GRANDE Final Report: Chapter 4
Lessons Learned
Introduction
Our original hypothesis for this study was that geoscience academic departments, as the intellectual discipline that understands the causes, impacts, and risks natural hazard events, would be the institutional units that would lead the way in adaptation and mitigation, leveraging the experiences from the recovery and rebuilding phases of these disruptive events for enhanced educational and research opportunities. The frequency and severity of natural hazard events in the US has continued to increase, especially since the 2000s. According to the National Centers for Environmental Information data (NCEI, 2025) on inflation-adjusted billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, between 2000 and 2009, there was an average of 6.7 billion-dollar disasters per year, which has steadily increased with each subsequent decade. Between 2010 and 2019, the number of billion-dollar disasters per year averaged 13.1, and since 2020, it has averaged 19.2. NCEI reports on high-cost natural disaster events but does not capture events under a billion dollars. Given the increasing frequency of impactful natural hazard events, we expected to see a response within the geoscience academic research community in terms of increased production of research and curricular materials related to natural disasters, as well as engagement across the institution in improving educational resilience to such events.
There are anecdotal examples of leveraging the 1980s eruption of Mt. St Helens and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami as examples used in geoscience teaching. We aimed to determine if such leveraging was consistent and / or tied to a threshold of event impact, and whether these historical examples were reflective of a different time or if they were universal. We also wanted to evaluate whether any pedagogical developments represented cross-disciplinary opportunities, such as engaging other disciplines or examining the impacts of these events on humans and society. Given that the geoscience academic departments demonstrated remarkable resilience to adapt instructional formats and maintain instructional continuity despite rapid institutional shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic (Burmeister et al., 2020; Abercrombie et al., 2021; Gielstra et al., 2021; Hamilton and Yelderman, 2021; Keane and Gonzales, 2021; Koy, 2021), we were curious to see if there was a similar response relative to the increase in disruptions from natural hazard events.
We examined three critical areas related to how the geoscience discipline has responded to increasing natural hazard events since 2000. We identified the scope of impacts of natural disturbances on geoscience programs in the United States since the year 2000, assessed how geoscience academic departments have leveraged experience with natural disaster events to enhance pedagogical and research opportunities, and examined the forward looking perspectives of the geoscience community on how the discipline will build resiliency in the face of future natural disruptions and how it will contribute to the resilience of institutional and civic communities directly impacted by these events.
Impacts of natural disasters on geoscience education and research
Over the 2000-2019 period, results from mapping natural hazard events from FEMA, NOAA, and the USGS federal data showed the ubiquity of natural hazard events across all US geoscience department locations. Our initial expectation was that there would be a subset of geoscience academic departments that experienced potentially disruptive events; however, as determined through this process, all geoscience academic departments experienced potentially disruptive events over the project time frame. To assess if there were geoscience departments that were particularly impacted over the 2000-2019 period, we analyzed the data to determine the proportion of departments located in areas covered by a disaster declaration. The results indicated substantial impacts across departments from a variety of hazard types, especially related to severe weather, such as winter storms, thunderstorms, tornadoes, as well as flooding, hurricanes, and fires. The results of this analysis altered our approach in the subsequent sections of this project that pertained to surveying departments to understand the extent of the impacts to and the recovery process from these natural hazard events. Instead of a small subset of highly impacted departments, our final set of departments to survey included all geoscience academic departments.
Despite the widespread impacts from natural hazards all geoscience academic departments over the 2000-2019 period, there was surprisingly little response in terms of changes to research production, faculty growth and specialization, and curricular resource production over the same period. There were no notable changes in research intensity or shifts in program focus, no changes in faculty size and specialization patterns, and no evidence of significant faculty loss or program reorientation that was directly attributable to natural hazard events. Pedagogical engagement with natural hazards was also very limited, with hazard-related articles in the Journal of Geoscience Education dropping from 8% to 4% between the 2000-2019 and 2020-2024 periods. Hazard-related curriculum resources from the SERC catalog were even more scarce over the same period, but they did increase slightly from 3% to 5% over the same time periods.
Investment in academic research often drives engagement with specific topics. As such, we examined funding patterns from the National Science Foundation (NSF) because it is a substantial source of funding for geoscience academic research. However, the analysis indicated a low prevalence of investment by NSF in hazard-focused research. From 2000 to 2019, just 3.9% of NSF awards funded hazard-related projects, and only 1% of funding opportunities specifically targeted hazards. The NSF Geosciences Directorate awarded the most hazard-related grants, comprising 15.2% of its total awards during this period.
Between 2020-2024, 1.6% of NSF awards and 5% of NSF solicitations were related to hazards research. During this period, hazard-related research awards and solicitations were primarily couched in the context of climate change impacts, instead of response to specific natural hazard events as had been the case in earlier years.
Overall, our analysis indicates a low priority for engagement with natural hazards across the geoscience discipline since 2000, both in terms of investment in research activity, production of scholarly research, and curriculum development. Geoscience academic departments did not significantly alter their capacity, focus, or trajectory in response to the increasing frequency and severity of natural hazard events, despite the geosciences being a unique space where these types of disruptions are themselves eminently teachable and researchable opportunities.
Leveraging experience with natural disasters in teaching and research
We also assessed how geoscience academic departments leveraged experiences with natural disaster events to enhance pedagogical and research opportunities by conducting surveys with US geoscience academic departments. Specifically, we wanted to identify patterns in student engagement, pedagogical adaptation, and research initiatives that were in response to natural hazard events directly or indirectly experienced by departmental faculty, staff, and students. Our goal was to highlight exemplars and best practices that could inform future responses to natural hazard events within geoscience education and research and be used as a model across academic disciplines. Note that questions related to professional engagement with hazards did not constrain responses to current engagement activities only but were left open ended to gain a better understanding of the prevalence of engagement among participants at any point in their academic and professional lives.
Engagement with natural hazards occurred primarily during academic degree programs as part of coursework and related student projects. Faculty frequently reported integrating recent events into their teaching, adapting their lectures, discussions, and assignments to incorporate recent hazard events, from hurricanes and floods to earthquakes and wildfires. The emphasis by faculty in their integration of hazards into their courses included not only the understanding of the science behind natural hazards, but also the links between the science and the social, economic, and ecological impacts, often tying these concepts into larger conversations around climate change and resilience. Examples of student engagement with natural hazards reflected a blend of academic learning, applied research, fieldwork, and community involvement. Graduate and undergraduate students also participated in NSF-funded or department-sponsored hazard research, including theses and independent studies on a wide range of hazard topics.
Hazard-related research was noted by faculty (49%) and research staff and postdocs (69%), and non-academic geoscience professionals (54%). Faculty, research staff, and postdocs focused primarily on advancing knowledge and theory and worked 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 commonly mentioned hazards by participants.
Funding for hazard engagement varied by cohort. Faculty reported a relatively high rate of unfunded work (47%), though those that did receive funding reported support from a variety of federal, state, and local governmental agencies as well as from institutional support. Academic research staff and postdocs reported the highest reliance on funding from federal government agencies and academic institutions.
In terms of academic unit resilience, many faculty and staff were unaware of existing plans or systems in place to respond to hazard events. Frequently, academic respondents emphasized that disaster resilience was rarely a departmental level effort because this work was centralized at the institution level. 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. Resilience to natural hazard events was uneven across departments and often driven more by institutional systems than by departmental planning. Yet, a consistent theme in examples 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 allowed them to pivot to virtual operations in response to hazard events.
Building resiliency to hazard impacts
In order to better understand how prepared the geoscience discipline is to address future natural hazard events and contribute its expertise to associated institutional and civic communities, we developed two surveys: a rapid response survey to gauge the geoscience community’s perspectives about the current state and future of the geosciences, and a gamified survey designed to assess if geoscientists used their knowledge of natural hazards when making life choices, such as relocating to a new location for a job.
Responses from the rapid response survey echoed themes from the departmental surveys in regard to how hazards sparked interest and action among participants, often spurring academic studies, research activities, and choice of geoscience career pathways. Additionally, like the reflections from academic departments, 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. Late-career participants mentioned volcanoes and earthquakes. Mid-career participants mentioned hurricanes, and earlier career participants mentioned a wider array of hazards around the world as opposed to just in the US. Participants also recognized strong connections between geoscience and societal resilience, particularly in areas such as sustainability, energy, raw materials, human health, infrastructure, finance, and policymaking.
Respondents shared their views of the future of geoscience academic instruction, namely an increased use of interactive and virtual teaching methods alongside continued use of traditional classrooms and field work activities. Participants also emphasized the importance of collaboration with other disciplines, institutions, countries, communities, and non-academic sectors. Many also noted an increasing role for technologies like virtual platforms and artificial intelligence in research collaborations. Early career participants often commented on how artificial intelligence was a tool to expand research, enhance analysis, and foster innovation. In contrast, late career participants expressed more concerns, often with less clarity about how this technology could be effectively applied to geoscience research.
In the rapid response survey, we also explored the motivations, concerns, and expectations shaping geoscience career paths. Key benefits of working in the geosciences were often related to personal fulfillment, including intellectual and academic growth, making positive societal and environmental impacts, and the financial benefits of a geoscience career. Key factors influencing employer choice included location, compensation, logistics, and benefits. 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 also used a gamified survey designed to assess whether geoscientists used their knowledge of natural hazards when making life choices, such as relocating to a new location for a job. Data from the rapid response survey indicated that less than half of respondents lived in areas that they deemed safe from natural hazard impacts, suggesting that geoscientists may not utilize their knowledge about hazards when making life choices.
The results of the game indicated that geoscientists did not have a higher risk tolerance for natural hazards than non-geoscientists, nor did they make significant job choices differently from non-geoscientists in relation to hazard risk. Both geoscientists and non-geoscientists followed the same overall priorities of valuing salary over hazard risk, with crime risk as a large deterrent in job choice. 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. Rather both cohorts, when facing the choice of relocating for work prioritized career and personal benefits over other considerations, acting in a way that suggested hope for a good job and a safe location – but if that was not possible, they opted for the higher paying job and accepted the natural hazard risk. 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.
Considerations for the future
What we see in the geoscience discipline with regard to natural hazard engagement is vast potential in terms of interest yet engagement that is hobbled by a lack of dedicated and persistent investment to sustain the spark of engagement and a social zeitgeist that passively accepts hazards risks, even with proactive knowledge, below a given income level.
Hazards spark inspiration that attract students into geoscience academic programs, spurs academic research, and are the touchstones of connection between academic instruction and daily life. The fact that most participants in our study commented that professional engagement with hazards was through exposure during academic courses illustrates the effectiveness of these events to make lasting impressions on individuals. However, we also see that while most engagement is at the classroom level, engagement is patchy thereafter.
We also see a discipline, especially the early-career cohort, that is looking ahead to the future and recognizing the increasing role that advanced technologies will play in research and instruction, as well as the need to forge relationships through collaboration with other disciplines, institutions, countries, communities, and non-academic sectors. Yet, in the present day, we see a snail’s pace adoption of these technologies, with later-career cohorts expressing distrust and disinterest, while earlier career cohorts try to utilize these advancements to expand research, enhance analysis, and foster innovation. Yet, by and far, the use of these technologies in geoscience academic research and instruction is limited. The potential exists, but the bridge to unleash that potential is tenuous at best.
Hazard impacts as reported by study participants are limited, both in terms of tangible impacts to academic departments and the duration of the impacts. While the frequency of natural hazard events may be increasing over time, academic departments are impacted usually for a day or so, with more impactful events lasting for several weeks. Overall infrastructure impacts have been generally limited.
As such, unlike the COVID-19 pandemic which caused significant disruption to operational continuity for several years, impacts from natural hazards are easily handled. In fact, adaptations developed as a result of the pandemic are now employed to ensure operational continuity for communication, online research and teaching when natural hazard events cause school closures. It may be that natural hazard impacts are not long enough and severe enough to cause discernable disruptions to the departments’ existing operational and research patterns. Nor are they impactful enough to cause sustained investment in natural hazards-related research.
At the end of the day, money drives action. Dedicated investment into hazards-related research would possibly be the bridge that would unleash the intellectual capacity of the geosciences to lead the way in adaptation and mitigation, enhancing educational and research opportunities, and building cross-disciplinary networks across disciplines and industry sectors to advance resilience to hazards within communities and across society. Current disaster recovery metrics of replacement-cost of impacts undervalue the true costs of risk, which has translated into society’s response to living location choices minimizing the hazard costs. Coupling the research investments into both event-centric and long-term hazard costs could potentially inform the public and policy dialogues on hazards.
The geosciences could take the lead on these efforts given its role as the intellectual discipline that understands the causes, impacts, and risks of natural hazard events, and would be the natural leader in this space. Furthermore, the fact that socio-economically disadvantaged communities are disproportionately impacted by natural events, any systemic improvements to not only resilience but development programs and methodologies to ensure higher education can thrive in the changing environment and embrace understanding its local context can potentially open opportunities for all populations to engage in studying the geosciences while also creating a resilient society.
References
Abercrombie, M., Macdonald Jr., J., Rotz, R., Barbosa, A., Muller, J., Savarese, M. 2021. Unexpected Benefits Realized from Necessary Reconfiguration of Field Course Due to COVID-19. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 53(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2021AM-367185
Burmeister, K.C., Atchison, C.L., Egger, A.E., Rademacher, L.K., Ryker, K., & Tikoff, B. 2020. Meeting the Challenge – How the Geoscience Community Provided Robust Online Capstone Experiences in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 52(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2020AM-358012
Gielstra, D., Moorman, L., Cerney, D., Cerveny, N., Gielstra, J. 2021. GeoEPIC: Innovating a Solution to Implement Virtual Field Experiences for Education in the Time of COVID-19 and the Post-Pandemic Era. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 21(7). doi: 10.33423/jhetp.v21i7.4481.
Hamilton, W.L., Yelderman, J.C. 2021. Lessons Learned from the Classroom, Lab and Field Research During COVID-19 Restrictions with Application to Future Geoscience Teaching at Baylor University. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 53(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2021AM-367429.
Keane, C., Gonzales, L. 2021. Macroscopic Impact Trends from the Pandemic on Geoscience Programs. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 53(6). doi: 10.1130/abs/2021AM-367150.
National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/, Accessed on May 7, 2025.
Table of Contents
