Prepare every citizen
for a crisis.
A communication strategy for institutions that want
to prepare everyone. Not just the “ideal” citizen.
What will you find here
This site presents findings from an academic study on Danish crisis preparedness communication and turns them into practical recommendations for institutions.
Scroll to read in full, or jump to any section.
The Problem
Denmark’s Forberedt på kriser campaign was launched to help citizens prepare for crises. The campaign is thoughtful and well-intentioned, but no single communication can speak to everyone equally.
Our study explored how senior citizens recognise their role in the campaign and whether they find it accessible. They are not the only group who may struggle to see themselves in the message.
This strategy exists to help fill that gap — making crisis preparedness truly for everyone.
Reactions of senior citizens
We interviewed three Danes between the ages of 70 and 90. These are their words.
“I find it a bit hysterical, because I don’t think anything will happen.”
“To people of my age, it’s not worth it. You don’t have so many years left.”
“The problem with the really old ones might be that they don’t have a computer.”
“I have a daughter. Very close to me. They are better prepared.”
“It’s more the community that will be the source of information for you.”
“If you want to do it seriously — it’s not what you say. It’s what you do. You must try to be a good example.”
What we found
✓ Preparedness is communicated as a personal duty, not a state responsibility
✓ The campaign’s tone reassures rather than motivates action or creates urgency
✓ Vulnerability is acknowledged, but then redirected to neighbours and family
✓ Digital-first communication excludes citizens without technological access or literacy
✓ Risk is individualised and structural inequality is left unaddressed
Our recommendations
Small shifts in language create large shifts in who feels included.
Here are examples from the original campaign, and how they could be rewritten.
ORIGINAL CAMPAIGN
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE
“By following some simple advice, you can manage on your own.”
“Simple” naturalises compliance as easy for everyone. Ignores financial, physical, or cognitive barriers.
Honest about effort
“These steps take some planning, but you do not have to do it alone.”
Acknowledges that preparation requires effort while immediately offering collective support.
Redirects vulnerability to social networks
“Sometimes it makes more sense to prepare with family, friends, or neighbours.”
Acknowledges not everyone can self-prepare, but places the solution entirely outside institutions.
“If you need support, your local municipality can help you make a plan.”
Keeps the community framing but adds a concrete institutional fallback for those without social networks.
False collective — asymmetric responsibility
“This is something we must take seriously.”
Uses “we” to imply equal partnership, but only citizens receive individual action expectations.
Transparent about roles
“The state is responsible for emergency response. You are responsible for the first 72 hours. Here is how we support each other.”
Names the division of responsibility honestly. Citizens know what is expected and what they can expect back.
Assumes universal digital access
“In most crisis situations, a mobile phone is essential.”
Frames smartphone ownership as non-negotiable. No alternative offered for those without.
“A mobile phone is very helpful, but a battery-powered radio or a trusted neighbour works too.”
Beyond the website
See alternative channels for reaching as many citizens as possible.
***Each channel can have its own dedicated website with an individual strategy. For now it is beyond the scope of this project.