Geoscience for European Policy on Climate-Related Geohazards

by Poyiadji Eleftheria¹, Hollis Julie²*, Gkoutis Dionysios¹, Correia Vitor³, Tyrologou Pavlos⁴, Govoni David⁴, Gruslin Steve⁵, Ivanik Olena^6,8,9, Clark Simon⁷

¹  HSGME

²  EuroGeoSurveys

³   INTRAW

⁴   European Federation of Geologists

⁵  Géoconseils, EurGeol

⁶  Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

⁷  European Geosciences Union

⁸  European Association of Geosciences and Engineers

⁹  CRPG, CNRS – Université de Lorraine

*  Corresponding author: julie.hollis@eurogeosurveys.org

Abstract

Almost a fifth of Europe’s population faces escalating threats from climate-related geohazards, including flooding, landslides, ground instability, sea-level rise, coastal erosion, and ice and permafrost thaw. Climate change intensifies these threats through altered precipitation patterns and extreme weather. Effective mitigation and response hinge on coordinated geoscience data, information, and knowledge involving government geological surveys, academia, professional organizations, and industry. Collaborative geoscience supports European policy by providing harmonized risk assessments, mapping, and monitoring to inform land-use planning and infrastructure. It enables enhanced data collection for real-time warning systems and resilient infrastructure, including 3D subsurface models. Geoscience also aids in developing effective, human-centric early warning systems, mitigation strategies, and climate-resilient urban design through nature-based solutions. Ultimately, geoscience can strengthen societal resilience through public awareness, education, and integrating geohazard information into emergency protocols. Strengthening science–policy–society interfaces is essential to anticipate complex and rapidly changing geohazard regimes.

Keywords

Disaster risk reduction; Multi-hazard early warning systems; Nature-based solutions; Climate-resilient urban planning and adaptation

Note:

Papers published in this special issue of the European Geologist journal have undergone a thorough peer-review process but have not been copy-edited. Authors bear full responsibility for the linguistic accuracy of their contributions.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

---

1. Introduction

1.1. The escalating threat of climate-related geohazards in Europe

Geohazards are geological processes that can severely impact human and ecosystem health, lives, properties, and infrastructure, and can lead to major socio-economic consequences. Examples of climate-related geohazards include flooding, landslides, ground instability, sea-level rise, coastal erosion, and ice and permafrost thaw. Accelerating climate-change, including overall warming and changed oceanic and atmospheric circulation systems and precipitation patterns, are contributing to the increasing frequency and severity of geohazards. The past ten years (2015–2024) were the hottest ten years on record, with 2023 the warmest year on record globally. Also, in the 12-month period between February 2023 and January 2024, global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time. Europe specifically, is expected to face continued increasing temperatures, increased risks of more intense and more frequent heatwaves, prolonged droughts, more intense precipitation, lower average wind speeds, and less snow (EEA, 2024).

Given accelerating climate change, the impacts of related geohazards can also be expected to continue increasing. This is particularly the case in Europe because it is the fastest warming continent. Resulting changes in precipitation patterns, in particular, with increased extreme and catastrophic events, as well as declines in overall rainfall and more severe droughts, pose major challenges for food, water, and energy security (EEA, 2024). The increasing frequency and intensity of geohazards can compound damage, increasing recovery costs and decreasing recovery time. In turn, the impact of such events increases insurance premiums and threatens the resilience of not only insurance systems but of overarching national economic stability and social cohesion (e.g., EEA, 2024; Wu et al., 2025). In the face of increasing climate-related geohazards, integrated risk assessment, mitigation, and preparedness strategies are increasingly seen as central to socio-economic resilience.

1.2. The role of geoscience in mitigation and response

Geohazards are geological processes or conditions that can generate adverse impacts. Thus, access to relevant geological data and understanding the underlying geological processes provides a necessary basis to inform disaster risk assessment, mitigation, preparedness, and response. For example, disaster management plans require, as a foundation, access to data and knowledge of the geographical distribution of hazards (e.g., landslide risk), long time-series observational data and predictive modelling (e.g., of groundwater levels), and near-real time monitoring data (e.g., of slope stability) for informing preparedness and response efforts. The development, management, and delivery of such geoscientific data and expertise fall to geoscientists across a broad professional spectrum. This spectrum includes geological survey organisations, academic and research institutes, applied professional geologists working across a range of industries, and geologists informing regulatory and other government authorities at all governance levels including municipal, regional, and national levels. While data provision is fundamental, it must also be supported by multi-disciplinary engagement and effective communication. It is the role of geoscientists across these sectors to actively engage with the diverse spectrum of actors involved in geohazard assessment, mitigation, preparedness, and response, which might include regulatory authorities, politicians, emergency services, community organisations, and the general public. The following sections outline how geoscientists and their organisations support the full disaster risk management cycle in Europe, from risk assessment and monitoring to mitigation, adaptation, and emergency response.

1.3. Paper structure and scope

In this paper, geoscientists from geological survey organisations, geoscientific research institutes, and professional geologists working in industry jointly review the status and the role of geoscience and geoscientists in researching, understanding, and communicating geohazard risk to public authorities, policy makers, and society, as well as in contributing to preparedness and mitigation measures that are increasingly required in the face of accelerating climate changes.

2. The European Context of Geohazards and Climate Change

2.1. Prevalence and impact of geohazards across Europe

Europe, with its diverse geo-environments, is being affected by a diversity of geohazards. Many of those geohazards are climate-related. A study lead by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) revealed that approximately 87 million Europeans (18.8 % of the European population) are exposed to multiple natural hazards, such as coastal flooding, river flooding, landslides, and soil subsidence (Antofie et al., 2025). In recent years, there has been an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme climate events in Europe. An example is the 2023 Slovenian floods, which caused three fatalities and affected several tens of thousands of people and 66% of the country. Flooding also caused more than 1000 landslides, with a total economic damage estimated at close to 10 billion euros, 16% of GDP (European Commission, 2024). Another example is the Storm/Cyclone Daniel in September 2023 that brought torrential rain to parts of south-east Europe. Some areas of Greece received 80cm of rain within a single day, leading to large-scale flooding. This flooding event and related landslides caused 17 fatalities and over 2 billion and perhaps as much as 5 billion euros. These events illustrate how compound flooding and landslide hazards can overwhelm existing civil protection capacities and highlight the need for better geoscience-informed planning.

2.2. Climate change as an intensifier of geohazard risks

Climate change is intensifying geohazard risk. Some of the climate change effects that are already visible include:

1. Extreme Precipitation

Increased atmospheric temperatures lead to increased moisture in the air, resulting in more frequent and intense rainfall. This drives an increase in riverine floods and landslides, particularly in regions with steep slopes and vulnerable soil, such as the Alps, Carpathians and the Apennine Mountains. Observations from the Storm/Cyclone Daniel in September 2023, combined with climate models, concluded that for a large region, including Greece and parts of Bulgaria and Türkiye, the human-induced climate change made an extreme event of this kind up to ten times more likely and up to 40% more intense. The same Storm/Cyclone Daniel impacted Libya with extreme rainfall, floods, and gale-force winds, resulting in the collapse of two dams. An event of this extreme nature over Libya has become up to fifty times more likely and up to 50% more intense compared to a 1.2°C cooler climate.

2. Sea-Level Rise and Storm Surges

Global sea-level rise and more intense storms are accelerating coastal erosion and increasing the risk of coastal flooding and saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers. This threatens coastal communities, ecosystems, and vital port infrastructure, not only in low-lying countries like the Netherlands but also other regions of European coastline. Recent pan-European assessments show that almost half of the total Coastal Flood Plains area is on average subsiding at a rate faster than 1 mm/yr.

3. Permafrost Thaw

In Europe’s mountainous and Arctic regions, rising temperatures are thawing permafrost, which acts as a natural cement for rock and soil. This loss of stability is leading to an increase in solifluction, creep, rockfalls, debris flows, and other forms of slope instability, posing a direct threat to mountain communities, transport routes, and tourist infrastructure. Detailed studies in specific Alpine slopes showed that the expected rise of climate warming and the mountain permafrost degradation are most likely leading to increased rockfalls in the Alps. 

4. Droughts and Subsidence

While intense rainfall increases the risk of landslides and flooding, prolonged droughts cause larger water demands and the intensification of groundwater pumping. This leads to substantial groundwater level declines, which in turn results in significant subsidence. During the past century, groundwater depletion caused land subsidence at 200 locations in 34 countries (Herrera‐García et al., 2021).

2.3. The current European policy landscape related to geohazards

Overarching international policy related to geohazards is framed by the Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030 (UNISDR, 2015). The Sendai Framework is an agreement between 187 United Nations (UN) Member States, with the objective of reducing disaster risk and related losses in lives, livelihood, and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets of people, businesses, communities, and countries. In parallel, international agreements designed to mitigate climate change include the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These agreements directly impact the policy landscape related to geohazard risk reduction through mitigation of overarching climate change impact.

At the European level, the policy framework relating to geohazards is underpinned by the Solidarity Clause in the Treaty of Lisbon, which expressed the EU’s obligation to assist Member States in the event of disaster or other major crises. Supporting this is the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (EU CPM, 2001), which has been ratified by 37 countries including all EU Member States plus Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Türkiye, and Ukraine. The EU CPM is a framework for European countries to cooperate on disaster prevention, preparedness, and response, which includes a mechanism for responding to national requests for disaster assistance. This cooperation can include financial support, expertise, and equipment coordinated by the European Commission Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Operations (DG ECHO) via its Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC). The EU CPM legislation was revised in 2013 to accommodate comprehensive disaster management policy including disaster prevention, preparedness, and improved response (European Union, 2013), to include – in addition to the ERCC – the Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS) and the European Emergency Response Capacity (EERC).

At national level, all European countries that have ratified the EU CPM are required to have disaster management systems in place. These systems vary considerably based on a range of factors including hazard assessment approaches, data availability, geology and geography, overarching governance systems, degree of centralization, organisational culture, capacity, resources, infrastructure, etc. In practice, geohazard mitigation and response relies on coordination of civil protection planning at all administration levels, from national, to provincial, to municipal.

In addition to disaster management, the European Climate Law requires EU institutions and Member States to make continuous progress on strengthening climate adaptation and resilience. Measures such as National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), required under the Governance Regulation, can directly impact mitigation climate-related geohazards. NECPs are 10-year roadmaps detailing national plans to implement the EU’s 2030 climate and energy targets. However European Commission assessments of updated NECPs and associated recommendations have identified mismatches between NECPs and the planned and implemented adaptation policies and measures (European Commission, 2024).

In summary, despite the evolving policy landscape, regulatory gaps remain. While flooding benefits from a dedicated and binding legal framework through the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC), no equivalent EU-level directive exists for landslides or other geohazards. As a result, approaches to landslide risk assessment, mapping, and land-use regulation remain highly heterogeneous across Member States. Similarly, there are fragmented national approaches more generally to hazard assessment, mapping standards, monitoring systems, and land-use regulation. The absence of harmonised EU-level requirements limits comparability of risk information, constrains cross-border cooperation, and weakens preventive planning. Addressing these regulatory gaps would strengthen coherence, improve risk governance, and enhance Europe’s collective resilience to geohazards.

3. The Role of Geoscience Organisations

3.1. Overview of key geoscience actors

In Europe, geohazard risk management policy is largely shaped by geoscience organizations that combine scientific research, government regulation, and industrial experience. Geoscience organisations collect geological data, model hazardous processes, develop early warning systems, and integrate the results into disaster risk reduction (DRR) plans. Among the main actors in this field are state geological surveys, academic research institutions, professional associations of geosciences, and industry.

National geological surveys in various countries are engaged in hazard mapping, seismic activity monitoring, and landslide and flood analysis. They provide data for management decisions in the field of public safety and infrastructure and some of them (Spain, Slovenia, Greece) maintain Emergency Response Teams that join the Civil protection authorities when large scale geohazards occur.

Industry also plays a significant role. Large companies such as TotalEnergies, Equinor, and mining corporations are forced to take geohazards into account in their activities. They invest in seismic and geotechnical risk research, implement modern monitoring systems, and maintain partnerships with universities and research centres. In this way, the industrial sector is becoming an important driver of innovation in geohazard risk prediction and management.

Professional associations of geoscientists, such as the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE), the European Geosciences Union (EGU), the European Federation of Geologists (EFG), and EuroGeoSurveys (EGS) also play an important role, creating a space for knowledge exchange and standardization of risk assessment methods (Fig.1). Their activities contribute to European and national risk reduction strategies. They combine the experience of scientists in the field of risk management by creating technical associations and divisions on geohazards (EAGE Technical community of Geohazards, EGU Natural Hazards division, EGS Earth Observation and Geohazards Expert Group, and others). The UNESCO chair on the Prevention and Sustainable Management of Geo-Hydrological Hazards is also significantly involved in research into geo-hydrological hazards threatening cultural heritage.

---

---

3.2. Mandates and expertise of geological survey organisations in hazard assessment

The mandate of most European geological survey organisations includes key areas of geohazard assessment and management. They carry out a broad range of activities such as:

• collecting, systematizing and storing geological data (maps, databases, geological models)
• assessing geological hazards (landslides, earthquakes, flooding, karst phenomena, etc.)
• developing risk maps for spatial planning
• providing scientific advice to governments and local authorities on the protection of people and infrastructure
• informing the public and raising awareness of geological risks
• joining the Civil Protection Authorities in the management of geohazard through their Emergency Response Teams.

 For example, the French Geological Survey (BRGM) is developing integrated approaches to the management of natural risks that have an impact on ground, the subsurface and the coastline, while the British Geological Survey (BGS) maintains national landslide databases and develops interactive susceptibility and risk maps. In addition, geological surveys play an educational role by informing the public about potential geohazards and ways to reduce their impact on the society. Through all of these activities, they become key intermediaries between science, government, and citizens.

3.3. Contributions of geoscientific research

Geoscientific research plays a pivotal role in advancing the understanding of climate-related geohazards. By combining field observations, remote sensing data, geological archives, and modelling approaches, researchers are able to trace how climate change amplifies processes such as landslides, flooding, coastal erosion, and other processes. AI and machine learning have become important tools in this context, enabling the analysis of large and complex datasets, the detection of hidden patterns, and the improvement of predictive accuracy. It is important to note that the inherent complexity of the geological environment and the diversity of geological settings demand unique approaches to analyzing the factors and mechanisms of geohazards. This underscores the critical importance of scientific research in providing systematic and well-founded insights into these multifaceted natural processes.

Equally significant is the contribution of geoscientific research to adaptation strategies and risk governance. The development of high-resolution hazard maps, scenario-based models, and early warning systems provides a robust scientific foundation for integration into spatial planning, engineering design, and civil protection measures. In this way, geoscience augmented by cutting-edge technologies serves not only as a tool for deep theoretical analysis but also as a foundation for practical solutions aimed at strengthening societal resilience in the face of climate-related geohazards.

3.4. The role of professional geologists in local risk assessment

Professional geologists play a key role in conducting local geohazard risk assessments, as they possess the specialised knowledge and methodologies to analyse the main factors and mechanisms and identify potential geohazards. Their activities include detailed field studies, geotechnical monitoring, interpretation of geophysical and geochemical data, and the development of local hazard maps. Thanks to their expertise, professional geologists are able to identify areas vulnerable to landslides, flooding, karst processes or erosion, which form the basis for planning safe infrastructure and development.

In many European countries (including Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and a number of Central and Eastern European Member States) these tasks are legally entrusted to licensed or formally recognised professional geologists, whose qualifications, ethical obligations, and continuing professional development are subject to regulatory oversight. At European level, professional titles such as EurGeol provide a harmonised benchmark of competence and professional standards, facilitating mutual recognition among member states and cross-border practice. Availability of qualified and recognised professionals is a critical, component of effective geohazard risk management.

Overall, the system of geoscience organizations in Europe¾from public services and academic institutions to professional associations and businesses¾functions as a comprehensive network, providing a multi-level and multi-scale approach to the study and reduction of natural risks. Its activities are not only scientific, but also applied, since the results of research directly affect the safety of society and the resilience of infrastructure, particularly in the context of climate change.

4. Key Areas of Collaborative Geoscience for Policy Support

4.1. Risk assessment, mapping, and monitoring

The EU has established key strategies that support assessment of climate-related risk and hazards, such as the EU Adaptation Strategy and the Water Resilience Strategy. However, risk assessment efforts are stymied by a lack of an EU-wide risk assessment mechanism, with limited focus on systemic and cascading risk, and lack of harmonization between different levels of governance. Additionally, risk assessment in low-income countries suffers due to a lack of access to equipment, data, and training. Harmonisation between risk management systems requires international collaboration: hazard and risk monitoring, modelling and mapping benefit from access to stakeholders and expertise. This requires an integrative approach for risk management at the national, regional and international level, including inter-sectoral approaches. Harmonisation can be achieved by using shared reference scenarios, indicators and metrics, which are inclusive of both economic and non-economic risks. Geoscientific organisations are important knowledge brokers which can facilitate the sharing of technology, data, and expertise, including integrating databases and methodologies. Multi-sectoral planning and management strategies also benefit from access to real-time monitoring, earth observation, and high-resolution predictive models. However, key to the development of integrated and comprehensive risk management systems is access to long-term, sustained funding and support. While the technical architecture of multi-hazard early warning systems is essential, their effectiveness ultimately depends on how well they respond to the needs, capacities, and vulnerabilities of the communities they serve. The following section therefore focuses on the human-centric dimension of early warning implementation.

4.2. Enhanced infrastructure and data collection

Access to high quality data improves decision-making by public administrations. Impacts are reduced when public officials have a shared understanding of risk informed by data, also aligned with preparedness and mitigation policy. Often, this is frustrated by a lack of monitoring stations or poor data access, inefficient assessment frameworks, and poor interoperability between systems. Evidence-based decision-making is improved by adopting shared data standards and protocols, historical and real-time data, modelling methods, sharing risk maps, interoperability, integrating data into user-friendly data platforms, and by aligning operational policies. This includes collaborative approaches which align measures with complementarity intentional strategies, such as the UNFCCC Global Goal on Adaption, data standards, such as the FAIR principles and indices (designed to ensure data is findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable; Wilkinson et al., 2016), such as those identified by the Global Climate Observing System (designed to assess the status of global climate observations and produce guidance for improvement). Risk mapping should be integrated within Early Warning Systems (EWS) processes to strengthen their response to local developments. However, hazard maps and models are more often informed by monitoring data at national rather than local scale. Geophysical monitoring at higher spatial and temporal resolution is required, whilst local and indigenous knowledge can strengthen risk mapping by identifying context-specific indices.

4.3. Early Warning Systems (EWS)

Early Warning Systems must account for rapid-onset hazards to facilitate the appropriate and timely response in individuals, communities and institutions. Responsible institutions should adopt co-early action protocols which identify triggers and clarify response through delegation and coordination, risk prioritisation, and communication. For an EWS to succeed, it must be implemented alongside social engagement programmes which improve risk comprehension and motivate anticipatory action in target communities. Multi-hazard early warning systems (MHEWS) are crucial for effective disaster risk reduction, as they provide a more consistent picture that reflects the complex, cascading realities of disaster. Implementing multi-hazards systems are necessary to meet the Early Warning for All 2027 goals, and empower decision-makers by providing insight into hazard development. However, MHEWS frameworks are rare and often inadequate or non-existent: the majority of EWS employ a single-hazard system, and the MHEWS that do exist are often generalised and lack the ability to capture developments at local-level. However, this provides an opportunity. Implementation strategies for MHEWS should emphasise coherency and improve comparisons by practitioners and policymakers at different regions and scales.

4.4. Human-centric Early Warning Systems

Building on the technical foundations of early warning systems, effective disaster risk reduction requires that warning mechanisms are explicitly human-centred. This means embedding social vulnerability analysis, accessibility, inclusiveness, and behavioural insights into system design, communication protocols, and response planning, including a long-term picture of vulnerabilities. They should acknowledge how multi-hazards relationships result in specific impacts on communities. A human-centred EWS can improve community response by recognising the systemic pressures that affect access to resources and response to risk. Warning systems that do not seek to empower the communities they serve risk neglecting marginalised groups, which are more at risk. For example, crisis communications are often audio-centric, rendering it inaccessible to deaf communities. Strategies must adopt an inclusive approach that considers the characteristics that affect vulnerable societal groups, such as age, gender and sexual minorities, disability, ethnic and racial minorities, and those of low socio-economic status. Inclusive warning systems must also recognise place-based needs of the population, such as those experienced by isolated rural communities. Implementation is strengthened by knowledge of the local environment and sustainable solutions developed by local and indigenous communities. To achieve this, policy should champion the involvement of stakeholders throughout the decision-making process, with a focus on developing trust and mutual accountability.

People-centred messaging anticipates the response of the target community and empowers public response through clear, place-base, and action-orientated communications, distributed through trusted technological infrastructure. Current applications for communicating warning information are not yet comprehensive in their scope of hazards and disasters. An application dedicated to communicating verified information can provide an avenue for location-specific disaster communications to motivate a rapid, actionable response in citizens. Such an application should provide clear, non-contradicting messages, provide the opportunity to platform key services, including reporting and discovering the status of community members, and giving citizens the ability to contact emergency services. Facilitating communication, interaction and engagement between communities and local scientists strengthens the efficacy of risk manageable strategies. Meaningful and consenting inclusion can be achieved through public consultations, the co-development of monitoring systems, and the provision of positions that include community members in decision-making. Additionally, embedding geoscience education by integrating in these formalised settings, such as schools, and social settings (e.g., science communication events) informs and empowers communities to advocate for themselves and take action. By supporting local researchers and targeted communities, research is also improved through collaborative problem definition and data collection.

5. Mitigation Strategies Informed by Geoscience

Hazard mitigation strategies are most effective when they are grounded in a robust understanding of earth processes. Geoscience provides the data, models, and spatial frameworks needed to move from generic risk-management to site-specific, evidence-based mitigation. Recent work on multi-hazard risk emphasises that hazards rarely occur in isolation, reinforcing the need for integrated, geoscience-led approaches to mitigation and planning (Gill & Malamud, 2014; Bhunia & Shit, 2021; GSA, 2022).

5.1. Understanding underlying geological, geotechnical, and hydrogeological conditions

Effective mitigation begins with characterising the subsurface and landscape at an appropriate scale. Geological investigations establish the stratigraphy, structural framework, geomorphology, and active geological processes (e.g. faulting, karstification, erosion) that control the distribution and frequency of hazards such as landslides, earthquakes, sinkholes, and subsidence. Multi-hazard risk assessments increasingly rely on high-resolution geological mapping, digital elevation models, and remote sensing products to delineate hazard-prone areas (Bhunia & Shit, 2021). Geotechnical characterisation translates geological models into engineering parameters. Laboratory and in situ testing quantify the physical behaviour of soils and rocks under different conditions, while modelling helps understand failure mechanisms including (e.g., how slopes respond to rainfall, groundwater variations, and seismic loading) and how different stabilisation measures perform under controlled conditions, providing design constraints (Fang et al., 2023; Feng & Liu, 2024).

Hydrogeological analysis links surface and subsurface water dynamics to hazard processes. Groundwater levels and groundwater dynamics (e.g., pore-pressure, recharge/discharge patterns) influence slope stability, liquefaction potential, sinkhole development, land subsidence, and flood behaviour. Advanced earth-observation–based methods now support multi-hazard hydro-geological assessments, combining remote sensing, machine learning, and physically based models to simulate future scenarios (Rahman et al., 2025). Crucially, these multi-hazard analyses and assessments must be integrated into conceptual and numerical models that underpin environmental impact assessments (EIA), land-use planning, and project design. Reviews of EIA practice show that where geological, geotechnical, and hydrogeological inputs are systematically embedded, hazards are identified earlier, uncertainties are better documented, and mitigation options are more robustly appraised (Bilaro, 2019).

5.2. Design and implementation of effective mitigation measures

Mitigation strategies informed by geoscience combine structural, non-structural, and nature-based measures tailored to the geohazard processes operating at each site. At the structural level, geotechnical analyses and physical modelling guide the design of earthworks and built infrastructure such as retaining structures so that they achieve target safety thresholds. Hydrogeologically informed measures—such as subsurface drains and flood bypass channels—aim to manage groundwater levels and pore pressures, reduce seepage and control saturation. Recent hydrogeological hazard studies show that combining monitoring with models can optimise drainage designs and the definition of threshold conditions for early warning (Rahman et al., 2025). Nature-based solutions (NbS) complement engineered solutions by using ecosystems to reduce hazard intensity and exposure. Examples include forests stabilising slopes, wetlands attenuating flood peaks, dunes and mangroves dissipating storm energy, and restoration of natural drainage networks. Syntheses and guidance developed under the Sendai Framework highlight how NbS, when planned using geoscientific and hydrological data, can reduce risk as well as delivering biodiversity and climate co-benefits (UNEP & UNDRR, 2022; Nature-based Solutions Initiative, 2025).

Implementation also requires translating geoscientific evidence into governance, e.g., hazard and risk maps embedded in spatial plans, building codes reflecting locally relevant loads and soil conditions, EIA requirements that explicitly demand geological and hydrogeological assessments, and contingency planning based on realistic multi-hazard scenarios (Bilaro, 2019; GSA, 2022). Ongoing dialogue between geoscientists, engineers, planners, and communities is essential to ensure that mitigation plans remain technically sound, socially acceptable, and adaptable as new data and climate-driven changes in hazard regimes emerge.

6. Climate-Resilient Urban Design and Adaptation Planning

6.1. Revising urban plans for geohazard resilience

Urban areas are particularly vulnerable to climate change. This is mainly due to their high population density, the impermeability of large areas, the artificialization of watercourses and, in some cases, their location in areas vulnerable to climate change (e.g., coastal areas, mountainous areas, etc.). Climate change increases not only the frequency but also the intensity of extreme events. This is particularly true for floods and sea level rise in coastal areas, but also for geohazards directly linked to changes in temperature and/or precipitation such as clay shrinkage and swelling, landslides, rockfalls, sinkholes and underground collapses, erosion, subsidence, e.g., linked to excessive groundwater pumping. Future urban planning will therefore need to take all these factors into account. Surprisingly, a survey contacted within 21 Geological Surveys revealed that almost half of the participating countries (10 countries) have no legal guidance in the National Land Bill to stipulate consideration of landslides in urban planning practices, and mapping tools are often not adapted to a standard required to inform sustainable development (Mateos et al., 2020).

6.2. Retrofitting and enhancing nature-based solutions

One of the difficulties lies in modifying existing cities, particularly those that are most densely populated or located in countries with very limited financial resources. To revise urban plans to increase resilience to geohazards, it is first necessary to map risk areas and vulnerabilities, then to incorporate urban planning regulations aimed at restricting or prohibiting new construction in these areas. For existing buildings, complementary measures include upgrading existing infrastructure, such as buildings and drainage systems, or implementing nature-based solutions, such as greening and expanding green spaces.

Nature-based solutions play a central role in risk management, but can also offer many benefits, such as improving biodiversity, carbon sequestration and storage, enhancing well-being, and even creating recreational spaces and increasing tourism. However, there is no need to choose between “green” and “grey” infrastructure solutions. As with climate change adaptation and greenhouse gas reduction, both approaches can and should be considered and used in combination.

6.3. Integration of grey and green infrastructure

To combine grey and green infrastructure, natural solutions (green spaces, vegetation, etc.) must be integrated into traditional infrastructure to improve its resilience and environmental benefits. Green infrastructure can, e.g., improve stormwater management, reduce urban heat islands and store carbon, while offering economic and social benefits. This multifunctional, nature-based approach complements grey infrastructure (buildings, networks) and contributes to climate change adaptation and mitigation, such as extreme weather events. For example, reducing impervious surfaces (e.g., grass pavers, trees) will limit runoff. Better management of watercourses (e.g., renaturation, creation of buffer zones) and surface water will reduce the risk of flooding and limit the large inflows of water responsible for landslides and collapses but will also influence the variations in water content responsible for the shrinkage-swelling phenomenon of clays. Sustainable groundwater management will limit the effects of subsidence or settlement of the subsoil. However, this requires the establishment of an organizational structure with strong leadership and clear coordination of responsibilities for disaster risk reduction to ensure coordination and cooperation between the private sector, public institutions, and communities for the development of resilient solutions.

6.4. Providing data and scenarios for long-term adaptation planning

To provide data and scenarios for long-term adaptation, it is necessary to collect historical and current data (temperature, precipitation, past geological events, inventory and mapping of geological risks to which the territory is exposed), use climate models for future projections based on different emission scenarios, and integrate this information into regional and local tools that enable risk assessment and solution planning. It is necessary to involve as many stakeholders as possible, to inform and educate the population to obtain engagement and support, and to prioritize adaptation strategies that reduce vulnerability to climate change, regardless of the future climate scenario. This will ensure the financing of resilience programs and promote long-term investment in technologies and innovation for resilient urban planning. 

7. Building Societal Resilience

7.1. Public awareness campaigns and education

Over recent decades, the European Commission has funded extensive research, innovation, and capacity-building initiatives aimed at disaster risk reduction, geohazard monitoring, and community resilience. These have strengthened Europe’s academic and technical base in hazard science, supported the expansion of spaceborne and ground-based monitoring systems, and improved the availability of hazard and risk data. Citizens and policy-makers now have unprecedented access to risk information, supported by advances in geological sciences, social science, and communication technologies. However, greater scientific understanding does not automatically translate into proactive risk management. Public awareness campaigns often fail to trigger behavioural change because they do not fully address local realities, cultural contexts, or the everyday priorities of at-risk communities. Risk communication must therefore move beyond one-way dissemination of technical findings (“matters of fact”) towards participatory approaches that connect with public concerns (“matters of concern”).

Implementing participatory approaches at scale requires structured methodologies that ensure fairness, transparency, and genuine inclusion of diverse voices. Engagement formats can range from one-to-one consultations for vulnerable individuals to Citizen Risk Assemblies for broader community participation. The key is building trust through mutual interactions and learning between geoscientists, risk management authorities, and local communities. In this context, geological organisations play a pivotal role by producing geohazard maps and forecasts, collaborating with communication specialists to make data accessible, and working directly with schools, local authorities, and community groups to co-design education materials (Fig.2). Effective campaigns use clear, actionable messages, tailored to different audiences, including marginalised groups who are often hardest to reach yet most vulnerable to hazards. Building resilience is as much about trust and dialogue as it is about technical accuracy.

7.2. Integration of geohazard information into emergency response protocols

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction emphasises the need to integrate scientific knowledge with operational emergency management. For geological sciences, this means ensuring that geohazard assessments, monitoring outputs, and predictive models are embedded into the decision-making processes of civil protection agencies, first responders, and local authorities. One persistent challenge is bridging the gap between top-down, expert-led risk management systems and bottom-up, community-led preparedness. Geohazard information must be both technically robust and operationally relevant and must be delivered in formats and timeframes that match emergency response needs. This requires interoperable data platforms, common mapping standards, and structured dialogues that connect disaster management authorities with peer communities, using diverse stakeholder meetings, citizen engagement tools, and validation in real-world settings.

A useful framing is offered by the concept of “doughnut economics” (Raworth, 2017), which balances planetary boundaries (external hazard and environmental limits) with social foundations (internal human needs and capacities). Applied to emergency response, this means strengthening both the external capacity of risk authorities through advanced geohazard monitoring, early warning systems, and coordinated response protocols. Most importantly we must proactively build on the internal capacity of communities to cope, recover, and adapt. Ultimately, the most effective integration occurs when scientific outputs are embedded into training exercises, contingency planning, and real-time decision support tools, ensuring that geology directly informs rapid, coordinated, and context-specific action during geohazard events.

---

---

8. Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Future Directions

8.1. Fostering exchange of knowledge and innovative solutions

There is strong consensus that integrated approaches are needed to ensure both efficient climate change adaptation and mitigation and – in parallel – geohazard mitigation and response (e.g., EEA, 2024). This requires cross- and multi-disciplinary knowledge sharing to (rapidly) develop and implement innovative solutions. This is particularly necessary in Europe, where the EU aims to contribute to coordinated action across Member States who have the primary responsibility for geohazard risk management. Geology, and therefore also geohazards, do not respect borders. For example, important groundwater aquifers transcend European borders, as does key transport infrastructure, and important agricultural corridors that can be (and have been) impacted by major damage from climate-related geohazards. Unfortunately, cross-border management (e.g., of flood-prone basins) is still limited. Effective geohazard management depends not only on scientific innovation but also on translating science into actionable policy and community-level practice. Geohazard management could be dramatically improved by collaboration at all levels, including between geological survey organisations and local, regional, and national authorities mandated to support preparedness, mitigation, and response. Improved data, knowledge sharing, and communication more generally across these networks, with organisational structural level support, would contribute to improved geohazard outcomes. A critical element of this science–policy interface is professional practice at the local and regional level. Professional geologists routinely act as mediators between scientific knowledge, regulatory requirements, and on-the-ground decision-making by municipalities and local regional authorities.

Co-production of Geoscientific Knowledge

Beyond traditional modes of knowledge dissemination from experts to policymakers or the public, co-production approaches recognise that local and community knowledge can meaningfully complement scientific expertise. Co-production involves structured collaboration between geoscientists, risk professionals, policymakers, and affected communities to generate actionable knowledge that is both technically robust and contextually relevant. This requires participatory deliberation processes, multi-stakeholder dialogues, and citizen engagement platforms that enable voices from all sectors to contribute to risk assessment, warning system design, and resilience planning. Whilst implementing co-production practices at scale presents challenges—particularly in avoiding conflict with existing regulatory arrangements—current initiatives are demonstrating that starting at local and municipal levels can create translatable models for broader application. The goal is to move beyond one-way knowledge transfer to genuine partnership that leverages diverse forms of expertise.

8.2. Policy recommendations for stronger geoscience integration

To harness the potential of geoscience for geohazard management, policy integration is essential at both EU and national levels. Relevant geoscience data must be systematically embedded in all stages of the disaster risk management cycle—from prevention and preparedness to response and recovery—through alignment with the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the European Climate Law, and national adaptation strategies. The establishment of a coordinated European framework for geohazard monitoring and data harmonisation would strengthen cross-border comparability and transnational early warning capabilities. Policies should incentivise open data sharing, interoperability standards, and sustained investment in long-term geoscientific observation networks.

As an example, the Geological Service for Europe project (GSEU), is delivering harmonised and near real-time monitoring data for groundwater quality and quantity across Europe. Delivered through a common data infrastructure (the European Geological Data Infrastructure), with common standards, the project has also generated a connected network of national experts. Sustaining such a framework with enormous potential for further improved modelling and predictive input to risk assessments and response has the potential to support ongoing capacity building at national level and in-demand, standardised data to feed policy implementation. This is just one of the potential services that would support policy implementation through a future Geological Service for Europe. Every euro spent on science-informed prevention and preparedness will bring benefits that go beyond the initial investment (e.g., European Commission, 2024).

Moreover, enhanced support for public-sector capacity building and inter-agency coordination is crucial to ensure that geoscientific information effectively informs spatial planning, infrastructure investment, and climate adaptation programmes. By recognising geoscience as a foundational component of Europe’s resilience architecture—on par with meteorology or hydrology—policy makers can ensure that decisions are grounded in an integrated understanding of Earth system processes.

Priority Actions for Policymakers

To strengthen the integration of geoscience into European climate resilience frameworks, three priority actions are recommended:

• Establish a coordinated European framework for geohazard data harmonisation and monitoring, ensuring interoperable standards, sustained long-term funding for observation networks, and cross-border comparability of hazard information.
• Embed geoscientific expertise systematically into spatial planning, infrastructure investment, and National Adaptation Strategies, including mandatory consideration of geological and hydrogeological risk in Environmental Impact Assessments.
• Strengthen institutional science–policy interfaces, including formal mechanisms linking geological surveys, civil protection authorities, and EU policy processes to ensure that monitoring outputs and risk assessments inform operational decision-making.

Prioritising these actions would significantly enhance Europe’s capacity to anticipate, mitigate, and manage climate-related geohazards.

8.3. Challenges and opportunities

Despite progress in integrating geoscience into policy, challenges persist. Fragmentation of data, institutional silos, inconsistent monitoring standards, and variable national capacities limit the integration and use of geoscientific information in policy implementation. Funding for observation and maintenance of critical monitoring networks is often project-based and therefore vulnerable to discontinuities, where instead long-term funding and observations are needed. In addition, societal challenges—such as limited public trust in institutions and the need for inclusivity in decision-making—demand new forms of engagement and co-production. However, these challenges also present opportunities: the digital transformation of the geosciences, expansion of open-access data platforms, and EU priorities for resilience, adaptation, and sustainable resource use, create favourable policy and research environments for progress. Strengthened collaboration among geoscientists, policymakers, and communities can accelerate innovation, improve public understanding of risk, and enhance Europe’s capacity to anticipate and mitigate climate-related geohazards.

9. Conclusion

Geoscience provides an essential foundation for understanding, predicting, and mitigating the increasing climate-related geohazards across Europe and globally. Through the combined efforts of geological surveys, research institutions, professional geologists, and policymakers, Europe has developed an extensive base of data, tools, and expertise to support informed decision-making. However, the accelerating pace of climate change demands a step change in how this knowledge is integrated into governance and practice. Strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration, harmonising data and methodologies, and embedding geoscience within the broader framework of climate adaptation and disaster resilience are critical next steps. By aligning scientific capacity with policy ambition, Europe can build a proactive, knowledge-driven approach to risk management—one that not only protects lives and infrastructure but also fosters resilient, sustainable, and adaptive societies in the face of an increasingly dynamic Earth system.

Author Contributions: Each of the authors contributed to the original draft preparation, writing, review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

---

References

Antofie, T.-E., Luoni, S., Tilloy, A., Sibilia, A., Salari, S., Eklund, G., Rodomonti, D., Bountzouklis, C., and Corbane, C.: Spatial identification of regions exposed to multi-hazards at the pan-European level, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 287–304, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-287-2025, 2025.

Bhunia, G. S., & Shit, P. K. (2021). Geospatial technology for multi-hazard risk assessment. In G. S. Bhunia & P. K. Shit (Eds.), Geospatial Technology for Environmental Hazards (pp. 1–18). Springer.

Bilaro, A. G. (2019). Geological and geotechnical considerations in EIA studies of geohazards susceptible projects: A review. International Journal of Science and Research, 8(12), 1–10.

EEA, 2024. European Climate Risk Assessment, EEA Report 01/2024. European Environment Agency.

European Commission, 2024. COM(2024) 91 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Managing Climate Risks – protecting people and prosperity.

European Environment Agency, 2024. European Climate Risk Assessment, EEA Report 01/2024.

European Union, 2001. Council Decision of 23 October 2001 establishing a community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil protection assistance interventions (2001/792/EC, Euratom).

European Union, 2013. Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Councils of 17 December 2013 on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism.

Fang, K., Tang, H., Li, C., Su, X., An, P., & Sun, S. (2023). Centrifuge modelling of landslides and landslide hazard mitigation: A review. Geoscience Frontiers, 14(1), 101493.

Feng, X., & Liu, H. (2024). Geotechnical disaster risk mitigation in a changing climate. Sustainability, 16(7), 3090.

Geological Society of America (GSA). (2022). Improving natural hazards policies and response through geoscience: Position statement (revised 2022). Geological Society of America.

Gill, J. C., & Malamud, B. D. (2014). Reviewing and visualizing the interactions of natural hazards. Reviews of Geophysics, 52(4), 680–722.

Herrera‐García, G., Ezquerro, P., Tomás, R., Béjar‐Pizarro, M., López‐Vinielles, J., Rossi, M., et al. (2021). Mapping the global threat of land subsidence. Science, 371(6524), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb8549.

Ivanik, O., Shevchuk, V., Kravchenko, D., Yanchenko, V., Shpyrko, S. & Gadiatska, K. (2019). Geological and Geomorphological Factors of Natural Hazards in Ukrainian Carpathians. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 20(4), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/102964

Mateos, R.M., López-Vinielles, J., Poyiadji, E., Tsagkas, D., Sheehy, M., Hadjicharalambous, K., Liscák, P., Podolski, L., Laskowicz, I., Iadanza, C., Gauert, C., Todorović, S., Jemec Auflič, M., Maftei, R., Hermanns, R.L., Kociu, A., Sandić, C., Mauter, R., Sarro, R., Béjar, M., Herrera., G., 2020. Integration of landslide hazard into urban planning across Europe. January 2020 Landscape and Urban Planning 196 (April 2020):1-12 DOI: 10.1016/ j.landurbplan. 2019.103740

Nature-based Solutions Initiative. (2025). Towards a typology of nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction. University of Oxford.

Rahman, M. R., Rahman, A., & Saha, S. K. (Eds.). (2025). Advanced GIScience in hydro-geological hazards: Applications, modelling and management. Springer.

Raworth, K. (2017) Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist, Penguin Random House.

UNEP & UNDRR. (2022). Nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction – Words into Action. United Nations Environment Programme.

UNEP – UN Environment Programme

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. Geneva: UNISDR.

Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016). This work coined the acronym FAIR, which is now used worldwide.

Wu, S., Xu, C., Ma, J., Gao, H., 2025. Escalating risks and impacts of rainfall-induced geohazards. Natural Hazards Research, Volume 5, Issue 3: 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhres.2025.03.003.

---

This article has been published in European Geologist journal 61 – 5th IPGC Special Edition 2