GRANDE Final Report: Chapter 2:
How academic departments have responded to natural disaster events – changes to research, teaching, and operations
Introduction
Natural hazard events present both challenges and opportunities for geoscience departments, both in terms of continuity of instruction and operations, as well as how to leverage these events to enhance pedagogy, research, and community engagement. This chapter explores how geoscience programs have responded to natural hazard events over the past two decades, identifying patterns in student engagement, pedagogical adaptation, and research initiatives. We also examine if incorporation of hazard events into curricula fosters a sense of deeper understanding and enhances student engagement in the discipline.
Additionally, this chapter looks at how geoscience departments can inform preparedness and resilience strategies through their involvement with both communities and local, state, and federal organizations. Through this analysis, we aim to highlight exemplars and best practices that can inform future responses to natural hazard events within geoscience education and research and be used as a model across academic disciplines.
Survey Methodology
We originally planned to deploy a suite of surveys for two distinct populations within the geoscience community, one set for a distinct cohort of geoscience academic departments that had experienced notable disruptive events from 2000 through 2019, and a larger cohort of academic programs that had not. However, based on the results of our analysis pertaining to natural hazard impacts in Chapter 1, all geoscience academic departments were identified as possibly being directly impacted by natural disaster events during the 2000 to 2019 period. This complicated the recruitment process for the survey efforts as all departments would be invited to participate in both sets of surveys. Furthermore, since the surveys were focused on events occurring between 2000 and 2019, there was the issue that current academic department chairs may not have served in their roles during 2000-2019; and may not be able to identify which faculty in the department were present during that period. Thus, asking department chairs to commit to completing the both surveys raised concerns of response rates and internal consistency.
Given these developments, we adapted our design to combine the survey questions from the full suite of surveys into two distinct surveys. One survey focused on direct experiences with natural disaster events (i.e., our Direct Impacts survey), and the other survey focused on indirect experiences with natural disaster events (i.e., our Indirect Impacts survey). We used an informed consent form to determine which survey to send to each participant. Because participants may have had both direct and indirect experiences with natural hazard events, we added a section at the end of the direct experience survey that asked the same questions as were in the indirect experience survey. Although these two surveys were longer than the originally proposed suite of multiple shorter surveys, we expected that asking an individual to complete one survey had a greater chance of engagement than asking them to fill out several surveys over a period of weeks. This expectation was based upon our long history of conducting surveys within the geoscience community.
In December 2023, we deployed these two survey instruments to collect data about the impacts to geoscience departments. Survey announcements were sent to AGI’s network of geoscience community contacts that include all US geoscience academic department heads and chairs, geoscience faculty, students, post-doctoral fellows, and non-academic geoscience professionals. Participants completed an informed consent which allowed us to identify participants who could provide in-depth information about their department’s experience with natural hazards and how their department leveraged those events to enhance their teaching and research portfolios.
A primary challenge with this effort was the low participation rates by potential survey participants despite our extensive and targeted outreach about the study. There were 31 individuals who completed the informed consent, 30 who were invited to participate in the Direct Impacts survey and one who was invited to participate in the Indirect Impacts survey. 10 participants provided feedback in the Direct Impacts survey (a 33% response rate) and the participant invited to participate in the Indirect Impacts survey did not respond.
Low participation rates could have been due to several reasons. One possibility was that the survey instruments were too exhaustive and took too long to complete. Another possibility was that the impacts from natural disruptive events were relatively minor in terms of lasting changes to operational, pedagogical, and research activities. This second possibility could be due to the short duration of the impacts, the ability for institutions and individuals to adapt quickly to disruptions, and a lack of severe impacts.
Our initial analysis of the survey data revealed that while there were examples of impacts on infrastructure and disruption to research and work activities from natural disturbances, the impacts were generally minimal and short-lived (days to a week). Changes were more likely to occur at the individual level than at the institutional level, with some participants noting that the events inspired them to incorporate case studies or examples of the events into their existing curriculum. This aligns with the broader literature pertaining to impacts on higher education from natural disasters (Beggan, 2010; Wright and Wordsworth, 2013; Houston, 2017) that illustrates how university administration focuses on revenue continuity, physical plant and legal issues, as well as the general safety of faculty, staff, and students, while faculty maintains the continuity of instruction.
Based on the initial analyses of our two surveys and the analyses of literature and funding trends from Chapter 1, one emerging theme was that impacts from disruptive events either were generally not long or severe enough to cause lasting changes or risk resilience was generally high among geoscience departments thus eliciting a dampened response to hazard events and impacts. Another factor that may have contributed to the dampened response could also be the resource base of the academic institutions within which geoscience academic departments are located. For example, Beggan (2010) compared two universities, Lamar University and McNeese State University that experienced substantially distinct differences in response and recovery following Hurricane Rita. Lamar University had implemented a strategic plan that led to a rapid recovery following the disaster, while McNeese State University experienced a delay in response efforts that was in part due to statutory requirements related to recovery efforts which resulted in extended impacts and a longer recovery time.
To address the challenge of low participation rates in these surveys and to further explore these emerging themes of resilience, resources, and impact severity, we redesigned the surveys and merged them into a single survey focused on hazard resilience and professional engagement with hazards. The new survey collected responses from December 2024 through the end of January 2025. We promoted the survey extensively through AGI’s network of contacts, social media, and at the AGU 2024 Annual meeting. Compared to the prior surveys (i.e., Direct Impacts and Indirect Impacts), this survey had fewer questions but provided more targeted questions regarding the types of hazards experienced, types of engagement, funding for engagement activities, departmental resilience to hazards, and provided participants with the option to answer a set of reflection questions related to their personal experiences with natural disasters. We received 183 valid responses to this survey. Given the increase in response to this survey, we hypothesize that the low participation rates in the previous surveys may have been in part due to the length of surveys and the multi-step process (i.e., informed consent requirements then survey invitation email, etc.) to participate.
Survey Results
About the Participants
We inquired about the career stage and occupations of survey participants. Just over half of participants had earned their most recent geoscience degree 15 or more years ago, while 10% were currently pursuing a geoscience academic degree. Recent graduates earning their most recent geoscience degree within the last 4 years comprised 15% of participants, while those earning their degree 5-15 years ago comprised 19% of participants.
In terms of occupations, 61% of participants were faculty members, 15% were students, 6% were research staff, 2% post-doctoral fellows, and 16% were non-academic professionals. We also looked at the proportion of each career stage by occupation to visualize the transition from student to early-career to mid-career, and finally to late-career occupational pursuits. As an example, for participants indicating they were currently in school, just over half (53%) were graduate students and 41% were undergraduate students. The remaining 6% were non-academic professionals.
Types of Professional Engagement with Natural Hazards
Across all cohorts, professional engagement with natural hazards occurred primarily during academic degree programs as part of coursework. Three quarters of students also noted that they worked on projects that were hazard-related, and one quarter reported that they were engaged in research on natural hazards. Faculty primarily engaged with issues associated with natural hazards through incorporation of hazard-related topics in their courses (89%) and teaching hazard-focused courses (59%). Nearly half of faculty (49%) reported conducting hazard-related research. Research staff and postdocs showed strong engagement with hazards through research (69%) and exposure to these topics via coursework during their academic programs (69%). Non-academic professionals also mentioned exposure to these topics via coursework during their academic programs (54%), with most also participating in hazard-related research (54%). They were also the most engaged of all cohorts in providing advisement to government agencies for disaster recovery initiatives (46%).
The types of natural hazards each occupational cohort engaged with professionally varied, yet floods and earthquakes were the most cited hazards, with high engagement from all cohorts—students (75% and 58%, respectively), faculty (71% and 65%), research staff and postdocs (62% for both), and non-academic professionals (81% and 54%). Severe weather was also a common focus, particularly among faculty (59%) and non-academic professionals (58%), and to a somewhat lesser extent among students and research staff and postdocs (46% for both cohorts). Engagement with wildfires was noted among 46% of research staff/postdocs and 42% of non-academic professionals. Students and faculty reported more involvement with volcanic activity (38% and 56%, respectively) than other cohorts. Students and research staff and postdocs also noted a higher prevalence of engagement with temperature extremes such as heat waves and cold waves (42% and 46% respectively) than other cohorts.
The focus of professional engagement with natural hazards varied notably across cohorts. Non-academic professionals were most involved in disaster prevention and mitigation (88%), applied research (60%), and to a lesser extent in developing products or services (24%). Faculty focused strongly on advancing knowledge and theory (65%) as well as activities related to planning, training and education for hazard events that cannot be mitigated (62%). In addition, 58% of faculty noted that their work aimed to prevent or reduce the cause, impact, and consequences of disasters. Research staff and postdocs were primarily engaged in basic research related to hazards by advancing overall knowledge and theory (85%), with less emphasis on applied research or immediate-response roles. Students show strong involvement across several areas, including activities related to prevention (67%), planning (50%), and both theoretical and applied research (46%). Restoration and immediate response activities were generally less emphasized across all cohorts, though non-academic professionals led in these areas as well.
Funding for Professional Engagement with Natural Hazards
Funding for professional engagement with natural hazards varied by cohort. Students, most of whom reported engagement with hazards primarily through academic coursework and projects were the most likely to report no funding (54%) for these activities. Students who reported funding for hazard-related engagement from academic institutions (38%) or federal agencies (29%) were graduate students. Faculty also showed a relatively high rate of unfunded work (47%), though they received support from a range of sources, particularly federal (38%) and state or local agencies (21%), as well as institutional support (27%). Research staff and postdocs reported the highest reliance on single-source funding (46%), primarily from federal agencies (62%) and academic institutions (54%). Non-academic professionals were more likely to have multiple sources of funding (42%), and their support was from a broader mix, including state or local agencies (38%), federal agencies (42%), and private companies (12%).
Student Engagement with Natural Hazards
Examples of student engagement with natural hazards reflected a blend of academic learning, applied research, fieldwork, and community involvement. In the classroom, faculty often brought recent disasters into course content—whether it was having students analyze flood maps from current events, study the formation of hurricanes and tornadoes through drawings, or organize hazard-specific presentations to better understand frequency and impact. Some faculty noted structuring entire semesters around seasonal hazards, such as starting Earth science courses in the fall with a focus on tropical weather, making the curriculum both timely and immediately relevant.
Beyond the classroom, hands-on learning played an important role. Students participated in field trips to post-disaster areas affected by floods, fires, and landslides, and some went to geologic sites such as ones that show the K-Pg extinction boundary. These experiences not only reinforced scientific concepts, but they also allowed students to apply their skills in real-world contexts. In several cases, students collected and analyzed post-disaster samples from wildfire and flood events, contributed to long-term monitoring projects related to storms and seismic events, or participated in geologic mapping and floodplain verification activities.
Research opportunities were also central to student engagement. Graduate and undergraduate students participated in NSF-funded or department-sponsored hazard research, including theses and independent studies over a wide range of hazard topics. Many of these projects allowed students to work with advanced tools like GIS, lidar, and remote sensing technologies, and often resulted in presentations, publications, or community outreach resources.
A number of students also engaged directly with communities and professionals through internships, service learning, and outreach. Some worked with organizations such as Sea Grant, state geological surveys, or local floodplain management groups to support resilience planning and hazard mitigation efforts, particularly in underserved or at-risk communities. Others conducted interviews, documented community stories, or participated in public forums and social media efforts to share hazard impacts and promote awareness.
International engagement added another layer of enrichment, with students taking part in global field campaigns or engaging in virtual discussions with collaborators from regions like South America and Southeast Asia. These experiences broadened their understanding of how natural hazards affect different populations and highlighted the global dimensions of hazard resilience.
Finally, many students benefited from mentorship and professional development programs, including scholarships, internships, opportunities to attend scientific conferences, co-author research, and engage with professional organizations.
Examples of Incorporation into Curricula
A common approach by faculty was to integrate recent events into teaching, making course material more immediate, relevant, and impactful. Faculty reported adapting their lectures, discussions, and assignments to incorporate recent hazard events, from hurricanes and floods to earthquakes and wildfires. Some courses were redesigned to align content with local seasonal hazards, such as in Florida with tropical weather, thus aligning instruction with students’ lived experiences and enhancing preparedness. Other faculty noted taking a more event-responsive approach, by examining and tracking hazards as they unfolded in real time, such as monitoring hurricanes or analyzing the impacts of recent flooding.
Assignments were often structured around student-led investigations into recent disasters. In some classes, students selected a hazard event from the past year to present on, exploring its frequency, magnitude, impacts, and potential mitigation strategies. In others, digital tools like InSAR, ArcGIS, NOAA and USGS data, or FEMA reports were brought into labs and lectures to analyze real-world hazard data. Role-playing scenarios, decision-making exercises, and simulations around hazard response and evacuation allowed students to grapple with the human and logistical dimensions of disasters, building both analytical and practical skills.
Faculty also adapted pedagogy and course content to reflect the shifting landscape of hazards. Many built modules or lab activities centered on events such as Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, or regional flooding, and continued to update these activities with current disasters as they occurred. In some cases, these additions emerged in response to disasters experienced directly by faculty or students, leading to more empathetic, place-based instruction — such as integrating local flood impacts into course materials during recovery from a major storm. Others created podcast assignments, peer-reviewed presentations, and jigsaw activities focused on specific hazards and mitigation strategies.
The emphasis by faculty in their integration of hazards into their courses was about understanding the science behind natural hazards, and on the social, economic, and ecological impacts, often tying these concepts into larger conversations around climate change and resilience.
Examples of Research Activities Related to Natural Hazards
The integration of natural hazards into academic research spans a wide range of topics, methodologies, and disciplines, with a strong emphasis on student involvement, applied problem-solving, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Across the examples shared by participants, several key themes emerged that illustrate how hazards-related research is both advancing scientific understanding and preparing the next generation of scholars and professionals.
Many faculty members described engaging students—both undergraduate and graduate—in hazard-focused research through grant-supported projects, theses, and summer mentorships. Students worked on studies related to lightning, heat waves, flooding, drought, severe storms, and atmospheric rivers. In some cases, long-term environmental monitoring data, such as stream habitat records, have been repurposed by students for analyses of climate-related impacts. In field-based classes, such as geomorphology or geologic hazards, students mapped landslides, observed flooding in areas they had previously studied, and participated in research sparked by local disaster events. These experiences provided both scientific insight and practical exposure to the consequences of natural hazards.
Earthquake hazards featured prominently in faculty-led research efforts. Projects included seismic hazard mapping, liquefaction mitigation, rapid deployment of temporary seismic networks, and fault identification. Some of this work occurred in the U.S. and some work involved international projects, including seismic monitoring in Guatemala and collaborations in rift zones of developing countries. Students have assisted with seismological analysis, media communication after earthquakes, and the development of new tools, such as the use of 3D seismic imaging to monitor subsurface collapse under industrial sites.
Several researchers highlighted the increasing importance of climate-driven hazards, especially those related to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and wildfire risk. Projects in places like Hampton Roads, Virginia, and the Northeast U.S. focused on building community awareness, developing adaptation strategies, and supporting flood prediction efforts. One faculty member described paleoclimate research using sediment cores to inform future hazard models, while another shared work on time-slider GIS tools and animations to visualize hazard change over time.
Community engagement was another important thread, with several contributors emphasizing work done in collaboration with local communities or agencies to build hazard resilience. This includes efforts to educate socioeconomically vulnerable residents, document community stories post-disaster, and participate in mitigation planning efforts at the municipal level. Interdisciplinary projects combined social science, public health, communication, and geoscience, such as the analysis of hurricane evacuation behavior during Superstorm Sandy or socio-ecological wildfire research in Indigenous territories in Panama.
Research also leveraged a variety of technologies to advance hazard science. Examples include the use of lidar scanning for modeling rockfall hazards, drones for surveying post-disaster landscapes, and machine learning for refining risk assessments. Government databases were used to analyze disaster costs and develop more predictive models of hazard occurrence and impact. One contributor described patented work related to wildfire prediction, and another applied a new physiological model to assess extreme heat risks under future climate scenarios.
Some projects bridged the gap between research and public decision-making. One researcher recounted a response to a dam failure that evolved into a long-term inquiry into river restoration, dam removal, and historical river morphology. Others supported urban landslide response, contributed to state and local code development, or participated in multi-hazard mitigation planning efforts for FEMA approval.
Academic Departmental Resilience
Survey results highlighted differences in both awareness of disaster preparedness and specific disaster contingency planning and resilience efforts by institutions. Non-academic professionals demonstrated the highest levels of awareness of organizational plans noting practical strategies such as communication plans (65%), remote work arrangements (57%), and server redundancy (39%) for operational continuity. In contrast, over half of faculty, students, and research staff and postdocs (56%, 60%, and 62%, respectively) reported being unsure of whether their department had a disaster recovery plan.
Of the other cohorts, faculty were more likely to report work from home contingencies (35%) than research staff and postdocs (31%) or students (8%). Research staff and postdocs were more likely to report communication plans (38%) and computer server redundancy (23%) than faculty or students. Faculty were less aware of communication plans (27%) and server redundancy plans (15%), and only a small fraction of students report familiarity with operational measures like communication plans (24%) or server redundancy (8%).
Overall, non-academic professionals were more aware about institutional disaster preparedness, while most participants in academic cohorts were unaware of such planning efforts—highlighting a potential gap in communication or inclusion in institutional resilience strategies.
Awareness of how organizations actively include input from natural hazard experts in their recovery planning varied among cohorts. Most non-academic professionals (59%) reported that their departments actively included input from natural hazard experts in recovery planning. In contrast, among other cohorts, 42% of research staff and postdocs, 26% of students, and 12% of faculty reported the same. In addition, 52% of faculty were unsure if input from hazard experts was considered in their department’s recovery planning, while 42% of research staff and postdocs and 72% of students also indicated the same.
These findings suggest that the closer individuals are to operational or administrative roles—such as non-academic professionals—the more likely they are to be aware of and participate in hazard-informed planning. In contrast, students and academic faculty appear to be less engaged or informed about how recovery plans are developed, pointing to a potential disconnect between academic roles and institutional resilience planning.
Examples of Academic Departmental Resilience
Departments across higher education institutions showed a wide range of resilience to natural hazard impacts, though much of that resilience was uneven and often driven more by institutional systems than by departmental planning. One of the most consistent themes was the widespread reliance on remote teaching and working capabilities developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many departments noted that the shift to online instruction created a baseline level of resilience that allows for a pivot to virtual operations in response to hazard events, using tools like Zoom, Teams, cloud-based file storage, and pre-recorded lectures. Some described this as a persistent institutional “academic continuity plan” allowing faculty and staff to continue work during closures caused by storms, flooding, or fires.
Technical and infrastructure-based safeguards were also cited as sources of resilience. Several departments reported that their facilities were located outside of high-risk zones like floodplains, or that buildings have been retrofitted to withstand seismic activity. Others mentioned earthquake safety measures such as bolting bookcases to walls, and backup power systems to protect critical data and research materials. Redundant data storage systems and off-site servers also were mentioned frequently as protective strategies against power outages or infrastructure failures.
A number of departments benefited from institutional hazard planning and early warning systems. These included university-wide alert systems, designated tornado shelters, evacuation protocols, and participation in drills like the Great ShakeOut. In some locations, previous disaster experiences drove improvements to infrastructure and policies. For example, one university responded to a major flood by funding dike construction to protect academic buildings. Others pointed to hurricanes, wildfires, and snowstorms as events that spurred campus-wide changes, such as new communication strategies, hazard monitoring, or retrofits to vulnerable infrastructure.
Yet despite these examples, many respondents emphasized that true disaster resilience is rarely handled at the departmental level as this work is typically centralized at the institution level. Furthermore, many faculty and staff were unaware of existing plans or systems in place to respond to hazard events. This disconnect leads to uncertainty about what actions would be taken in an emergency, or whether research equipment, course delivery, and student support could be maintained.
Others noted more serious vulnerabilities. Several described the loss of research materials due to power outages, lack of backup generators, or water damage from hurricanes. Some pointed out the challenges of protecting laboratory infrastructure, such as incubators and freezers in cases where no electrical back-up generators were available.
In contrast, some departments engaged in proactive planning, updating hurricane-season contingency plans each summer to protect graduate students and research continuity. Others incorporated real-time hazard monitoring into their operations or developed collaborations with public agencies to support community preparedness. A few mentioned physical and technological systems capable of withstanding major events, including multi-hazard monitoring platforms, cloud computing environments, and buildings designed to serve as emergency shelters.
Additional Reflections from Departments
Participants who were willing to share additional feedback about their experiences with hazards reflected on impacts with specific events and the changes they have seen within their departments because of those events. Participants noted the brevity of the impacts from natural hazards, with events usually lasting a day to a few weeks. Damage to facilities was generally minimal and usually constrained to power outages and flooding, with some mentioning lack of potable water for a couple of weeks. A common thread among responses was the ability to directly engage with disasters whether through aiding local community recovery efforts or conducting research during pre- and post-event impacts. Participants also noted how their experience with hazards inspired research and academic degree trajectories.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, interruptions in teaching activities were overcome either by skipping content through waived assignments or adding homework to make up for lost instruction time. After the COVID-19 pandemic, most departments reported no loss of teaching continuity as they were able to pivot to remote teaching. Impacts on lab and fieldwork were the hardest obstacles to overcome. Participants frequently mentioned power outages that resulted in the loss of research samples as well as disrupted access to field monitoring sites.
When asked about partnerships or resources that would be most useful for future hazard preparation efforts, participants noted the importance of building partnerships between federal, state, and local governmental agencies, academic institutions, non-profit and private organizations, as well as with local communities. Participants also noted the importance of nurturing cross-disciplinary connections, especially with social scientists and policy makers. Some noted the need for additional funding for natural hazard research so that society would be more prepared for such events, and others noted a need for additional training for faculty and academic researchers and students on hazard and risk analysis.
Conclusions
Natural hazards were integrated into academic life, with engagement most commonly occurring through coursework and student projects. Faculty noted integrating natural hazards into curricula by incorporating current events, assigning disaster-based projects, and creating modules aligned with seasonal risks. These instructional strategies help connect scientific knowledge with social, economic, and ecological implications. Beyond the classroom, opportunities for students often extended beyond the classroom through hands-on learning and field work through service learning, internships, and community outreach, enriching both their education and the communities they served.
Hazard-related research was noted by faculty, research staff and postdocs, and non-academic geoscience professionals. The focus of hazard-related activities varied across cohorts with faculty, research staff, and postdocs focused primarily on advancing knowledge and theory followed by work on prevention and planning/outreach, while non-academic professionals applied their expertise in real-world disaster recovery planning, prevention, and mitigation. Floods, earthquakes, and severe weather were among the most mentioned hazards by participants.
Awareness of institutional hazard planning — particularly at the departmental level — was uneven. Non-academic professionals were the most informed and involved in disaster preparedness and recovery planning, while most students, faculty, and research staff reported limited knowledge of such efforts. This outcome suggests a disconnect between operational planning and academic roles, underscoring the need for greater inclusion of academic units in institutional resilience strategies.
Finally, while many departments have taken steps to enhance resilience—through remote instruction, cloud-based systems, and structural safeguards—most disaster planning remains centralized at the institutional level. Departments often lack formal contingency plans, and vulnerabilities remain, especially in laboratory settings where infrastructure loss can severely impact research continuity.
Table of Contents
