Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3430
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3430
09 Oct 2025
 | 09 Oct 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscience Communication (GC).

The Gap Between Attitudes and Action Within the Geoscience Community's Response to Natural Hazards

Leila M. Gonzales, Christopher M. Keane, and Richard L. Bernknopf

Abstract. With the impacts of climate-related hazards, such as extreme heat, heavy precipitation, drought, flooding, wildfires, tropical storms, and severe weather becoming more intense and frequent, exposure to these hazards continues to increase as population growth expands into areas prone to higher hazard risk such as coasts, wetlands, and wildlands. Despite these trends, adaptation efforts remain a patchwork of local initiatives implemented primarily at the individual and household level and are not enough to keep pace with increasing hazard impacts. Most climate communication strategies have targeted non-expert audiences to raise awareness and increase adaptive behaviours. However, studies exploring how climate scientists are engaging professionally and personally with climate change impacts are rare. A key aspect of this study is that it specifically focuses on geoscientists, a cohort of experts who study and understand the causes, impacts, and risks of natural hazards. Their professional work provides a distinct perspective on the tangible consequences of climate change. This study is part of a larger research project which examined discipline-level engagement (i.e., funding, research, publications) and professional engagement (i.e., teaching, learning, work) across the geosciences. We review these larger trends in discipline-level and professional engagement with natural hazards and extend this line of inquiry with this study to assess the integration of expert hazards knowledge into geoscientists' personal decision-making processes. The results of this study indicated a knowledge-action gap related to hazard engagement that appears to be systemic across the geoscience discipline. This study provides a baseline for future research into evaluation of climate expert behaviours and actions as it relates to climate hazards. It also provides a new communication simulation that can be tested internationally and compared to this study's results. In addition, the simulation can be incorporated into in-person settings to facilitate discussion about climate hazard risk considerations.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Leila M. Gonzales, Christopher M. Keane, and Richard L. Bernknopf

Status: open (until 04 Dec 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Leila M. Gonzales, Christopher M. Keane, and Richard L. Bernknopf
Leila M. Gonzales, Christopher M. Keane, and Richard L. Bernknopf
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 09 Oct 2025
Download
Short summary
This study examines discipline-level engagement (i.e., funding, research, publications) with natural hazards across the geosciences, professional engagement (i.e., teaching, learning, work) among geoscientists, and assesses the integration of expert hazards knowledge into geoscientists' personal decision-making processes. The results of this study indicated a knowledge-action gap related to hazard engagement that appears to be systemic across the geoscience discipline.
Share