GRANDE Final Report: Chapter 3
Attitudes and forward perspectives on the future of the geoscience discipline relative to natural disasters
Introduction
To better understand the geosciences’ ability to address future natural hazard events and contribute its expertise to associated institutional and civic communities, we developed two surveys: a rapid response survey and a gamified job choice survey. The aim of the rapid response survey was to gauge the geoscience community’s perspectives about the current state and future of the geosciences as it relates to impacts from natural hazard events, future changes in higher education and careers, and the relevance of the geosciences to societal issues.
The second survey was a survey-based simulation designed to assess how individuals weigh natural hazard risks against other factors, such as crime risk, salary, and cost of living, when deciding on a new job and place to live. The aim of the second survey was to determine if geoscientists used their knowledge of natural hazards when making life choices, such as relocating to a new location for a job, and whether those with geoscience expertise would tolerate more hazard risk than others. The full suite of data and analyses for these surveys is available in the Data Section of this website.
Rapid Response Survey: The Role of Geoscience in Society
The rapid response survey was an anonymous survey deployed to AGI’s network of geoscience community contacts, collecting responses from December 2023 through August 2024. The survey was comprised of 56 questions that pertained to trends in higher education, career pathways, perspectives on the geoscience discipline, research activities, relevance of the geoscience discipline to societal issues, and perspectives on natural hazards. Participants were shown 17 prompts, randomly selected from each of the question category sets, and were given 30 seconds per prompt to provide their immediate thoughts and reactions. Participants were also asked to provide basic demographic information which allowed us to compare the perspectives of the different career stage cohorts
The survey collected a total of 447 usable responses. By cohort, there were 155 early career responses, 42 early-to-mid career responses, 35 mid-to-late career responses, and 215 late career responses. Participants include undergraduate and graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, academic research and administrative staff, academic faculty, K-12 educators, and non-academic geoscientists working at private companies, governmental agencies, non-profit organizations, or who were self-employed.
As part of the survey, we asked all participants a set of questions to assess the extent of personal impacts from natural hazards and the use of geoscientific knowledge to identify locations where natural hazard impacts would be minimal. When asked about how their earth science education changed because of a natural hazard, participants commonly noted that floods, hurricanes, and volcanic activity altered their educational experiences. Furthermore, many participants noted direct experience with one or more hazards, and common among the responses were comments about how hazards sparked interest and action among participants. These responses often encouraged academic studies, research activities, and choice of geoscience career pathways.
While many participants mentioned having direct experience with one or more hazards, only a few noted physical impacts from hazards that disrupted their education. Across cohorts, there was a shift in perspective in terms of the types of hazards mentioned as well as a shift from more local/domestic focus to global. Most common among later career cohorts was mentions of Mt. St Helens and the Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes. Mid-career cohorts commonly mentioned Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, and early career cohorts focused on a wider geographic area, mentioning the New Zealand earthquakes of 2010-2011, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and US events such as the Nisqually earthquake in Washington and Hurricanes Sandy and Harvey. Also notable is the percentage of participants, particularly in the late career stage, that reported no impacts from natural hazards on their earth science education.
When asked to identify the safest place from climate-related impacts in the US, most participants mentioned the Midwest, followed by the northeastern and western US regions. About a third of respondents described types of locations that would be safe, such as living away from coastal areas, living in areas with higher elevations, and living in areas with mild climates and ample water resources. Some participants also mentioned the importance of living in or near wealthy communities with the assumption that those communities and the surrounding areas would have more resilience to hazards than communities with less resources.
For those responses where we could identify a geographic area (US state or US Census region or division), we compared the safe locations identified by participants to their current location of residence. Across cohorts, over 40% of individuals were living within the same US Census region as what they identified as a safe place to live. About 60% of early-to-mid career participants lived in the US Census division and / or region as what they deemed as a safe place, while late career participants were the least likely to live in places that they deemed as safest from hazards. Only 40% of late career participants lived in the US Census division and / or region as what they deemed safe.
We asked participants about their expectations for how geoscience higher education will evolve over the next decade. Participants anticipated greater use of interactive and virtual teaching methods alongside continued use of traditional classrooms, and fieldwork was widely seen as essential to instruction. Early career participants frequently mentioned expectations that advanced technologies, such as augmented and virtual reality, remote sensing, and big data analytics, to play a major role in teaching by 2035.
Across career stages, participants emphasized the importance of broad participation in geoscience, including collaboration with other disciplines, institutions, countries, communities, and non-academic sectors. Many noted an increasing role for technologies like virtual platforms and artificial intelligence in research collaborations. Key themes for future collaboration included climate change, natural hazards, energy and raw materials, and environmental remediation. Early and mid-to-late career participants stressed applied learning, with field skills most emphasized by mid-to-late and late career professionals. Early-to-mid career participants focused on the importance of core geoscience competencies. Participants also highlighted the value of coursework outside geoscience academic departments, especially in social science, math, communication, and computer science.
We also inquired about participant’s perspectives on essential resources needed for research, the growing role of AI, and the importance of addressing climate, environmental, and societal issues. Participants widely agreed that labs, equipment, technology, and computing resources are vital for geoscience research. Early-to-mid career participants also emphasized the need for funding to support this infrastructure, while mid-to-late career participants stressed the importance of resources for collaboration, networking, and fieldwork.
Research priorities varied by career stage with early career participants focused on applying geoscience to address climate impacts, developing sustainable solutions for society, and working with communities to gather knowledge and share information. In contrast, mid and late career participants highlighted theoretical research and understanding Earth system processes. Early career respondents also highlighted the use of AI and technology to address environmental challenges in collaboration with communities. Mid-to-late career participants emphasized resource management (e.g., water, raw materials) and exploration of planetary environments for future habitation or mining.
Perspectives on AI were mixed. Early career participants were generally optimistic, seeing AI as a tool to expand research, enhance analysis, and foster innovation. In contrast, late career participants expressed more concerns, often with less clarity about how AI could be effectively applied. Positive expectations for AI included its potential to boost research, create jobs, and improve processes such as data analysis, automation, hazard prediction, visualization, and reproducibility. However, concerns were raised, particularly about bias, lack of transparency, misinformation, security risks, and accuracy.
We explored the motivations, concerns, and expectations shaping geoscience career paths. Across all career stages, participants commonly cited societal and environmental impact, along with personal fulfillment, as key benefits of working in the geosciences. Intellectual and academic growth and financial benefits also were commonly noted by participants. Future career interests included interest in employment with governmental agencies, private sector, and academic teaching and research. Key factors influencing employer choice included location, compensation, logistics, and benefits. Early and early-to-mid career participants also emphasized company culture and job characteristics, while mid-to-late career participants highlighted employer ethics, values, and work-life balance. Participants identified soft skills and personal attributes as essential for career success, along with technical skills, professional development, networking, and external support. When asked about their ideal job, most participants envisioned roles in science, research, or teaching, with desired salaries of $100,000 or more, with jobs located primarily in the U.S.
We asked participants about the connections between geoscience and society. Participants recognized strong connections between geoscience and societal resilience, particularly in areas such as sustainability, energy, raw materials, human health, infrastructure, finance, and policymaking. Communication was consistently emphasized as essential for raising awareness and sharing earth science knowledge to inform societal decision-making. Participants highlighted critical resource access as a core societal issue and underscored the importance of environmental responsibility in mineral extraction and sustainable development. They also noted earth science’s foundational role in renewable energy, urban planning, and hazard mitigation. Other notable connections between earth science and society included the link to human health with air and water quality, as well as natural hazard impacts. Participants also drew connections between natural hazards and real estate value, noting the influence of hazard awareness, insurance costs, climate risks, and economic conditions. Earth science research was seen as essential for guiding urban planning, land use, and hazard mitigation. Financial themes included investment in energy and mineral resources and support for geoscience research, though many participants expressed uncertainty about the banking sector’s role.
Across all cohorts, there was a strong call for translating scientific knowledge into policy, with clear communication and trust seen as crucial to informing decision-making. Participants also viewed geoscience as inherently interdisciplinary, advocating for stronger integration with the social sciences, humanities, other physical sciences, computer science, and artificial intelligence technologies to address complex societal challenges.
We inquired about participant’s perspectives on the current and future states of the geoscience discipline. When reflecting on the current state of the geoscience profession, many participants expressed both challenges and frustrations, with feelings of being undervalued or overwhelmed. However, early-to-mid career participants had the most positive outlook, and many participants noted that these challenges were also opportunities for growth rather than purely negative experiences.
Participants widely agreed on the relevance of earth systems, climate, and atmospheric science, with additional emphasis on the impact of natural hazards and supply of energy resources to society. In terms of sectors that need geoscience expertise, participants frequently noted the energy and raw materials sector, followed by government, private industry, environmental firms, and academia. Participants commented on the need for continuing education for professional growth in areas such as programming, math, and technology, with some participants also noting a need for communication, field, lab, policy, and engineering courses. Views on professional licensure however were mixed and generally tepid, reflecting the academic occupations and/or career trajectories of many respondents where licensure is not required. Professional licensure had limited support across cohorts for its relevance to career advancement.
Looking ahead to 2035, participants’ expectations for societally relevant geoscience topics included climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable energy and natural resource use and development. Geoscience topics expected to decline in relevance included traditional hard rock geology disciplines and non-renewable resource extraction. Anticipated growth sectors for geoscience skills included energy, raw materials, and government, with finance, insurance, and climate-related businesses also noted by mid-to-late and late career participants.
In conclusion, the survey results underscore the critical and evolving role of geoscience in society, highlighting both the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. As the geoscience community looks to the future, there is a strong mandate to enhance the visibility and relevance of the field, foster interdisciplinary and inclusive collaborations, and ensure that geoscience education and research are aligned with the needs of a rapidly changing world. By addressing these priorities, the geoscience discipline can continue to make significant contributions to global sustainability, resilience, and well-being, guiding societies through the complex challenges of the 21st century and beyond.
Natural Hazard & Job Choice Game: Understanding how geoscientists prioritize natural hazard risk in their decision-making
The Natural Hazards and Job Choice game was a survey-based simulation designed to assess how people weigh natural hazard risks against other factors, such as crime risk, salary, and cost of living, when deciding on a new job and place to live. In the game, participants were given a series of 16 job offer scenarios and had to narrow them down through several rounds to a final choice. Each job offer provided information about salary, the location’s hazard risk level, crime rate, cost of living, and other attributes, so players could consider trade-offs between financial and personal costs and benefits. After deciding upon a final job offer, participants answered questions about what factors influenced their decision. They were also asked about their reasons for choosing their current location and job, their experience with prior impacts from natural hazards, and their level of concern about hazards where they currently resided. This setup allowed us to examine the factors that influenced a person’s decision and whether those with geoscience expertise would tolerate more risk than non-geoscientists.
Only responses that included a final job choice were included in the analysis. With this requirement, there were a total of 548 usable responses, with 301 responses from geoscientists (55%) and 247 from non-geoscientists (45%). Game participants spanned multiple age groups (from Gen Z to Baby Boomers) in roughly similar proportions across the geoscience and non-geoscience cohorts. Other demographic characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity, career stage and geographic distribution were similar between cohorts. Notably, the geoscientist group was highly educated with a majority holding graduate degrees, significantly more than in the non-geoscientist group.
Hazard Exposure and Concern at Current Locations
We examined patterns of hazard risk exposure among individuals as well as the level of concern individuals expressed about natural hazards. Most participants lived in areas with low to moderate hazard risk exposure, and only about one-fifth resided in high or very high-risk areas for natural hazards. In the sample, geoscientists had slightly higher hazard exposure than non-geoscientists, but this difference was not statistically significant. In terms of specific hazards, severe weather (storms, severe thunderstorms, etc.) was the most common risk, with most respondents living in locations rated high to very high risk, followed by those living in areas at moderate risk for slide hazards (i.e., landslides, mudslides, etc.). Flood risk was another prevalent hazard, with 42% of respondents living in moderate flood risk areas and roughly a quarter in high flood risk areas.
On the other hand, fewer people lived in areas with earthquake or wildfire risk, and most respondents did not live in locations with any appreciable volcanic risk. Similarly, most participants reported experiences of impacts from severe weather and floods, and no impacts from volcanic hazards, slides, earthquakes, and wildfires. We compared responses between geoscience and non-geoscience cohorts, and while not statistically significant, slightly more geoscientists than non-geoscientists reported impacts from wildfires, floods, slides, and volcanoes than non-geoscientists.
Despite the variation in hazard exposures, most people expressed only slight concern about natural hazards where they lived. Concern was negligible for most individuals for volcanoes, earthquakes and slides. Even wildfires were not a concern for a slight majority of respondents. However, hazards that occur more widely and more frequently tended to elicit more concern. Roughly half of participants were at least slightly or somewhat concerned about flooding and severe weather at their current location. Severe weather was the hazard that caused the most concern overall, with about one-quarter of non-geoscientists and nearly one-third of geoscientists reported being very or extremely concerned about severe weather where they lived. While these differences by cohort were not statistically significant, it is noteworthy that geoscientists were slightly more likely to express more concern about floods, severe weather, wildfires, and slide hazards than non-geoscientists.
It is also worth noting that there was a strong relationship between experience and concern: those who had personal experience with severe impacts from hazards tended to be more concerned about hazards. Correlation between experience and concern were moderate to strong across all hazards for both cohorts, with non-geoscientists having higher correlations for most hazards than geoscientists. The highest alignment between concern and hazard experience related to severe weather, floods, and wildfires.
However, natural hazard risk factored very little into people’s choice of where to live. When asked what was important to them in choosing their current place of residence, 58% of geoscientists and 48% of non-geoscientists said that hazard risk did not figure into their decision. Crime risk was similarly dismissed by many – 52% of geoscientists and 40% of non-geoscientists. Both groups said crime levels were not a factor in choosing where they lived. Instead, factors most often rated as highly important in choosing where to live were things such as the geographic location, proximity to family/friends, community amenities, income, and locations with favorable weather. By contrast, less than a fifth of participants said hazard risk was highly important in their choice of residence.
When asked what influenced their choice of current occupation, the vast majority noted that the nature of the job’s characteristics (the role, responsibilities, etc.) were very important in choosing their occupation. Location was the next important factor, followed by income.
Deciding on a Job: Balancing Salary, Location, and Risk
By and large, geoscientists and non-geoscientists behaved similarly when evaluating job offers and making final job choices. Salary was the most significant factor in making a job choice, and higher-paying jobs were far more likely to be chosen than lower-paying ones, all else being equal. Despite dismissing crime risk in their choice of their current location of residence, the crime rate in the city where the job offer was located was a significant deterrent to job choice. Hazard risk did play a part in the decision-making process, but only when salaries were high. This observation suggests that a higher salary could provide investment in protection from the risks and impacts of potential hazards. While no single loss-threshold was identified, beyond which participants universally rejected jobs, the fact that hazard risk significantly weakened the attractiveness of salary demonstrates that beyond a certain level of danger, many participants hesitated to choose a risky location unless the expected payoff was large enough. Otherwise, hazard risk had a weak negative effect on job choice overall that was only marginally significant.
When analyzed separately, hazard risk aversion was marginally significant for geoscientists and not for non-geoscientists. This outcome suggests that those with a geoscience background may have been a bit more likely to decline jobs in high-hazard areas, hence it is consistent with the idea that they would recognize and respond to these risks. However, both groups still ranked hazard risk below other factors in their reasons for choosing their final job. This signal is not consistent between attitudes and actions. Furthermore, the fact that crime risk was a strong and significant deterrent may indicate that individuals place a greater weight on personal security than natural hazards, which may seem more abstract or rare and thus were not considered as important.
Influence of Natural Hazard Concern on Decision-Making
A key focus of the study was to see whether people’s attitudes about natural hazards influenced their job choice behavior. Do those concerned about natural disasters avoid jobs in high-risk locations? Do those who are indifferent to hazard risk choose jobs in high-risk areas? The results revealed a gap between attitudes and actions, especially regarding natural hazards.
After making their final job choice in the game, participants were asked about the factors that were important in their decision. Very few participants listed hazard risk as a top reason for their choice – which is not surprising given that hazard risk was ranked low in many participants’ priority lists for their current location. However, people who cited hazard risk as important in their determination of their final job tended to be those who also considered hazard risk when choosing where they currently lived. Likewise, participants who were more concerned about hazards where they currently lived and were more inclined to report that hazard risk influenced their final job choice though this effect was modest. In short, people who noted concern and/or importance of natural hazards acknowledged that sentiment when explaining their job decision.
However, when we evaluated what jobs people chose, the connection between hazard attitudes and actions was not very strong. Participants who said hazard risk was important did not consistently choose safer jobs than those who did not consider hazard risk important. In contrast, participants who declared that crime risk was an important factor in choosing a job largely did pick jobs in lower-crime areas, and those who said income was important followed through by choosing higher-salary jobs. Statistically, there was almost no difference in the average hazard risk of the chosen job between people who emphasized hazard avoidance and those who did not. Many participants who ranked hazard risk as important in their job choice decision still accepted jobs in areas with considerable hazard risk.
We also examined the hazard risk levels of final job choices for those individuals who said hazard risk influenced their choices versus those who did not across various hazard types. The only hazard for which there was a difference between these groups was earthquake risk: people who claimed earthquake hazard risk was a factor tended to avoid the highest earthquake risk areas more than others. There was also a slight tendency to avoid wildfire-prone areas among the hazard-concerned group, but it was only a marginal signal. For other hazards like floods, severe weather, or slides, there was no significant difference between groups. Those who said they cared about hazards chose jobs in flood or storm-prone regions just as often as everyone else. Especially for these hazards, this may reflect the ubiquity of severe weather and flood hazards across the U.S. This observation may be a trade-off that individuals are willing to make for attractive job offers.
We also assessed if prior experience with hazard impacts negatively influenced job choice in high-risk locations. For almost all hazards, prior experience with natural hazard impacts did not lead to avoidance of job acceptance except for wildfires. Interestingly, people who had experienced severe wildfire impacts were more likely to take jobs in high wildfire-risk areas. This might indicate a form of normalization to this particular hazard, whether that be through preparedness, and/or a level of financial protection such as fire insurance. For hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and storms, there was no significant difference in behavior between those who had experienced intense impacts and those who hadn’t.
We also assessed whether people’s levels of concern about specific hazards corresponded to the risk level of the job they chose. Interestingly, for some hazards, higher concern actually correlated with choosing jobs in higher-risk locations. Notably, participants who expressed greater concern about earthquakes or wildfires tended to choose jobs in places with higher earthquake or wildfire risk. For other hazard types (floods, severe weather, slides), concern did not track well with hazard avoidance. In other words, individuals who were concerned about natural hazard risks still accepted jobs in risky areas.
These results highlight a gap in attitudes and actions for natural hazard risk. Concern about hazards, experience with hazards, and even consideration of hazards in life choices still take second place to factors like career, salary, and location preferences when making life choices like relocation for a job. This shuffling of factors could be interpreted as a form of risk tolerance or willingness to accept the risks associated with hazards as being unavoidable or just part of the background risk of life, whereas things like income and community are more tangible and controllable priorities. Alternatively, a lack of financial well-being may be considered the largest risk that is consistently avoided along with crime risk. These factors may be considered more directly and personally impactful, whereas hazard risk may be more of a distant threat to personal security, and thus is less important when making life choices.
Finally, the results suggest that geoscientists did not have a higher risk tolerance for natural hazards than non-geoscientists. Both cohorts followed the same overall priorities of salary over risk. If anything, geoscientists showed a lower tolerance for hazard risk in their choices, meaning they were slightly more likely to avoid a risky area. However, the difference was minor. Geoscientists did not disproportionately choose high-hazard jobs, nor did they differ in moving patterns. Having scientific knowledge about hazards did not lead to significant differences in job choice, suggesting that geoscientists were not very different from non-geoscientists when balancing job benefits and risks.
In summary, when individuals face a choice of relocating for work, they prioritize career and personal benefits, carefully consider crime and cost-of-living, and generally hope to have both a good job and a safe location – but if they can’t have both, they’ll often take the higher paying job and accept the natural hazard risk. Geoscientist or not, most people in this study acted with a similar risk-return mindset. They stayed true to their long-term priorities (be it family, income, or lifestyle) and negotiated the trade-offs as best as they could. These findings underscore the challenge in getting individuals to move out of disaster-prone areas purely for safety’s sake – unless the economic or social incentives align, hazard risk alone seldom dictated the outcome. Ultimately, the patterns suggest that personal outcomes (like financial stability and personal safety) weigh more heavily in decision-making than the abstract possibility of a natural disaster.
Conclusions
The findings from both the rapid response survey and the job choice simulation underscore the evolving role of geoscience in addressing societal challenges, particularly those related to natural hazards, sustainability, and resource management. Participants across career stages affirmed the relevance of geoscience to issues such as climate change, energy transition, infrastructure, and public health, while emphasizing the importance of communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the integration of emerging technologies like AI.
However, despite the widespread recognition of geoscience’s societal value, participants in both the rapid response survey and in the natural hazard job game demonstrated that key factors for influencing career choices included location, compensation, and benefits, as well as the importance of interesting jobs that stimulated intellectual and professional growth. While experience with hazards often sparked inspiration for career choices and teaching and research activities, integration of that knowledge into life choices remained generally lacking, as participants were primarily motivated by economic gains. In both the rapid response survey and the gamified survey, salaries of $100,000 appeared to be the economic threshold that ensured financial stability, and beyond which factors such as hazard risk could come into consideration. These findings suggest that even with hazard knowledge, practical needs such as income, location, and lifestyle tend to outweigh abstract or infrequent risks when making major life decisions. This highlights the challenge of motivating hazard avoidance behavior solely through risk awareness, pointing instead to the need for stronger economic and social incentives to influence decisions related to living and working in hazard-prone areas.
Table of Contents
