggesting that these strategies should be a focus for flood prevention efforts.

As shown in Figure 11, the majority (75%) of respondents believe that it is the authorities’ responsibility to address floods, while 25% disagree. Despite this, only 21% feel that authorities have taken adequate steps to prevent or manage flood risks, with 79% expressing dissatisfaction. Additionally, 79% of respondents believe that floods are a result of the state apparatus’s failure to act effectively, while 21% disagree with this perspective. When it comes to funding flood-related costs, most participants (63%) feel that citizens should not bear the financial burden, leaving only 37% in favor of citizen contributions. Overall, these findings suggest that, while there is a strong belief in governmental responsibility for flood management, there is also a significant sense of dissatisfaction with current measures and a reluctance to place the financial burden on the public.

3.2. Correlation of Answers with Respondents’ Characteristics

The correlation analyses revealed statistically significant but generally weak relationships between respondents’ profiles and perceptions of flood impacts, awareness, and management strategies (

Table 1. Correlation of different variables (<1% confidence level).

Demographic	Question	p-Value	Rho	Pearson Chi-Square Value	Test
Gender	(a) Psychological impacts	0.00000	0.22		i
	(b) Flood prevention strategies: awareness of response plans	0.00000	0.17		i
	(c) Flood phenomena cause: unreliable weather forecasts	0.00014			iii
	(d) Floods related to state inability	0.02913 *			iii
Age	(e) Financial burden for recovery and aid	0.00059	0.1		i
	(f) Flood prevention strategies: tree planting	0.00000	0.17		i
	(g) Flood prevention strategies: stricter building regulations	0.00000	0.15		i
	(h) Flood phenomena cause: climate change	0.00321			ii
Occupation	(i) Flood phenomena cause: overflowing rivers	0.00000			ii
	(j) Loss of life	0.00412			ii
	(k) Awareness of authority plans	0.00012			ii
	(l) Following Civil Protection guidelines during flood risks?	0.00185			ii
	(m) Authorities have effective plans	0.00011			ii
Education level	(n) Environmental impacts	0.00081	0.09		i
	(o) Flood phenomena cause: human activities/interventions	0.00953	0.11		i
Urban/rural	(p) Lack of knowledge/inadequate management by authorities	0.00521		7.8	iv
	(q) Personal flood experience	0.00000		24.18	iv
	(r) Flood frequency has increased/decreased	0.00039		15.71	iv
	(s) Received sufficient information from authorities on flood preparedness	0.00528		7.78	iv
Coastal/riparian/lakeside area	(t) Flood prevention: funding for flood research/infrastructure	0.00796			ii

Note(s): Tests: (i) Spearman’s correlation. (ii) Kruskal–Wallis test. (iii) Mann–Whitney U-test. (iv) Chi-square test of independence. * Significance level < 0.05.

). With regard to the responder’s gender, female respondents rated the psychological impacts of flooding as highly significant (Table 1, a), favored the risk management strategies of increasing awareness (Table 1, b), both individually and collectively, and supported stricter construction regulations in flood-prone areas to a much greater dergee than male respondents (Figure 12). Both genders, however, expressed significant distrust in state mechanisms, associating flooding with institutional inefficiencies (Table 1, c), and identified unreliable weather forecasts as significant (Table 1, d), with men perceiving these issues as slightly more important. Men also assign a higher degree of importance to spiritual or divine punishments as a cause, reflecting possible cultural or personal beliefs that are less evident among women (Figure 12). With regard to the perception of impacts, women not only place greater emphasis not only on the psychological effects but they also prioritize the environmental consequences of flooding, demonstrating a broader focus on long-term effects beyond immediate personal concerns. In general, females perceived the level of flood risk to be higher, and they are more aware and worried about flooding than males. These differences in perceptions are in line with the previous research in Greece [16] and may play a role in the two sexes’ behaviour before and during a flood event. These insights reinforce the importance of developing targeted communication and management strategies to address these diverse concerns and priorities effectively.

Age was significantly correlated with the flood implication of financial burdens during post-flood recovery and assistance (Table 1, e). Respondents over the age of 40 placed more importance on these financial implications compared to those aged under 30, who prioritized psychological and environmental impacts, such as biodiversity loss. Younger respondents (<30 years old) showed stronger support for flood prevention measures like tree planting (Table 1, f), while respondents aged 30–50 and over 50 favored stricter construction regulations in flood-prone areas. Additionally, perceptions of floods being linked to climate change were more prevalent among the under-30 age group (Table 1, h).

Occupational differences in responses were generally small but followed a consistent pattern. Unemployed respondents, more than any other occupation, identified river overflow as a primary cause of flooding (Table 1, i), expressed significant concern for the loss of life during floods (Table 1, j), and emphasized the importance of adhering to flood management plans (Table 1, k). However, they were generally unaware of Civil Protection guidelines (Table 1, l) and rated the authorities’ flood preparedness plans as unsatisfactory to a higher degree (Table 1, m). Farmers and livestock breeders, on the other hand, reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction with state flood management efforts and emphasized the importance of citizen participation in financing recovery costs which contrasts the responses of all other occupations. Although this group expressed a willingness to contribute financially to flood prevention/restoration and acknowledged the existence of effective state flood-response plans, to a greater degree than other occupations, they admitted to taking limited proactive measures to protect their livelihoods. This behavior may be attributed to their significantly lower (than any other group) belief that the frequency of future flood events will be higher.

Education level was weakly and positively correlated with the importance assigned by the respondents to the environmental impacts of a flooding event (Table 1, n). Respondents with higher education levels (Master’s and PhD degrees) were more likely to attribute flooding to human activities and interventions (Table 1, o). Those with lower educational attainment (e.g., elementary school) emphasized the financial cost of flood recovery as a highly important impact, while doctoral degree holders rated this factor lower on the Likert scale. A similar trend existed in response to the question about the flooding likelihood during heavy rainfall, where doctoral degree holders perceived the risk as low, whereas elementary-school-educated respondents rated it as highly likely, indicating the significant understanding and knowledge differences between these groups.

Rural residents reported a significantly higher prior exposure (41% vs. 28%) to flooding (Table 1, q), while a higher percentage of urban residents perceived flood frequency as increasing over time (Table 1, r). Despite their prior flood experience, rural inhabitants indicated they had received insufficient information from local authorities on how to manage flood phenomena at a slightly lower rate than the urban residents (Table 1, s), aligning with their belief that authorities lack the competence to handle these events effectively (Table 1, p). Residents living near coastal, riparian, or lakeside areas rated the importance of increased funding for flood research and infrastructure higher than those who live in safer areas (Table 1, t).

The radar chart (Figure 13) illustrates the key differences between insured and uninsured respondents, particularly in their trust in institutional measures, preparedness levels, and direct experiences with floods. Respondents without flood insurance emphasized, more than those with insurance, the financial aspect with regard to both the flood impact, damage restoration/support of flood-affected communities, and flood protection measures/infrastructure. Uninsured respondents reported a lower rate of having experienced floods, which likely influences their stronger focus on funding needs. In terms of preparedness, insured respondents demonstrated a greater awareness of the flood response plans prepared by authorities, reported at a higher rate that they have received sufficient information from authorities about how to deal with floods, and displayed more confidence in the effectiveness of institutional measures taken by authorities. Regarding the flood response, a significant part of both groups recognized the importance of citizen participation in financing flood recovery costs, although insured respondents express much stronger agreement with this idea. These differences underscore the importance of addressing informational and institutional gaps to improve flood management strategies for all affected individuals.

4. Discussion

The survey’s regional participation indicates considerable variations, with 42% of the respondents located in the Attica region reflecting its dense population and increased urban flood risk. This aligns with the studies emphasizing urban areas’ vulnerability to climate change and extreme weather events [43,44]. In contrast, rural regions such as Epirus, West Macedonia, and the Ionian islands collectively represent less than 5% of participants. This difference indicates the challenge of reaching the few connected regions via online data collecting, especially during the COVID-19 epidemic, which restricted conventional outreach approaches [45]. These findings highlight the necessity for future research to improve outreach initiatives aimed at flood-prone rural regions [46]. Future research should adopt hybrid outreach methods, combining digital tools with in-person engagement, such as community workshops and local radio programs, to ensure equitable representation [47]. Additionally, leveraging local influencers or trusted community figures could enhance participation among these underserved areas [48]. The survey’s results reveal differences among genders regarding the psychological impacts and flood preparedness, showing a clear need to improve males’ proactive approaches. This aligns with research suggesting that men often exhibit lower risk perception and preparedness levels in comparison to women [49]. The survey’s age distribution demonstrates the need to address younger generations as essential agents in promoting flood awareness, given their adaptability to digital platforms and potential for long-term engagement [50]. Interactive online campaigns using social media, gamified learning tools, and mobile applications can sustain youth engagement by utilizing their familiarity with digital tools to teach escape planning and emergency response within their communities. Such approaches have been proven effective in enhancing disaster preparedness in other regions, such as Europe [51] and Asia [52] and Australia [53]. Meanwhile, efforts must be made to better engage older groups through personalized methods of communication, such as face-to-face informational sessions or tailored communication materials, such as printed guides or direct mailing, reflecting their individual needs and preferences [54]. Research in Scandinavia has shown that such methods increase engagement by accommodating accessibility requirements [55], a strategy that could be adapted for Greece. These insights provide valuable implications for policymakers, particularly in designing educational and awareness programs that not only raise awareness of different age and gender audience categories, but also encourage proactive preparedness actions.

The variation in education levels among respondents suggests that individuals with a higher level of education, who are primarily working in professional areas, may have greater access to flood awareness and preparedness tools [56]. However, the high rate of lower educational levels among farmers and ranchers emphasizes the necessity for focused communication efforts to bridge the knowledge and participation gaps across traditionally underserved occupational groups. Simplified materials using visuals and infographics, combined with practical workshops, can make complex flood risk concepts more accessible [57]. This aligns with studies in Mediterranean regions, such as in this comparative study between Romania and Malta [58] and in Austria [59], showing that simplified risk communication improves disaster preparedness among lower-income and rural communities. Incorporating a question regarding respondents’ beliefs about whether floods constitute a form of divine retribution within the survey provides significant cultural and psychological insights into the perceptions surrounding natural disasters [60]. The low percentage of responders associating floods with divine retribution signifies a mostly scientific comprehension of flood threats among participants. Integrating culturally sensitive approaches in awareness campaigns can bridge gaps between scientific knowledge and deeply rooted belief systems, ensuring inclusive and effective communication. Integrating culturally sensitive approaches into awareness campaigns can enhance flood risk communication by aligning messages with residents’ cultural and religious contexts. Studies show that incorporating local nuances fosters better understanding and engagement [61]. Additionally, social, political, and historical factors shape flood risk perception, highlighting the need for communication strategies that resonate with these contexts to improve community preparedness and resilience [62].

Despite the widespread acknowledgment of flood risks, preparedness levels remain inadequate, and a similar research conducted by [29] in Greece confirms the findings. For instance, while 93% of respondents recognize the role of human activities in flood causation, only 23% have flood insurance, and 15.3% are willing to relocate. Limited knowledge of flood management plans indicates that this issue is not specific to a single location, as [20] reports similar findings. Moreover, increased knowledge does not necessarily lead to personal preparedness, as a study in England suggests [63]. This gap between knowledge and action suggests barriers such as financial constraints and mistrust in authorities, highlighting areas where educational campaigns and policy interventions could make a difference.

While only 35% of respondents have directly experienced flooding, 59.5% report that their families have been affected, demonstrating the influence of both direct and indirect exposure on risk perception. Additionally, 71.1% believe flood frequency has increased, reflecting concerns shaped by both past and recent events. Furthermore, despite 70.3% of respondents being aware of government flood management plans, only 21% consider them effective, suggesting that past failures in flood response contribute to public skepticism. This gap between awareness and action suggests that financial constraints and mistrust in authorities are significant barriers to proactive preparedness [64].

An analysis of responses related to flood preparedness, including mitigation strategies, insurance adoption, and relocation willingness, provides a comprehensive evaluation of the public preparedness level [65]. The results indicate that prior experience with flooding and trust in governmental policies are key determinants of proactive preparedness behaviors. These results align with a similar study in Italy where trust in authorities strongly influences disaster preparedness behaviors [66].

Strengthening institutional trust through transparent communication and financial incentives, such as subsidized flood insurance, can encourage greater preparedness. Additionally, sharing successful community-based flood mitigation efforts can serve as a model for broader public engagement. Studies in Germany [67] and the Netherlands [68] have demonstrated that trust-building measures, such as participatory decision-making and clear communication, significantly enhance public compliance with flood risk mitigation policies. Additionally, community-based flood mitigation efforts can serve as a model for broader public engagement. A study by [69] found that trust in the local government significantly improves emergency preparedness, whereas trust in federal agencies, such as FEMA, had a minimal effect [70]. This suggests that trust in government is a key determinant of proactive preparedness behaviors.

Enhancing Greece’s flood preparedness requires a multi-pronged approach that integrates nature-based solutions, cross-border cooperation, and proactive planning. One of the most effective strategies is the incorporation of natural flood barriers, such as wetlands and retention basins, into flood management plans. These solutions have been shown to reduce flood intensity, improve water absorption, and enhance ecological sustainability [71]. Further research highlights that nature-based solutions (NbSs) not only strengthen coastal resilience and ecosystem health but also serve as a valuable alternative or complement to traditional flood defenses [72]. Moreover, the global momentum toward NbSs underscores their role in integrated flood risk management [73]. Expanding the use of NbSs in Greece—particularly in flood-prone coastal and agricultural regions—could significantly enhance national resilience.

Cross-border cooperation and knowledge exchange should also be prioritized. Countries such as Slovenia and Croatia have successfully implemented coordinated flood management strategies that leverage regional data-sharing, joint early warning systems, and collaborative infrastructure investments [74]. Greece can benefit from bilateral agreements that promote shared expertise and best practices, particularly in regions that experience transboundary flooding or similar hydrological challenges.

In addition to NbSs and cross-border cooperation, strengthening flood preparedness requires targeted policy interventions. Investing in infrastructure upgrades, such as modernized drainage systems and reinforced flood defenses, can mitigate risks in high-exposure urban areas. Stricter land-use regulations should prevent uncontrolled development in flood-prone zones, reducing vulnerability. Enhancing risk communication, through early warning systems, mobile alerts, and community drills, can improve public responsiveness during flood events. Furthermore, active community involvement in flood risk planning, facilitated by awareness campaigns, participatory decision-making, and training programs, will foster greater preparedness and resilience at the local level.

5. Conclusions

This study emphasizes the complex relationship of socioeconomic, geographical, and climatic elements that influence public knowledge and preparedness for flood risks in Greece. The findings indicate that, while the public awareness of flood risks is high, actual preparedness levels remain inadequate. A significant proportion of respondents recognize human activities and extreme weather as major contributors to floods; yet, financial constraints, mistrust in authorities, and limited access to flood insurance continue to hinder proactive mitigation measures. Addressing these issues calls for prioritizing investments in resilient infrastructure along with effective land-use planning. While advanced flood protection systems in Northern Europe have demonstrated their effectiveness, their success is often attributed to high standards of implementation and consistent investment. However, most countries, e.g., The Netherlands [75], as well as many Mediterranean countries, including Greece, face considerable financial and institutional limitations in implementing similar innovations [10]. Moreover, fostering a culture of risk awareness through targeted educational campaigns and community engagement initiatives is essential. Strengthening public trust in authorities by enhancing transparency and communication can encourage greater participation in flood preparedness programs. Moreover, expanding access to affordable flood insurance can alleviate economic barriers to mitigation efforts.

Further actions are needed to improve flood preparedness, emphasizing a multi-faceted approach. This should include infrastructure upgrades, stricter land-use policies, and increased public engagement. Nature-based solutions (NbSs), such as wetlands and retention basins, can effectively reduce flood risks while enhancing ecological sustainability. Additionally, cross-border cooperation with neighboring Mediterranean countries can offer valuable best practices for coordinated flood management. Despite its valuable insights, this study has several limitations. The reliance on online distribution methods may have excluded rural and elderly populations, highlighting the need for in-person surveys and focus groups to improve representation [76]. Additionally, the sample is not fully generalizable to the Greek population, as urban areas had higher participation rates than rural regions. A stratified sampling approach could enhance accuracy in future assessments.