"Disaster risk management is a balancing act, not a right answer" and that is the lesson!
A culture of safety requires investing in younger generations and creating opportunities for them to engage with disaster risk in meaningful ways.
When we talk about disaster risk reduction (DRR), we often focus on policies, infrastructure, early warning systems and emergency response capacities. These are essential components of resilience. Yet one question remains fundamental: how do we ensure that people understand risk well enough to make better decisions before disasters happen?
Building a culture of prevention requires more than sharing information. It requires opportunities for people to experience the complexity of risk, test decisions, understand consequences and reflect on the choices that shape vulnerability.
This is where serious games can play an important role
In May 2026, the European Center for Forest Fires (ECFF) , operating within the framework of the of EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement, Council of Europe, together with the General Secretariat for Civil Protection , Ministry for Climate Crisis and Civil Protection of Greece, organised an educational workshop entitled “Learning about Disaster Prevention and Preparedness through the game Stop Disasters ”. The workshop introduced students, emergency responders and disaster risk professionals to an interactive approach for exploring disaster prevention and preparedness.
The initiative was developed under the project “Serious Games for Participatory Disaster Preparedness: Engaging Youth in Multi-Hazard Risk Awareness”, with the objective of moving beyond awareness and supporting informed action. The project included the translation and quality review of the UNDRR Stop Disasters game into Greek, as well as the organisation of a participatory workshop combining gameplay, discussion and reflection.
Learning disaster risk through active participation and decisions, not only lectures and theory
Serious games are designed not simply for entertainment, but as educational tools that allow participants to explore realistic situations in a safe environment. They enable learners to examine vulnerability, test risk reduction measures, observe consequences and understand the difficult choices involved in managing limited resources.
The Stop Disasters game developed by UNDRR provides players with scenarios where they must make decisions to reduce disaster risk, including choices related to land use planning, safe construction, protective measures and preparedness actions. The experience illustrates a key principle of DRR: disasters are not only the result of hazards, but also of the decisions made before hazards occur.
The Athens workshop marked the inaugural implementation of the Disasters game in Greek, following its translation and adaptation into the Greek language. Participants were divided into seven working groups consisting of three students each and explored three different hazard scenarios: wildfires, earthquakes and floods. The groups brought together engineering students from the National Technical University of Athens and cadets from the Fire Academy, creating an opportunity for exchange between academic knowledge and operational experience.
This multidisciplinary approach was one of the most valuable outcomes of the exercise. Participants highlighted that combining different perspectives helped improve decision-making, as engineers and future emergency responders approached problems from different angles and contributed complementary expertise.
“Prevention costs less than the disaster losses.”
Experiencing the complexity of risk
One of the strengths of simulation-based learning is that it reveals the complexity of disaster risk management.
The wildfire scenarios encouraged participants to think about prevention measures such as vegetation management, access routes, defensible spaces around buildings and the importance of planning in the wildland–urban interface. Participants also discussed how nature-based solutions and landscape management could contribute to reducing wildfire risk.
The earthquake scenarios demonstrated another important lesson: reducing risk is not always about choosing the most visible intervention. One group decided to demolish and rebuild structures entirely, but this could create social consequences, including displacement and insufficient resources to accommodate affected residents. The discussion highlighted that disaster risk reduction decisions must consider not only physical safety but also social and economic impacts.
In the flood scenarios, participants explored how decisions on where and how to build influence future impacts. Discussions highlighted that some protective measures may work in specific contexts but not others. For example, flood barriers may provide benefits in certain situations but are not equally effective for every type of flooding.
Decisions about risk and competing priorities
The exercise also revealed how decisions about risk are shaped by values and competing priorities. When participants were presented with alternative measures, their choices frequently went beyond maximising a score.
In the wildfire scenario, the participants preferred renovating homes to demolishing them, highlighting the social cost of forcing communities to relocate. They also questioned reliance on sprinkler systems where water availability and infrastructure resilience could not be guaranteed and explored vegetation-based alternatives.
Similarly, in the earthquake scenario, some participants prioritised upgrading older homes rather than removing trees, recognising the contribution of urban vegetation to quality of life. They also favoured securing electricity pylons over protecting power generation facilities, placing the immediate protection of human life above the temporary disruption of electricity supply.
In the flood scenario, participants favoured preserving wetlands as a natural risk reduction measure requiring limited maintenance. When asked to choose between protecting agricultural land and tourism assets, they prioritised farmland, pointing to the importance of livelihoods and food security for local communities.
These choices generated an important discussion: what does a “successful” disaster risk reduction decision actually look like? Is it the option that protects the greatest economic value, achieves the highest technical performance, or best safeguards lives, livelihoods and social wellbeing? The game did not always provide simple answers - and that was precisely where some of the most valuable learning took place.
These discussions reflected a central reality of DRR: there is rarely one perfect solution. Decisions require balancing competing priorities, including protecting lives, safeguarding infrastructure, managing budgets and addressing long-term resilience.
“Some "unexpected" incidents are... all part of the plan!”
From awareness to action
The workshop also demonstrated how serious games can support a shift from passive learning to active engagement.
Participants reported strong interest in the game and its educational value. All respondents indicated that the game helped them learn something new, strengthened their understanding of prevention and preparedness, and that they would recommend and reuse the tool.
This reflects the broader potential of serious games as educational tools. They can support learning among students, professionals and communities by allowing users to experience the consequences of choices that are often difficult to visualise in traditional training environments.
However, serious games should not be seen as replacements for professional risk assessment or operational planning. Participants also recognised that simulations simplify reality and should be understood as educational tools rather than complete representations of disaster management systems.
Their value lies precisely in creating a space where people can ask questions, challenge assumptions and better understand the connections between decisions and outcomes.
In a world of increasingly complex and interconnected risks, preparing communities starts with empowering people to think differently about risk - and sometimes, that learning can begin with a game.
Sofia Karma is the Director of the European Center for Forest Fires (ECFF), EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement, Council of Europe and Academic Staff at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece.
Alex Tsakiridis is a Disaster Prevention Specialist, Member of the Scientific Committee of the European Center for Forest Fires (ECFF).
Dimitrios Alexandris is the Emergency Response Planning Director at the General Secretariat for Civil Protection, Hellenic Ministry for Climate Crisis and Civil Protection, and member of the Steering Committee of the European Center for Forest Fires (ECFF).
Efstathia Athinaiou is Head of the National Planning Department of the Directorate of Emergency Response Planning at the General Secretariat for Civil Protection, Hellenic Ministry for Climate Crisis and Civil Protection, and member of the Steering Committee of the European Center for Forest Fires (ECFF).
Εvangelos Aggelopoulos is a member of the Natural Disaster Department of the Directorate of Emergency Response Planning at the General Secretariat for Civil Protection, Hellenic Ministry for Climate Crisis and Civil Protection, and member of the Scientific Committee of the European Center for Forest Fires (ECFF).
Ioannis Kolovos is a Fire Colonel, Commander of the 1st Special Unit for Forest Fire Operations, Hellenic Fire Service and member of the Scientific Committee of the European Center for Forest Fires (ECFF).
Special thanks to the students who participated and played the game (in alphabetical order): Babilis Georgios, Gotis Konstantinos, Karanastasis Kieran, Karagiannis Sokratis, Kazianis Spyros, Kosta Maria, Lytra Katerina, Mavromati Anastasia, Nitsios Fanis, Papadantonaki Katia, Paraskevaidi Marianta, Paraskevaidis Dimitris, Roumana Athanasia, Salteri Kyriaki, Sideri Angelina, Spiliopoulos Odysseas, Spyropoulou Athina, Stefanou Anastasia, Tsakalamga Evgenia-Antonia, Tzanis Panagiotis, Vigos Kyriakos