EOS4.1 | Geoethics: Geoscience Implications for Professional Communities, Society, and Environment
Geoethics: Geoscience Implications for Professional Communities, Society, and Environment
Co-organized by BG8/CL3/ERE1/GM13/NH9/OS5, co-sponsored by IAPG
Convener: Silvia Peppoloni | Co-conveners: Antti-Ilari Partanen, Louise Mimeau, Giuseppe Di Capua
| Thu, 27 Apr, 08:30–12:30 (CEST), 14:00–15:45 (CEST)
Room 0.14
Posters on site
| Attendance Thu, 27 Apr, 16:15–18:00 (CEST)
Hall X2
Posters virtual
| Attendance Thu, 27 Apr, 16:15–18:00 (CEST)
vHall EOS
Orals |
Thu, 08:30
Thu, 16:15
Thu, 16:15
Geoscience expertise is essential for the functioning of modern societies, to address many of the most urgent global problems, inform decision-making, and guide education at all levels, by equipping citizens to discuss, shape and implement solutions to local, regional and global social-environmental problems. In recent years, geoscientists have become more and more aware of ethical responsibilities to put their knowledge at the service of society, foster public trust in geosciences, and reflect on the environmental footprint of research practices. Geoethics aims to provide a common framework for orienting geoscientists’ concerns on delicate issues related geoscience-society interaction and to nourish a discussion on the fundamental principles and values which underpin appropriate behaviors and practices, wherever human activities interact with the Earth system.
The goal of the session is to foster the discussion on the following spectrum of topics:
- philosophical and historical aspects of geoscience, their contemporary relevance and role in informing methods for effective and ethical decision-making;
- geoscience professionalism and deontology, research integrity and issues related to harassment and discrimination, gender and disability in geosciences;
- ethical and social questions related to the management of land, air and water including environmental changes, pollution and their impacts;
- socio-environmentally sustainable supply of georesources (including energy, minerals and water), importance of effective regulation and policy-making, social acceptance, and understanding and promoting best practices;
- questioning professional practices in geosciences and their impact on the environment, and implementation of new practices to reduce it;
- resilience of society related to natural and anthropogenic hazards, risk management and mitigation strategies, including adaptation knowledge and solutions;
- ethical aspects of geoscience education and communication;
- culture and value of geodiversity, geoconservation, geoheritage, geoparks and geotourism;
- role of geosciences in achieving socio-economic development that respects cultures, traditions and local development paths, regardless of countries' wealth, and in promoting peace, responsible and sustainable development and intercultural exchange.
Session sponsored by International Association for Promoting Geoethics (www.geoethics.org).

Orals: Thu, 27 Apr | Room 0.14

Chairpersons: Silvia Peppoloni, Giuseppe Di Capua
On-site presentation
Gideon Futerman

Existential and Global Catastrophic Risk, defined by Beard et al 2020 as risk that may result in the very worst catastrophes “encompassing human extinction, civilizational collapse and any major catastrophe commonly associated with these things.” As such, it has been the topic of work by many philosophers as we move into a world where humans have more and more power over the world around us.

However, geoscientists have typically neglected the study of these risks, and have in turn been neglected in the field of existential risk studies. I will discuss the ethical importance of reducing existential risk from a variety of different ethical frameworks, and how this links to the concepts in geoethics. I will then discuss some of the opportunities for geoscientists to contribute to the reduction of these risks, including some of the work that has been done by geoscientists to identify and reduce existential risk and increase civilisational resilience, as well as how methodological expertise of different geoscience disciplines can contribute to the growing corpus of theoretical work around existential risk.

How to cite: Futerman, G.: The Ethics and Role of Geoscientists in Existential Risk Studies, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-10097, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-10097, 2023.

Virtual presentation
Emlyn Koster

Paul Crutzen’s concept of the Anthropocene in Nature in 2002 stressed that “a daunting task [lay] ahead for scientists and engineers to guide society towards environmentally sustainable management” and that “this will require appropriate human behaviour at all scales”. The proposal by the Anthropocene Working Group of the International Commission on Stratigraphy’s Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy for an ‘Anthropocene Epoch’ with an isochronous mid-20th century start has been recently challenged by another group of researchers. Mindful of the diachronous impacts of human evolution, they favor a much longer and still ongoing ‘Anthropocene Event’.

In sync with IUGS goals to promote public understanding of the Earth and contribute to international policy decisions, the Anthropocene debate offers an unprecedented opportunity for the geoscience profession to become proactively relevant to the UN’s next-step vision for Planet Earth. Arguably, its 2015-2030 agenda of 17 Sustainable Development Goals each focused on a facet of society and the environment needs a more holistic successor with realistic thinking about sustainability, “one of the most overused and ill-defined words in conversations about the environment” in the view of Andrew Revkin at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Ideally, the UN’s successor plan would be aligned with the interdependent subsystems of the Earth-Human System and propelled by transdisciplinary involvement of the sciences and humanities.

Echoing an observation by Stanley Finney and Lucy Edwards in GSA Today in 2016 that the terms Anthropocene and Renaissance have similar characteristics as “richly documented, revolutionary human activities”, an ‘Anthropocene Renaissance’ would highlight the need for greater harmony among and between environmental and societal movements. In this vision, the past-framed ‘Anthropocene Event’ underpins the future-framed ‘Anthropocene Renaissance’ as a boldly integrated effort to ‘protect our planet’, one of twelve commitments made by world leaders in 2020 at the UN’s 75th Anniversary Meeting. In a profile of the Anthropocene debate in The New York Times on 18 December 2022, the conclusion featured my interview: “I always saw it not as an internal geological undertaking but rather one that could be greatly beneficial to the world at large”. The UN’s ‘Summit of the Future: Multilateral Solutions for a Better Tomorrow’ will take place in New York City on 22-23 September 2024.





How to cite: Koster, E.: Defining the Anthropocene for the greatest good as an Event-based Renaissance, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-6182, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-6182, 2023.

On-site presentation
Hoseung Jung

We desire to know out of different motivations. According to Aristotle, scientists can feel happy or eudaimon when they fulfill the final cause of humans, reasoning, by providing knowledge. Freud argued that infants start to learn in order to distinguish between conditions that cause them pain or pleasure. We want to increase chances of achieving desired outcomes and avoiding undesired outcomes of our decisions by understanding causalities between events and predicting future events. In Geoscientific contexts, we may want to understand nature in order to satisfy different desires such as physical and psychological comforts, ethical dignity and continuation of existence, which are inseparable from but also conflict often against each other. We seek optimal decisions by means of the Geoscientific knowledge amidst the conflicting desires and natural conditions that hamper the desires.

All formations in the universe and all our perceptions are impermanent. Buddhism views that the course of life in which one is born, ages, gets ill and dies is suffering, if one clings to satisfactions, existence or non-existence as they are impermanent. A human being is seen in Buddhism as an ever-changing flux comprised of body (rupa in Pali language), senses (vedana), perceptions (sanna), volitions (sankhara) and consciousness (vinnana), or the five aggregates (khandha). Lasting peacefulness can be experienced when one understands the impermanence of its five aggregates, or selflessness (sunnata), which is a goal of Buddhist practices.

From this Buddhist perspective, satisfactions of material needs provided by Geoscience do not last permanently. Geoscience may help humans satisfy their basic needs, but the standards of basic needs seem to be ever-growing, influenced often by materialism which overlooks spiritual sources of happiness and technocentric hopes for sustainability in the future. According to Buddhism, our experiences and actions (kamma) condition our perceptions, volitions and habits, and reifying them as constant or substantial leads us to assume that certain desires ‘ought’ to be met as basic living standards. However, such standards are subjective judgements that cannot be justified by factual propositions in ‘is’ forms.

It can be satisfying for scientists to perform their professional tasks of providing knowledge required for fulfilling the human needs. However, epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in Geoscience can frustrate their desire to know. Geoscientists may suffer from the frustration, if they cling to their tasks and desires, failing to see satisfactions as impermanent and uncertainties as natural processes.

It is important to note that Buddhism does not compel dogmatically ascetic life styles or nihilistic worldviews but suggests ways to cease suffering. The Threefold Training (ethics, mindfulness and wisdom), the practice methods of Buddhism, can be applied in pursuing Geoscience as opportunities to experience lasting peacefulness. Scientists can create peaceful conditions by helping others with their knowledge, and let go of their reification and desires through mindfulness and the Buddhist ontology. Studying human desires and providing honest information about uncertainties and physical boundaries of satisfying the desires would be also parts of the practice.

How to cite: Jung, H.: Buddhist thoughts on frustration of the desire the know in Geoscience, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-17116, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-17116, 2023.

On-site presentation
Martin Bohle

Professional experiences led geoscientists initially to put together epistemic-moral hybrids [1], e.g. The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics  [2]. Then, combining geosciences and political philosophies more comprehensively, geo-philosophical assessments of human practices as part of the Earth System emerged [3] [4]. These assessments describe the Human-Earth Nexus amalgamating insights into (i) the dynamics of the Earth System; (ii) socio-historical features of human societies; (iii) philosophical appraisals of socio-political choices.

Scholars of the history of science recently developed a theory of the evolution of knowledge [5] [6] [7]. Applied to societies experiencing anthropogenic global change, they discern the concept of an ergosphere to depict the essence of the Human-Earth Nexus. “With their rapidly evolving culture, humans have introduced an “ergosphere” (a sphere of work, as well as of technological and energetic transformations) as a new global component of the Earth system, in addition to the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, and the biosphere, thus changing the overall dynamics of the system.“ [6, p. 7].

The historians’ theory of evolution of knowledge offers geoscientists notions (e.g. borderline problem, economy of knowledge, and external representation) for assessing human practices, e.g. (i) a ‘borderline problem’ defined as: “problems that belong to multiple distinct systems of knowledge. Borderline problems put these systems into contact… (and sometimes into direct conflict) with each other, potentially triggering their integration and reorganisation” [7, p427]; (ii) an ‘economy of knowledge’ defined as: “societal processes pertaining to the production, preservation, accumulation, circulation, and appropriation of knowledge mediated by its external representation” [7, p.429]; (iii) an ‘external representation’ defined as: “any aspect of the material culture or environment of a society that may serve as an encoding of knowledge” [7, p. 224].

Concluding: (i) taking a geo-philosophical perspective means, per se, specifying a borderline problem, an economy of knowledge, and an external representation; (ii) the theoretical findings of the history of science offer a standardised methodology for geo-philosophical studies, namely asking: What borderline problem? What economy of knowledge? What external representation? Responses will discern sharper the socio-historical features of geo-philosophical topics, be it geoheritage or the Human-Earth-Nexus.

[1] Potthast T (2015) Toward an Inclusive Geoethics—Commonalities of Ethics in Technology, Science, Business, and Environment. In: Peppoloni MW (ed) Geoethics. Elsevier, pp 49–56

[2] Di Capua G, Peppoloni S, Bobrowsky P (2017) The Cape Town Statement on Geoethics. Ann Geophys 60:1–6. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7553

[3] Di Capua G, Bobrowsky PT, Kieffer SW, Palinkas C (2021) Introduction: geoethics goes beyond the geoscience profession. Geol Soc London, Spec Publ SP508-2020–191. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020-191

[4] Bohle M, Marone E (2022) Phronesis at the Human-Earth Nexus: Managed Retreat. Front Polit Sci 4:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.819930

[5] Rosol C, Nelson S, Renn J (2017) Introduction: In the machine room of the Anthropocene. Anthr Rev 4:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019617701165

[6] Renn J (2018) The Evolution of Knowledge: Rethinking Science in the Anthropocene. HoST - J Hist Sci Technol 12:1–22. https://doi.org/10.2478/host-2018-0001

[7] Renn J (2020) The Evolution of Knowledge - Rethinking Science for the Anthropocene. Princeton University Press, Oxford, UK

How to cite: Bohle, M.: Takings from the History of Science for Geo-philosophical Studies, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-1204, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-1204, 2023.

On-site presentation
Bethany Fox, Kate Dawson, Vicki Trowler, Sophie Briggs, Ruth Massey, Alexandra Fitzsimmons, Tania Marshall, Christina Riesselman, and Anna Davidson

Geoethics is not just a matter of geoscience, but involves complex transdisciplinary concerns with social, economic and cultural implications. Because of this, both geoethicists within geosciences and those working in social sciences and humanities are increasingly calling for dialogue across disciplinary silos. Drawing from our work on the British Academy funded interdisciplinary project, ‘Mining for Meaning: the Geoethics of Extractive Industries,’ we trace out what an interdisciplinary engagement with Geoethics might look like. As an earthly ethics that necessarily stretches beyond geological considerations to consider the socio-natural, cultural-spiritual and political-economic, any engagement with Geoethics demands conversations that bring geoscientific understandings into more explicit dialogue with ideas from the social sciences and the geohumanities (though not exclusively). Acknowledging the very real challenges of doing interdisciplinary work - from distinct understandings about research, knowledge and results, to disciplinary-specific technical terminology - we set out the core ideas underpinning Geoethical approaches in these domains. This lays important groundwork for crafting meaningful and indeed ethical conversations that stretch across these disciplines, but crucially, avoids the mining of other disciplines for useful concepts and metaphors, without due regard for their context, history and technical meaning – a form of disciplinary extractivism in itself. Animated by this anti-extractivism, the paper presents a reading of how the earth, ethics, knowledge and practices are understood from within the geosciences, social sciences and geohumanities respectively, charting out what we hope to be a useful frame of reference for working across these disciplines. We then use this analysis as the bedrock for discussing the potential of cross-disciplinary conversation. By critically responding to the relative strengths, limitations and offerings of each discipline’s conceptualisation of geoethics, we bring to the fore important interdisciplinary frictions, overlaps and potential collaborative directions. Taken together, we suggest that this two-part analysis offers scope for crafting meaningful conversations necessary for an interdisciplinary Geoethics. 

How to cite: Fox, B., Dawson, K., Trowler, V., Briggs, S., Massey, R., Fitzsimmons, A., Marshall, T., Riesselman, C., and Davidson, A.: Geoethics: hammering out an interdisciplinary conversation, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-11580, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-11580, 2023.

On-site presentation
Laurent Lassabatere, Sylvain Kuppel, and Íñigo Vitón

Scientists remain citizens and human beings. As so, they keep their critical mind and have visions for society and opinions on related crucial issues. The climate and ecological crisis makes no exception and has become the subject of more and more discussions among scientific communities. The bond between scientific research and societal issues can be seen in the common practice of national funding agencies asking scientists to explicitly define the societal values of their research activities (the so-called “knowledge utilization”). On such occasions, scientists need to prove that their findings will bring parts of technical, scientific, social, or even political solutions to a range of stakeholders, including decision-makers. Such a peculiar position raises many issues. In democracies, scientists and other experts are usually asked to remain neutral and only provide scientific and technical knowledge to support decision-makers (i.e., governments) who will make the decision.

The question of neutrality has particularly animated scientific communities for decades. May we, as scientists, activate only the rational part of our brains when doing science and activate the emotional one when we return to our daily personal and civic life? Should we remain neutral at all costs? When "business as usual" means making the ecological and social crisis more profound, does the concept of neutrality even exist? Is that ethical if doing nothing means supporting "business as usual"? Or should we admit that this is neither doable nor desirable?

In this paper, we suggest that being neutral and inactive is neither doable nor desirable for the sake of science and society. First of all, scientists are people, and their actions cannot remain completely value-free or independent from societal influences. Instead, the notions of objectivity, scientific rigor, and transparency, which all make part of scientific integrity, may be much more relevant to define good research practices. As long as these practices are followed, many ways of communicating with peers, stakeholders, and the public sphere may be considered, from appeased recommendations to stakeholders all the way down to (illegal) civil disobedience, as those may only differ by their degree of engagement in reporting the same facts. To which the ethics of responsibility should be added: we must say what we know (Resnik and Elliot, 2016).

We collected several testimonies from scientists from the earth and climate sciences engaged in activism and civil disobedience. The description of the several types of intellectual trajectories will help us understand how scientists connect their values to science and how, at their scale, their vision helps them disseminate science to improve societies and reduce their impacts on global changes.

Resnik, D. B. and Elliott, K. C.: The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science, Accountability in Research, 23, 31–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608, 2016.

How to cite: Lassabatere, L., Kuppel, S., and Vitón, Í.: Engaged scientists and the question of neutrality and integrity: illustrative intellectual trajectories of geoscientists, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-5456, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-5456, 2023.

On-site presentation
Fiona Johnson, Philippa Higgins, Martin Andersen, Kirsty Howey, Matthew Kearnes, Stuart Khan, and Greg Leslie

In this presentation we discuss the role of geoscientists and engineers in advocating for improved civic science that can minimise the impacts of industrial and mining activities on the environment and downstream communities, with a particular focus on water-related impacts. We argue that, if not carefully designed, data collection, analyses and communication by geoscientists does not always contribute to the wider public good because the issues that communities care about are not addressed – so called “undone science”. A case study, focusing on the environmental impacts of the McArthur River mine (MRM) in a remote part of the Northern Territory, Australia, is used to highlight key issues that should inform civic science and lead to better outcomes for communities and the environment.

Despite thousands of pages of “data” about the MRM project and its impacts, we argue that this project is an example of the social production of ignorance – because the knowledge of the communities most impacted by the mine’s activities is not improved by the reporting and impact assessments associated with the project. Based on a temporal synthesis of independent monitoring reports of the McArthur River Mine which covered the period from 2007 to 2018, we identify three main lessons for improving civic science. Firstly, without adequate baseline monitoring prior to development, data collection during a project cannot satisfactorily assess impacts of a development. Baseline data is particularly important when seasonal and interannual variability is high. Baseline and ongoing monitoring programs should be co-designed with the community, so that what matters to the community is monitored (e.g. culturally important sites, contamination in animal species relevant to the community). Secondly, geoscientists and engineers need to partner with social scientists and local community organisations to ensure that communities are effectively informed about the impacts of development, focusing on the impacts that matter to communities, not just the impacts that are conveniently measured. Finally regulatory processes need to be improved to ensure that problems identified by geoscientists and engineers are addressed.

How to cite: Johnson, F., Higgins, P., Andersen, M., Howey, K., Kearnes, M., Khan, S., and Leslie, G.: Social production of ignorance – the role for geoscientists in addressing “undone science”, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-13910, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-13910, 2023.

Virtual presentation
Susan Eriksson

Minerals occupy a unique position as specimens yielding scientific information, objects with aesthetic and monetary value, and substances necessary for modern society. Aside from minerals in industrial use, a broad range of people are interested in minerals such as geologists, gemologists and jewelers, and people involved in minerals as collectors’ items including miners, dealers, private and institutional collectors, curators -- even art collectors and anthropologists. Traditionally, we have taken the extractive nature of these minerals for granted with little discussion of where and how they are obtained.

Adherence to legalities, disclosure of information, and personal and institutions responsibility are among ethical considerations. Legal considerations include how a mineral specimen is obtained in its initial extraction, its movement through opaque supply chains, export and import requirements, and ownership transfer. Disclosure issues range from curators and institutions maintaining and relaying accurate information about a mineral’s authenticity, sourcing, and history. What ethical responsibilities do individuals and institutions possess to ensure acquisition policies that address these issues? And, finally, as mineral extraction becomes a more pressing issue in the world’s move from a fossil-fuel economy, where does ethics lie in educating the public in the role minerals play in the environment and society?

Some of these questions raise issues which, in their complexity, have no apparent or easy solution. This paper presents the results of a literature survey on ethics of mineral specimens and raises questions for geoscientists.

How to cite: Eriksson, S.: Things we just don't talk about:  ethics in mineral collection, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-10191, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-10191, 2023.

On-site presentation
Britta Höllermann and Joshua Ntajal

The PARADeS project uses participatory approaches to contribute towards enhancing Ghana’s national flood disaster risk reduction and management strategy. The project was initiated by practitioners from Ghana and the problem setting was developed during a definition phase of the project. When the project started, commitment and strong partnership and involvement of partners were already established - a prerequisite for collaborative and non-extractive research.

Multiple workshops and focus group discussions were ‘successfully’ conducted in collaboration with our local partners. Despite the sound basis of the project (e.g. shared goal(s), strong and committed partnership), we experienced challenges before, during and post fieldwork. In this contribution, we particularly reflect and focus on including and managing different types of participants. On the one hand, we engaged with representatives from different governmental institutions and non-governmental organizations with mostly academic background during the workshops. On the other hand, flood-affected urban and rural citizens with strongly differing educational backgrounds and socio-economic assets elaborated on their flood experiences during the focus group discussions. Here, three main themes and challenges arose:

  • Selection of participants: Identifying blind spots of researchers and local partners, e.g. the risk of missing out marginalized voices,
  • Expectations management: Coping with expectations of participants and communicating own room of action, and
  • Feedback processes: Preventing extractive research by feedbacking information relevant to the participants

During the session, these themes are discussed using the guiding principles for fieldwork with participants (see Rangecroft et al. 2020) by highlighting ethics, communication, power dynamics and positionality. For this, we share our experiences and lessons learned e.g. how we deal with the problem of getting a gender balanced participant list or how we manage unexpected structures of focus groups. Furthermore, we would like to share our uneasiness when, for example, a focus group discussion turned into a community talk or unrealistic though understandable expectations were raised. By sharing our successes and pitfalls, we would like to contribute to a broader discussion on how to improve fieldwork, prepare for surprise and, especially, to meet expectations of participants, partners and researchers without compromising each other’s needs and integrity. 


Rangecroft, S., M. Rohse, E. W. Banks, R. Day, G. Di Baldassarre, T. Frommen, Y. Hayashi, B. Höllermann, K. Lebek, E. Mondino, M. Rusca, M. Wens and A. F. Van Loon (2020). "Guiding principles for hydrologists conducting interdisciplinary research and fieldwork with participants." Hydrological Sciences Journal: 1-12.

How to cite: Höllermann, B. and Ntajal, J.: Managing participants, expectations and surprises during fieldwork – Experiences from collaborative flood risk management in Ghana, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-207, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-207, 2023.

On-site presentation
Cornelia E. Nauen

The unprecedented acceleration of human extractions of living and mineral resources particularly after WWII and their wasteful transformation in an expanding technosphere is now estimated to exceed living matter[1]. This fossil fuel driven acceleration has led to exceeding planetary boundaries in several dimensions [2], including the on-going mass extinction of species particularly in the warming and overfished ocean. Catch reconstructions since the beginnings of global statistics in 1950 are revealing the extent of unsustainable extractions from the ocean[3]. Two decisions at global negotiations in 2022, one on harmful fishing subsidies and the landmark target 3 on the protection of 30% of ocean and land by 2030, have potential to slow down the excesses and gradually rebuild fully functional ecosystems. How can scientists enhance their contribution towards shifting the emphasis to implementation? We know from cognitive science, e.g. that excessive car speed and other forms of sensory overload stress humans and reduce quality of life while also harming the environment[4]. Yet even in the face of evidence, it has often been impossible to act decisively on this evidence. Similarly, it has so far been been difficult to overcome widespread cognitive dissonance about climate change and species extinctions in the ocean. Contrary to widely held beliefs, here it is postulated that different attitudes are not impervious to scientific information and learning. Historically these judgemental processes are not fixed, even when reinforced by social norms[5]. However, the accumulation of facts and their presentation in the scientific literature is not enough to bring about what may be considered desirable behavioural change. This is reflected in considerable effort put into policy briefs and other dissemination formats in recent years, including video and social media e.g. by the IPCC. Art of hosting and collective leadership are other proven approaches for building understanding and trust necessary to develop robust solutions through enabling collective action. In their various context-adapted formats they have been successfully deployed for joint learning and action in settings as diverse as largely illiterate small-scale fishing communities and government organisations. They could benefit research and academic institutions in their search for promoting more stakeholder engagement and fostering greater inter- and transdisciplinarity.

[1] Elhacham, E., Ben-Uri, L., Grozovski, J. et al. Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass. Nature 588, 442–444 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3010-5

[2] Steffen, E., Richardson, K., Rockstroem, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223) (2015). DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855

[3] Pauly, D. & Zeller, D. Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nature Commun. 7, 10244 (2016). doi: 10.1038/ncomms10244

[4] Knoflacher, H. Zurück zur Mobilität! Anstöße zum Umdenken. Ueberreuter, Wien (2013)

[5] Sparkman, G., Howe, L., Walton, G. How social norms are often a barrier to addressing climate change but can be part of the solution. Behavioural Public Policy 5(4), 528-555 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.42

How to cite: Nauen, C. E.: Art of hosting approaches with greater participation of scientists can support robust solutions for increased societal resilience, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-4421, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-4421, 2023.

Coffee break
Chairpersons: Silvia Peppoloni, Antti-Ilari Partanen, Giuseppe Di Capua
Virtual presentation
Mohammad Salem Hussaini, Asadullah Farahmand, and Manuel Abrunhosa

Groundwater resources are largely invisible and unknown to most people. Hence, unauthorized appropriation of groundwater is not obvious, and its impacts are less evident. It can be said that it is an invisible geo-resource but its impacts and problems are visible to mankind, even if often its source is not recognized. Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, is the fifth fastest-growing city in the world and rapid population growth and urbanization have created huge pressure on groundwater resources. As a result of a lack of surface water storage and the seasonal variability of river flows, Kabul is among the world's most water-stressed cities as it depends almost entirely on groundwater. The findings of scientific studies reveal that extensive groundwater depletion and degradation of groundwater quality in Kabul city is largely due to anthropogenic factors and it is likely to rapidly continue in the future, particularly in densely populated areas of the city. Here, ethics can play an important role because human behavior is among the main factors creating the problems. So, hydrogeoethical concepts can be assessed and discussed, especially for urban groundwater where human needs (social ethics) and environmental dynamics (environmental ethics) both should be respected. In this study, the most vital questions related to ethical aspects of groundwater management in Kabul city are extracted. To achieve the questions, the water ethics principles and ethical criteria were evaluated concerning the condition of groundwater and the society of Kabul city, as an exercise of applied hydrogeoethics. Finally, six questions are obtained as the result of this study. The response to these critical questions could be a key to solving many dilemmas related to groundwater management in an urban concept. It is recommended to groundwater managers and policymakers explore the answer to these questions and consider the findings in the policies, strategies, and regulations, particularly in urban regions.

The questions are as follows:

1) What is the level of contribution, obligation, responsibility, honesty, trust, and respect among geoscientists, and engineers related to groundwater management?

2) What kind of regulation is adequate for the management of over-abstraction urban groundwater; top-down or self-regulation or a mix of both?

3) How education and communication can shape moral motivation for city residents to better groundwater management?

4) What is the level of participation of public media (TV, radio, newspapers, etc.) in awareness-raising campaigns related to groundwater conditions?

5) Can groundwater abstraction from the deep aquifer (groundwater mining) be an ethical and sustainable policy concerning future generations and environmental ethics?

6) How consideration of gender equity and women's participation can be effective in the management of groundwater?

How to cite: Hussaini, M. S., Farahmand, A., and Abrunhosa, M.: Hydrogeoethical questions related to urban groundwater management: the case of Kabul city, Afghanistan, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8072, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8072, 2023.

On-site presentation
Julien Brajard and Christine Due Sivertsen

NERSC is a non-profit research foundation established in Bergen (Norway) in 1986. Besides cutting-edge research in climate science, the NERSC has for a long time been very attentive to the working conditions, diversity, inclusion, and environmental impact of its activities.

In this poster, we will present the different efforts taken at the NERSC initiative to take the path of reducing its environmental impact, especially the GHG footprint, of its activities. We have divided the analysis into big compartments including the travels, the numerical computations, the field campaigns, and the premises. For each compartment, we are in the process to assess the GHG emissions, and some actions have already been taken to already minimize the impacts, for example, a travel policy, and opportunity campaigns.

In addition to the details of the work done by NERSC for reducing GHG emissions, we will reflect on challenges and problems encountered while taking those actions, some being general to the scientific or geoscience field (e.g., travel injunction), others being specific to NERSC (fundings, geographic location, low-carbon electricity).

Finally, we will draw perspective to the experience, and try to bring recommendations into the debate, such as a better inclusion of climate impact in the European research calls.

How to cite: Brajard, J. and Sivertsen, C. D.: Reducing environmental impact at NERSC (Bergen, Norway)., EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-7601, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7601, 2023.

Virtual presentation
Chris Stockey, Sarah Gordon, Rose Clarke, and Emily Lewis and the VECTOR Partnership

VECTOR (Vectors to Accessible Critical Raw Material Resources in Sedimentary Basins) is an EU Horizon and UKRI co-funded research project assessing the social, technical, and environmental challenges to mining critical raw materials in Europe. Our commitment to geoethics is informed by the diverse partnership’s research expertise and our social science research. We will incorporate these learnings into all subsequent research and outreach programmes to promote good practice. Our dedicated ethics structure ensures that we put this commitment into practice. This approach to project ethics is a first for a Horizon Europe project.

Plans for decarbonisation presented in the EU Green Deal include achieving Net Zero by 2050 and reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels). Meeting the supply of renewable energy needed to achieve these goals requires a sharp increase in production, and a more responsible use, of critical raw materials. Recycling alone cannot meet the projected demand. Sourcing raw materials from inside the EU, where suitable environmental, social, and political regulations could be implemented, may be instrumental in securing an ethical provision of metals. However, mineral projects face complex social, environmental, and technical challenges in the EU. VECTOR will explore these challenges through social- and geoscience research, integrating the results of both research streams into easy-to-understand resources.

The VECTOR consortium is committed to ensuring the highest level of ethical standards during the project, with respect to both conduct and outputs. To put this commitment into practice, the VECTOR consortium has appointed an Ethics Advisor, responsible for advising the project on ethical matters and Chairing an Independent Ethics Committee, which will bring subject matter expertise to ethical deliberations. The Ethics Advisor and the Independent Ethics Committee sit within an ethics governance framework that interacts with, but is independent of, the Project governance framework. This ensures that ethical matters arising during the course of the Project are considered by expert, neutral third parties who are not otherwise directly invested in the Project, and that their advice is given due weight in Project decision making processes and practically implemented. This approach is a first for a Horizon Europe project, and one we hope will set the bar for strong ethical project management across the Horizon universe.

This will also be informed by our social science research to understand how stakeholders balance the ethical, social, economic, political, and environmental consequences of sourcing critical raw materials. The aim is to understand how levels of social acceptance influence attitudes, decisions and policy acceptance. Insights gained from this will inform good practice standards in our other research and be used to develop outreach tools targeting all stakeholder groups, informing their future decision making. These include policy makers and the much-overlooked public, as well as continued professional development pathways for geoscientists.

Taken together, our ethics structure and social science research provide a robust geoethics framework that will evolve with our new understandings and inform our work to investigate a socio-environmentally sustainable supply of raw materials.

How to cite: Stockey, C., Gordon, S., Clarke, R., and Lewis, E. and the VECTOR Partnership: Project VECTOR – researching challenges to mining in Europe through a robust ethics structure., EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-14481, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-14481, 2023.

On-site presentation
Lara Mani, Mike Cassidy, and Anders Sandberg

Volcano engineering is the practice of altering the state of volcanic systems and/or volcanic eruptions to exploit them or mitigate their risk. Past and current examples of volcano engineering are limited but include drilling crater walls to drain volcanic lakes, channeling and bombing lava flows, siphoning off CO2 rich volcanic lakes, and cooling lava flows with seawater. There have also been several incidental examples of drilling into magma reservoirs in search for geothermal resources in Hawaii, Iceland, and Kenya. While not causing anything more damaging than the loss of drill bits or forcing the use of alternative holes, this demonstrates that humans are increasingly able to reach volcanic plumbing systems. As the pursuit of high temperature and enhanced geothermal energy increases as the world strives for renewable energy and critical metal resources, it is also likely that such contacts will become more common. We must accept, therefore, that despite the controversial nature of this topic, geoengineering of volcanic systems is an inevitable consequence of such exploration in the coming century. Since we possess the technological and engineering potential to perturb volcanic systems, the question we ask here is, should we? Do we have the scientific knowledge to do so? What are the potential benefits to future humanity? And, what are the ways it could do more harm than good? We highlight that while volcano geoengineering has significant potential benefits, the risks and uncertainties are too great to justify its use in the short term. Even if we do not decide to conduct volcano geoengineering, we believe there is a strong ethical case to support research into the efficacy and safety of volcano geoengineering going forwards. In this work, we lay out a series of protocols and practices based on the ethical arguments to be followed should humanity decide to conduct volcano geoengineering in the future.

How to cite: Mani, L., Cassidy, M., and Sandberg, A.: The ethics of volcano geoengineering, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-12452, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-12452, 2023.

On-site presentation
Billy Williams, Brooks Hanson, Raj Pandya, Janice LaChance, and Mark Shimamoto

Climate change is a global threat. As such, scientific and technology organizations and funders are increasingly devoting attention and resources to climate intervention research and, in some cases, already pursuing large-scale testing. Climate intervention measures include carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and many other authoritative bodies have called for "a code of conduct" and governance structure to guide the research, potential scaling and possible deployment of these intervention measures.  This presentation will discuss a global initiative facilitated by AGU to help establish and gain support for an ethical framework to help guide such efforts, and to include various practical, ethical and governance considerations of potential climate intervention technologies to be considered before deciding potential scaled deployment of such measures – including climate justice considerations and representation.  Preliminary ethical framework modules and global engagement processes currently underway will be discussed.

How to cite: Williams, B., Hanson, B., Pandya, R., LaChance, J., and Shimamoto, M.: An Ethical Framework for Climate Intervention Research and Potential Scaling, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-16302, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-16302, 2023.

On-site presentation
Georg Sebastian Voelker, Ralf Becherer, Carmen Junge, and Thomas Seifert

Climate change may be the most severe crisis humanity has faced to date. Both the social and natural sciences have well understood the causes and effects of climate change as well as the possible mitigation and adaptation measures. However, implementations of both mitigation and adaptation measures generally fall behind the goals defined by the Paris agreement.

With increasing political awareness and progressing federal climate protection legislation in Germany communal politics is facing the challenge of charting explicit paths to net carbon neutrality. Due to diverse social and geographic settings as well as different existing infrastructures solutions have to be tailored to the local conditions. Local climate advisory panels are a common and if well constructed an effective way to support the local administration in the necessary transformation.

Here we report on the successful efforts lead by the local group of the Scientists for Future in Frankfurt, Germany, to aid the city hall in establishing a communal climate advisory panel. Early stakeholder communication, broad alliances with local climate protection initiatives and the shared experience of the Scientists for Future network were key to successfully establish an institutionalized science-society-policy interface to permanently support local climate action activities.

How to cite: Voelker, G. S., Becherer, R., Junge, C., and Seifert, T.: From informal to institutional science-society-policy interactions: Introducing a climate advisory board in Frankfurt, Germany, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-9299, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-9299, 2023.

Virtual presentation
Key risks and illustrative adaptation pathways for Europe
Veruska Muccione, Marjolijn Haasnoot, Peter Alexander, Birgit Bednar-Friedl, Robbert Biesboek, Elena Georgopoulou, Gonéri Le Cozannet, and Daniela Schmidt
On-site presentation
Nadia Pinardi, Bart van den Hurk, Jose A. Jimenez, Gundula Winter, Giulia Galluccio, Sandy Bisaro, Angelique Melet, Roderick van de Wal, Kristin Richter, Jan-Bart Calewaert, Bernd Bruegge, Lavinia G. Pomarico, Michael Depuydt, Thorsten Kiefer, and Petra Manderscheid

Nine European countries under the umbrella of the Joint Programming Initiatives on Climate (JPI Climate) and on Oceans (JPI Oceans) have set up a joint Knowledge Hub on Sea Level Rise. The ambition is to provide easy access to usable knowledge on regional-local sea level change in Europe, regularly updated as a series of periodic assessments. It will complement existing global and national assessments by providing additional geographical and contextual detail, tailored to regional, national and European policy development and implementation.

As its key product, it will deliver by the end of 2023 its first European Assessment Report on Sea level rise hazards and impacts, co-designed with European Sea stakeholders. The co-design framework is based on consultation workshops, questionnaires and a final Conference in Venice that enabled to discuss at large the regional and local end-user needs.

Based on the latest available science provided by  the IPCC AR6 WGI and II reports and using the most advanced knowledge on sea level rise from European services and research done at the national level, the Assessment report will allow to downscale to the European Seas the SLR impacts and devise adaptation strategies. We will present the user needs that were revealed by the stakeholder consultations and plan to provide a peek into the content of the first draft of this first Assessment Report.

How to cite: Pinardi, N., van den Hurk, B., Jimenez, J. A., Winter, G., Galluccio, G., Bisaro, S., Melet, A., van de Wal, R., Richter, K., Calewaert, J.-B., Bruegge, B., Pomarico, L. G., Depuydt, M., Kiefer, T., and Manderscheid, P.: The Knowledge Hub on Sea Level Rise and the science-based European Seas assessment reporting, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8683, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8683, 2023.

On-site presentation
Jon Xavier Olano Pozo, Anna Boqué Ciurana, and Enric Aguilar

INDECIS (Integrated approach for the development across Europe of user-oriented climate indicators for GFCS high-priority sectors: agriculture, disaster risk reduction, energy, health, water, and tourism) was a project part ERA4CS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), DLR (DE), BMWFW (AT), IFD (DK), MINECO (ES), ANR (FR) with co-funding by the European Union Grant 690462). INDECIS main produced different outcomes, such as software packages, improved datasets and a large number of scientific papers (see www.indecis.eu). 


Even though INDECIS formally ended in July 2021, the knowledge gained continues to pay off. This communication will synthetically show how we took advantage of the methodology for the engagement of stakeholders developed in INDECIS (Font et al. 2021). The co-creation methodology developed in the frame of INDECIS has served as a starting point for the development of further research, transfer, and empowerment actions of stakeholders for decision-making related to climate change in four main axes: in research, in leading international research and transfer projects in collaboration with industry, in local projects developed in partnership with industry, users and administration and, knowledge transference to high schools, bachelor degree and technical training to professionals. 


The research has continued through a doctoral dissertation based on co-creating a climate service for surfing (see Boqué Ciurana, 2022). It is also continued by developing more indices for tourism and tourism sites to face climate change effects through mitigation measures in the TURLIT-ODS project (see: http://turlit.eu). This project is a local scale project where with users, private actors, and administration, we try to define the optimal conditions to develop sport water activities in Calafell, Costa Daurada, Spain. 


With the industry, in collaboration with a private organization, we engage stakeholders in the infrastructure sector to co-define climate risk indices to manage risk and investments. In this project, through co-creation workshops developed with local agents from both the company (technical) and the administration and other sectorial actors, indices are being computed to assess the climate risk of mobility infrastructures (railways and highways). 


The co-creation methodology has been adapted to develop high school co-creation processes to empower young people with tools to fight climate change and misinformation (see EMPOCLIM project: http://www.empoclim.cat ). In the same way, the Geography, Sustainability, and Territorial Analysis bachelor at the Rovira i Virgili University, offers a subject (6 ECTS) to develop essential skills and competences for developing climate services based on the engagement of local stakeholders and co-creation. 


Last but not least. Updating the quality control and data homogenization software has allowed the development of training for NMHs in Colombia, Peru, and Chile in the frame of the ENANDES project. In this training, we added lectures and practices to capacity-building staff in co-creating climate services with local users. 


How to cite: Olano Pozo, J. X., Boqué Ciurana, A., and Aguilar, E.: Engaging stakeholders for the co-creation of Climate Services. Beyond ERA4CS INDECIS project , EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-13681, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-13681, 2023.

On-site presentation
Suraje Dessai, Kate Lonsdale, Jason Lowe, Rachel Harcourt, and Peter Walton

Even with the successful implementation of the Paris agreement, a certain amount of climate change is now unavoidable over the next few decades and high warming levels by the end of the century cannot be ruled out. Therefore, urgent action is needed to build resilience and accelerate adaptation to climate variability and change. Informing the extensive range of actions needed to manage climate risks, reduce damage without exacerbating existing inequalities, and realise emerging opportunities, is a critical scientific and societal challenge. The UK has been at the forefront of climate adaptation policy with the Climate Change Act 2008 requiring the UK Government to conduct a five-yearly Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) and National Adaptation Programme. Another important recent driver amongst UK organisations has been compliance with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. The UK Climate Resilience (UKCR) Programme emerged as a response to these policy and societal needs. It aims to enhance the UK’s resilience to climate variability and change through frontier interdisciplinary research and innovation on climate risk, adaptation and services, working with stakeholders and end-users to ensure the research is useful and usable.

The UK Climate Resilience Programme, led by UK Research and Innovation and the UK Met Office and running from 2019 to 2023, has funded over 50 projects worth £19 million. It is part of the Strategic Priorities Fund initiative which provides research funding to develop strategically important research for the national government. Topics central to the programme’s research agenda have included improved characterisation and quantification of climate risks, enhanced understanding of the management of climate risks, and the development and delivery of climate services. Amongst its achievements, the programme has: developed a set of future UK socio-economic scenarios to be used alongside climate scenarios, delivered a step change in climate change risk assessment capability, and produced a roadmap for the development and implementation of UK climate services. It has funded arts and community based projects and pioneered an embedded researchers scheme in which the researcher collaborates with a host organisation to address their real world needs. The programme has also developed a more coherent community of climate resilience researchers and practitioners in the UK.

In this talk we will provide an overview of the programme, focusing on the nexus between UKCR–funded research, and UK policy and practice. For example, we will consider how the national CCRA process shaped the programme’s research agenda while at the same time the availability of research sets the parameters of risk assessments. We will also provide examples of co-production undertaken by researchers and practitioners and comment on what can be achieved in terms of societal resilience when there is collaboration on shared objectives. This programme is unique in dedicating significant time, funding and other resources to researching national resilience while working in close partnership with the national government. We anticipate that our learnings from this process will be of interest to other researchers, as well as policy makers and practitioners who work with researchers on climate resilience issues.

How to cite: Dessai, S., Lonsdale, K., Lowe, J., Harcourt, R., and Walton, P.: The UK Climate Resilience Programme (2019-2023), EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-15941, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-15941, 2023.

Lunch break
Chairpersons: Louise Mimeau, Antti-Ilari Partanen, Yona Silvy
Virtual presentation
Denyse S. Dookie, Declan Conway, and Suraje Dessai

Understanding local perceptions of preparedness, risk and response to climate change is important for effective adaptation-focused actions and policy design. While there have been national surveys of the public’s concern, organisational perspectives are less studied. This research presents findings of a national survey of UK-based organisations’ perceptions about adapting to a changing climate. The survey covers awareness among organisations of climate change, its physical risks and how organisations are taking action to prepare for perceived risks. Administered in spring 2021, our survey summarises the insights of 2,400 respondents in roles related to organisational planning. The majority of respondents (69%) were from the private sector, while others came from public health authorities, local authorities, public educational establishments, and third sector or charitable organisations. 58% of respondents identified the effects of climate change as a concern. While the survey results support a picture of UK organisations taking steps to prepare for similar extreme weather events in the future, action is strongly informed by dealing with the effects of extremes already experienced. There is a much lower proportion of organisations taking measures to deal with the physical risks of future climate change. In terms of future action, organisations perceived a strong role for leadership from government and collective responsibilities for adaptation, signalling a need to recognise this in efforts to promote adaptation. These findings, though UK-centric, provide insight to societal responses, options and pathways, especially at the organisational level for the less widely studied private sector, as noted in IPCC AR6 WGII Chapter 13: Europe. 

How to cite: Dookie, D. S., Conway, D., and Dessai, S.: Organisational preparedness for the physical risks of climate change in the UK, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-851, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-851, 2023.

On-site presentation
Giulia Galluccio, Chiara Trozzo, Monia Santini, Marta Antonelli, and Océane Espin

Climate change and malnutrition, that includes undernutrition as well as micronutrient deficiency and overweight, are among the greatest issues in the 21st century. Acting in synergy, each of these dynamics aggravates the effects of the other, creating complex and compounding impacts that increase particularly the vulnerability of the poorest people. This so-called climate and nutrition nexus can be broadly described as the fact that climate change poses a serious threat to global nutrition security, while current food systems are contributing significantly to this warming dynamic and malnutrition is reducing people’s ability to cope with the induced changes. Therefore, climate information and science are crucial to inform both international funding institutions (especially their investment portfolios) and local decision-makers in the design and selection of comprehensive, effective and innovative strategies and actions to adapt and cope with climate change and therefore advance sustainable development at all scales.

Regarding this topic, we carried out a consultancy project funded by the ASAP II programme of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) to inform its investment portfolio on the design and implementation of interdisciplinary development strategies linking nutrition enhancement and climate change adaptation. We reviewed and analysed 7 selected IFAD ‘climate related and nutrition-sensitive projects’ in Latin America and the Caribbean. The identification of best practices and lessons learned to be cultivated, scaled-up and even mainstreamed in future projects will encourage the sustainable transformation of the food systems, increase the climate resilience of the population and fight inequalities in the region.

Our work was articulated in three stages. Firstly, a wide literature review of scientific articles and other relevant documents published to date on the climate and nutrition nexus has been carried out, as well as a review of all related project documentation. This primary data collection and analysis has been complemented by conducting semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from the projects. As part of this study, a two-day peer-to-peer sharing event was organised to assess the know-how accumulated by the participants and aimed to create an environment conducive to the exchange of knowledge and experiences, as well as to present and validate preliminary research results.

Our results are compiled in a practical guidebook that focuses on 9 main themes. The analysis allowed us to identify adaptation knowledge and solutions coming directly from the field and tested during the projects. The added value of considering the climate and nutrition nexus is to point out the numerous co-benefits of actions and practices which can both contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to the promotion of sustainable agricultural systems and healthy diets. The majority of the solutions identified concern: the consideration of the most vulnerable communities and populations, and in particular the empowerment of women, youth and indigenous people; governance and organisation from the global scale with South-South cooperation to the household level; and finally, the use of information from both traditional knowledge and more technical studies, as well as the implementation of climate-smart and nutrition-sensitive agriculture practices.

How to cite: Galluccio, G., Trozzo, C., Santini, M., Antonelli, M., and Espin, O.: Inform international institutions for interdisciplinary development strategies linking nutrition enhancement and climate change adaptation, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-17583, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-17583, 2023.

On-site presentation
Olivier Aumont, Tamara Ben Ari, Jérôme Mariette, Laurent Jeanneau, Aymeric Spiga, Gaelle Lefort, Philippe-e Roche, Alexandre Santerne, and André Estevez-Torres

In the midst of climate change, academic travels - one salient aspect of the carbon footprint of research activities - are at the center of a growing concern. Mitigation options often focus on two dimensions : (i) decreasing the frequency of attendance to conferences and (ii) modal shift in transport. Here, we analyze professional travel in academia from a unique database compiling about 100 000 travels from about 150 research labs across a large array of disciplines and localities in France to detail the structure, patterns and heterogeneity of national and international research travels for research purposes. We estimate the mitigation potential of a series of options encompassing but not limited to institutional options. We show that, if short distance traveling (typically below 1000 km) are largely dominant in number, their relative mitigation potential via modal shift is small (i.e., below 15%). On the other hand, long distance traveling, which is often associated with international collaborations or field work hold a much larger mitigation potential but question the very nature of research activities. We propose ambitious sobriety options to robustly decrease travel-induced GHG emissions in academia and discuss their acceptability in the context of the French public research system.

How to cite: Aumont, O., Ben Ari, T., Mariette, J., Jeanneau, L., Spiga, A., Lefort, G., Roche, P.-E., Santerne, A., and Estevez-Torres, A.: Traveling for academic research : patterns, determinants and mitigation options, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-11656, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-11656, 2023.

On-site presentation
Christophe Peugeot, Grolleau Dany, Play Caroline, Sultan Benjamin, Hernandez Valeria, Janicot Serge, and Tramblay Yves

The French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) is a multidisciplinary academic organisation working in partnership with countries in the Mediterranean and intertropical zone. Through sustainability science, IRD is committed to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Because of its missions, the IRD has a particular footprint linked to the activities of its agents (2100 employees in 2020) and partners, who travel between France and the rest of the world.

The COVID19 health crisis has forced changes in work habits. This study aims to analyze the impact of these changes on carbon emissions. All business trips of IRD employees and partners in the period 2017-2022 were collected in an anonymized database (aboout 67,000 entries), which describes trips, mode of transportation, reasons for travel, and traveler status.

The annual number of trips dropped sharply during the health crisis, from an average of 14,000/year in 2017-2019 to less than 6,000 in 2022 (-60%). Associated carbon emissions dropped by 70%. Starting in 2021, the number of trips increased to about 90% of pre-covid levels in 2022. However, while the share of air travel in total travel has decreased slightly in 2022 compared to 2017-2019, the share of car travel has increased sharply over the past three years, at the expense of train travel, which remains less used than before COVID. On a finer scale, the share of each mode of transport (and therefore the associated footprint) differs markedly according to the regions in which the research teams work, depending on the type of activity and the modes of transport available (e.g. rail travel mainly in Europe, field campaigns mainly by car).

The analysis highlights that the few trips authorized in 2020 and 2021 were primarily for overseas field activities or mobilities, to and from France. These activities, which cannot be replaced by videoconferencing and which constitute the core of IRD's activity, have been prioritized. The widespread use of videoconferencing has reduced the need for travel, especially for meetings and conferences. This is likely accompanied by an increase in virtual meetings, the associated footprint of which is not assessed here.

Traveling less, using videoconferencing when possible, or pooling several objectives for a single trip are trends that seem to emerge from our analysis. It is interesting to note that they are consistent with the actions proposed by research teams engaged in footprint reduction strategies, as highlighted for example by the serious game "Ma Terre en 180'" or the national survey of the Labo1point5 group.

Our analysis, with only one year without travel restrictions (2022), must be consolidated over a longer period (at least 3 years) to assess the sustainability of practice changes and their impact on IRD's carbon footprint. These results will serve as guidelines to define the necessary actions to reduce the environmental footprint of IRD research activities.

How to cite: Peugeot, C., Dany, G., Caroline, P., Benjamin, S., Valeria, H., Serge, J., and Yves, T.: Impact of the COVID19 crisis on changes in business travel and the associated carbon footprint. Case study of a French scientific research institute., EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-16734, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-16734, 2023.

On-site presentation
Christoph Sens-Schönfelder, Friedhelm von Blanckenburg, and Knut Kaiser

The basis of all serious efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is an inventory of the emissions caused by the various activities of an organisation. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol provides the guideline for establishing such an inventory. The German Research Centre of Geosciences GFZ Potsdam used these guidelines to estimate its greenhouse gas emissions for 2019. Besides the estimation of quantities (e.g. travel distances or hotel nights) which is an administrative challenge, the specific emissions per unit of quantity -- the Global Warming Potential -- play a crucial role. Unequivocal accounting of emissions from construction work is another task of great complexity.  A compilation and standardisation of these values within the research community would greatly simplify the compilation of GHG inventories and help to improve their comparability. Controversy inevitably will arise regarding the design of mitigating measures, like purchase of electricity and heat from renewable sources (which generates extra costs) the compensation of emissions (of which the effectiveness is contested), and even to shifting scientific activities away from those with high greenhouse gas footprints (which may conflict with scientific needs). Building awareness for emissions caused by academic activities and careful communication of mitigation options comprise the first necessary steps en route to low (or net-zero)-emission science.

How to cite: Sens-Schönfelder, C., von Blanckenburg, F., and Kaiser, K.: Taking Stock of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Geosciences: an Example from GFZ Potsdam, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-12106, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-12106, 2023.

On-site presentation
Odin Marc, Sylvain Biancamaria, Solene Derrien, François Gheusi, Jürgen Knödleser, Sylvain Kuppel, Marion Maisonobe, Arnaud Mialon, Pierrick Martin, Florian Pantillon, Luigi Tibaldo, and Florence Toublanc

To maintain global warming below 1.5°C the last IPCC report indicates global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should be reduced by 45% and 80% before 2030 and 2050, respectively, reaching an average of 2 tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1 on Earth. Although responsibilities vary, substantial reductions must be implemented across all aspects of society including academia. It can even be argued that, given its role in informing and alerting the public about climate and ecological change, the scientific community should have a leading role and demonstrate exemplarity in terms of reducing its environmental impact.

Here, we present a broad-scope GHG budget of five laboratories of the Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées in France, in 2019. The studied laboratories comprise 90 to 260 staff members each, with study fields encompassing the solid Earth and the environment, the superficial biosphere, oceanography and glaciology, atmospheric physics and chemistry, as well as astronomy and astrophysics.

To assess GHG emissions, we follow standard procedure (see Mariette et al., Environ. Res.: Infrastruct. Sustain., 2022) in which anyactivity data’ quantifying the usage of a given resource (e.g., in kWh of electricity, or km travelled by aircraft) is multiplied with an appropriate emission factor’ quantifying the unitary carbon footprint of the resource (e.g., electricity production or air-travel). The quantified budget thus includes infrastructures usage, professional travel and expenses and an estimation of the GHG footprint of research infrastructures, in particular scientific satellites. For the latter, we adapted the methodology of Knödleser et al. (Nature Astronomy, 2022), in which the GHG footprint is estimated based on the launch mass or cost of the mission and the share attributable to a given lab depends on the fraction of world author affiliated with the lab who have published articles referring to the satellite, as extracted from the Web of Science database.

We find that emissions related to the lab facilities (electricity, heating, air conditioning and waste) and to individual habits (commuting and lunch meals) both reach about 1 tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1. Unsurprisingly, professional trips significantly contribute to the overall budget (2-6 tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1) and are largely dominated by long-haul air travel. However, services and equipment equally contribute with more than 3-5 tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1. These numbers vary between the studied labs but higher (lower) values for services and equipment tends to compensate for lower (higher) values for professional trips. Furthermore, for three out of five laboratories observational data from research infrastructures represents the largest share of the emissions, with about 5-10 tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1. Although this last estimate is subject to large uncertainty and shows discrepancies between research fields, it suggests that current GHG budget should include at least a first order estimate of the footprint of research infrastructures and adapt reduction strategies accordingly.

How to cite: Marc, O., Biancamaria, S., Derrien, S., Gheusi, F., Knödleser, J., Kuppel, S., Maisonobe, M., Mialon, A., Martin, P., Pantillon, F., Tibaldo, L., and Toublanc, F.: The share of research infrastructure in comprehensive greenhouse gas budget for five French Earth and Space Science laboratories, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8402, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8402, 2023.

On-site presentation
Thierry Pellarin, Nicolas Champollion, Nicolas Gratiot, Claudia Teran-Escobar, Isabelle Ruin, Geremy Panthou, Benoit Hingray, Gilles Delaygue, Eliot Jager, Alexis Lamothe, Guillaume Piton, Guillaume Evin, Juliette Blanchet, Nathalie Philippon, Armelle Philip, Patricia Martinerie, and Ghislain Picard

The Institute of Environmental Geosciences (IGE) is a public research laboratory in Earth and Environmental Sciences with a staff of about 300 people, which conducts research on climate, the anthropisation of our planet and environmental risks, combining glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, mechanics, atmospheric sciences and human sciences. An important part of its activity consists of field experiments in remote sites (Antarctica, Asia, South America, Africa), numerical simulations using significant computer resources (several million CPU hours/year), using expensive and sometimes energy intensive scientific equipment (e.g. 170 m² of cold rooms).

In 2019, the laboratory collectively decided to adopt a strategy to reduce its Carbon Footprint (CFP) by 7% per year in order to achieve a 50% reduction by 2030 and thus to comply with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The first CFP budget (2018 and 2019, using the GES1point5 tool) showed a predominance of emissions from professional travels (~640 tCO2e out of 1850 tCO2e, i.e. 2.6 tCO2e/person). In this context, the strategy consisted in defining CO2 budgets for each of the 8 research teams of the IGE on the basis of the 2018/2019 emissions, imposing a 10% reduction per year from 2020. Given the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, the reduction targets for professional travel were easily achieved (-81% and -64%) and the reduction in 2022 was -39% compared to 2018/2019 instead of the targeted -27%.

For all emission items (commuting, professional travel, heating, electricity, digital computing, purchasing, refrigerants), the reduction was -45% in 2020, -30% in 2021 and -15% in 2022. To consider the evolution of the number of people in the laboratory (and in the teams), the mean individual CFP has been defined as the ratio between the CO2 emissions and the number of people in the laboratory. The IGE's mean individual CFP was 7.22 tCO2e/person in 2018/2019 and 5.45 tCO2e/person in 2022 (for a target of 6.0 tCO2/person). It should be 3.61 tCO2e/person in 2030.

The strategy (the long-term reduction trajectory and the team-based reduction objectives) is well received by the IGE laboratory staff, even if some staff are still reluctant to any form of reduction. To ease its implementation and check whether it is being kept, a bimonthly monitoring of the teams’ emissions and the mean personal CFP was set up. The IGE also proposes participation in awareness-raising tools (La Fresque du Climat, Ma Terre en 180'). Significant changes in travel habits have followed. For instance, out of the 30 members of the IGE who come to the EGU in Vienna each year, 90% came by plane and 10% by train (a 20-hour long journey) in 2018/2019, and this ratio was 25% by plane and 75% by train in 2022.

To achieve our objective, further actions need to be identified to reduce the "purchase" and "digital computing" emission posts. What will help is that the insulation of the buildings was initiated in 2022, and the cold rooms which emitted a very strong greenhouse gas (refrigerant gas R508b) were changed in 2022 for a model operating with CO2.

How to cite: Pellarin, T., Champollion, N., Gratiot, N., Teran-Escobar, C., Ruin, I., Panthou, G., Hingray, B., Delaygue, G., Jager, E., Lamothe, A., Piton, G., Evin, G., Blanchet, J., Philippon, N., Philip, A., Martinerie, P., and Picard, G.: Reducing the carbon footprint of a public research laboratory in Geosciences. Assessing a reduction strategy built with laboratory members after a 3-year experimentation, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-13694, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-13694, 2023.

On-site presentation
Leslie Gauthier, Jean-Philippe Vidal, and Armelle Carnet

This communication aims at presenting how transitions are being made at different organizational scales at INRAE (French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment): (1) at the scale of a research lab through the perspective of a sustainable development contact person, (2) at the scale of a regional research centre through the perspective of the sustainable development regional manager, and (3) at the national and institutional level with the view of the sustainable development director of INRAE. The overall institutional context is first introduced to further develop viewpoints of the three persons involved on the on-going transitions, the strengths of the implemented approach, but also the points of attention. This communication aims at triggering exchanges on how to make sustainable development reach all organizational levels while ensuring a global coherence, and notably across all professions including administration staff, scientists, engineers, etc.

How to cite: Gauthier, L., Vidal, J.-P., and Carnet, A.: How to make a sustainable development approach successful across all scales of a research institute? Crossed views at INRAE, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-7600, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7600, 2023.

Virtual presentation
Claudia Teran-Escobar, Nicolas Becu, Nicolas Champollion, Nicolas Gratiot, Benoit Hingray, Géremy Panthou, and Isabelle Ruin

Some practices embedded in academic culture (international conferences, scientific instruments...) are  important sources of greenhouse gases (e.g., van Ewijk & Hoekman, 2021). Although the scientific community have started to propose ways to reduce the impact of international conferences (e.g., Warner et al., 2022), collective efforts should be pursued to reduce the carbon footprint of the entire academic world. Serious games have been used in the encourage climate change attenuation practices (Fernández Galeote et al., 2021). Nevertheless, to our knowledge, the deployed evaluations have only measured the changes on knowledge and not on actual practices.

My Earth in 180 Minutes (ME180, https://materre.osug.fr/) is a collaborative role-playing game aiming at raising awareness, stimulating interactions in groups and constructing scenarios of professional carbon footprint reductions with multiple stakeholders. The game sessions place staff (researchers, technical and administrative staff, etc.) in a situation of social interaction in which each person plays two characters (inspired from real life observations) of a research team needing to reduce its carbon footprint by 50%. The game allows to build scenarios to reproduce as much as possible the complexity of interactions and the level of inequality existing within academic world. With 85 games played between November 2020 and June 2021, My Earth in 180 Minutes collaborative workshop has shown robust results, in particular Academia’s capacity to reduce its own carbon footprint and propose concrete alternatives: video communication, mutualization and reduction of professional activities (Gratiot et al., 2022).

This communication will describe the methods designed to a) evaluate the effectiveness of the serious game “My Earth in 180 Minutes” in academic practices and b) investigate the factors (e.g., career status, family engagements) that enable or constrain changes in academic practices.

The protocol for a future study is described. Participants working in French research centres (N = 970) will be recruited and randomly split in two groups: a) a group who will participate to the ME180 workshop, or b) control group using another approach for discussing about Academic carbon footprint. Participants will complete online surveys about their professional practices (air travelling, commuting ...) and about the psychological, institutional and, sociodemographic factors related to these practices (intention towards reducing professional air travelling, number of children). The surveys will be repeated six times over the 2 years of the study: before the experiment, one, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after the beginning of the study. Data will be analysed by using mixed linear methods.

We expect that carbon footprint reduction and related practices would be more important in the ME180 group. Mediation and moderation analysis will be used to identify psychological, institutional and, sociodemographic factors (career status, intention to change practices) that may facilitate or block the transition of professional practices.

The previous deployments of “My earth in 180 minutes” help in identifying Academic transition paths (Gratiot et al., in revision). The present study will allow to assess the effects of ME180 in Academic carbon footprint reduction to provide insights about the obstacles and levers of carbon footprint reduction in academia.

How to cite: Teran-Escobar, C., Becu, N., Champollion, N., Gratiot, N., Hingray, B., Panthou, G., and Ruin, I.: My earth in 180 minutes: A transition support system for reducing the carbon footprint in Academia. Experimental design for evaluating its impact on academic practices, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-7612, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7612, 2023.

On-site presentation
Sabrina Zechlau, Stefanie Kremser, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Jadwiga Richter, Jose Santos, Julia Danzer, and Stefanie Hölbling

As the global research enterprise grapples with the challenge of a low carbon future, a key challenge is the future of international conferences. An emerging initiative which combines elements of the traditional in-person and virtual conference is a multi-hub approach. Here we report on one of the first real-world trials of a multi-hub approach, the World Climate Research Programme/Stratosphere-troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate (WCRP/SPARC) General Assembly held in Qingdao-Reading-Boulder during the last week of October 2022. Based on travel surveys of participants, we estimate that the multi-hub approach reduced the carbon footprint from travel of between a factor of 2.3 and 4.1 times the footprint when hosting the conference in a single location. This resulted in a saving of at least 288 tCO2eq and perhaps as much as 683 tCO2eq, compared to having the conference in one location only. Feedback from participants, collected immediately after the conference, showed that the majority (85%) would again attend another conference in a similar format. There are many ways that the format of the SPARC General Assembly could have been improved, but this proof-of-concept provides an inspiration to other groups to give the multi-hub format a try.

How to cite: Zechlau, S., Kremser, S., Charlton-Perez, A., Richter, J., Santos, J., Danzer, J., and Hölbling, S.: Decarbonising conference travel: testing a multi-hub approach, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-5570, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-5570, 2023.


Posters on site: Thu, 27 Apr, 16:15–18:00 | Hall X2

Chairpersons: Antti-Ilari Partanen, Louise Mimeau, Pauline Bonnet
Giuseppe Di Capua and Silvia Peppoloni

Geoethics incorporates instances, categories, concepts, principles, and values already present in the cultural debate, and develops an original theoretical and interdisciplinary framework that merges reflections and considerations that animate philosophical, political, sociological, economic, and (geo)scientific discussions. Geoethics analyses critically and rationally theoretical and practical issues of local and global importance (from climate change, to defense against geohazards and the use of geo-resources), in order to guide social stakeholders towards more inclusive, sustainable, and ecologically-oriented choices.

Geoethics can be qualified as:

  • universal and pluralist (it defines an ethical framework for humanity, in the awareness that the respect of the plurality of visions, approaches, tools is essential to assure dignity to all agents and to guarantee a wide range of opportunities for developing more effective actions to face common threats).
  • wide (its issues and reflections cover an extensive variety of themes);
  • multidisciplinary (its approach favors cooperation and overcoming the sectoral languages of the individual disciplines, to reach the intersection and integration of knowledge);
  • synthetic (it expresses a position of synthesis, definable as ecological humanism, between various existential concepts and different conceptions regarding the nexus between human being and Earth system);
  • local and global (its topics of interest concern both local and regional dimensions, as well as the global one related to the entire Earth system);
  • pedagogical (it proposes a reference model to cultivate one's ethical dimension, to reach a greater awareness of the value of human identity, not in terms of exercisable power over the other by oneself, but of respect of the dignity of what exists);
  • political (it criticizes the materialism, egoism, and consumerism of capitalism, prefiguring a profound cultural change of economic paradigms, and supports the right to knowledge as the foundation of society).

By contributing to change the perception of the nexus between the human being and the Earth system and consequently the social and legal structures of the organization of human communities, geoethics defines educational and political horizons for reaching a global reform of society (Peppoloni and Di Capua 2021: https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810024).

Based on these considerations, the definition of geoethics, as included in the Cape Town Statement on Geoethics (Di Capua et al. 2017: https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7553) and internationally adopted, can find a new, broader formulation, which also describes better its theoretical structure and operational logic:

Geoethics is a field of theoretical and applied ethics focused on studies related to human-Earth system nexus. Geoethics is the research and reflection on principles and values which underpin appropriate behaviors and practices, wherever human activities interact with the Earth system. Geoethics deals with ways of creating a global ethics framework for guiding individual and social human behaviors, while considering human relational domains, plurality of human needs and visions, planetary boundaries, and geo-ecological tipping points. Geoethics deals with the ethical, social, and cultural implications of geoscience knowledge, education, research, practice, and communication and with the social role and responsibilities of geoscientists.

How to cite: Di Capua, G. and Peppoloni, S.: An expanded definition of geoethics, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-1385, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-1385, 2023.

Eduardo Marone, Martin Bohle, and Rika Prieser

Once upon a time, super-specialization and intra-disciplinary approaches were highly rated, although implying divisions of knowledge1. How to challenge such epistemic boundaries? The disciplinary methodology for creating knowledge is important, particularly when subject to solid quality control. However, it is often faulty when handling broad complex systems, such as Natural or Social ones, despite scholars building elaborated methodologies, such as multi-, inter, trans-, and cross-disciplinary practices2. They provided insights and knowledge generation, although showing limitations3,4,5 (epistemic, field domination, egos, etc.).

Geoethics, looking into appropriate behaviours and practices wherever human activities interact with the Earth system6, is an example of the above, which requires overcoming limitations of disciplinary approaches by aiming at supradisciplinary7: engaging with a subject matter across a range of discourses/fields without giving rise to an interdisciplinary hybrid or sui generis discipline.

Exploring what a supradisciplinary practice means, a networkn of scholars proposes a tactic to assemble fellows from the People Sciences and the Natural Sciences: (i) A respectful epistemic trespassing8 allows crossing traditional disciplinary boundaries, and applying proper supradisciplinary collaboration seems more ethical than other methodologies. (ii) Organizing the team under a rhizomatic structure9 does not allow any scientific field hierarchy, avoiding the dilemma of preferring transdisciplinary approaches versus interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary ones and vice versa. Epistemic trespassing is a powerful tool for creating new supradisciplinary knowledge, avoiding the usual hyper-protection (and egos) related to any disciplinary epistemic backyards. It must be considered that supradisciplinary collaboration depends strongly on the quality of the given scientific problem and the proper promotion of the needed epistemic metamorphosis, which seems a more ethical and efficient way of producing knowledge.


1 Klein, J. T., & Miller, R. C. (1983). The Dialectic and Rhetoric of Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies.

2 Van den Besselaar, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2001). Disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary: Concepts and indicators. In ISSI (pp. 705-716).

3 Okamura, K. Interdisciplinarity revisited: evidence for research impact and dynamism. Palgrave Commun 5, 141 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0352-4

4 Editorial. How to avoid glib interdisciplinarity. Nature 552, 148 (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-017-08465-1

5 Kotter, R., Balsiger, P. W., Bailis, S., & Wentworth, J. (1999). Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: a constant challenge to the sciences. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies.

6 Peppoloni, S., Bilham, N., & Di Capua, G. (2019) Contemporary Geoethics Within the Geosciences. In: Exploring Geoethics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 25–70

7 Balsiger, P. W. (2004). Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale. Futures, 36(4), 407-421.

8 Ballantyne, N. (2019). Epistemic trespassing. Mind, 128(510).

9 Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987) [1980]. A Thousand Plateaus. Translated by Massumi, Brian. University of Minnesota Press. p. 21. ISBN 0-8166-1402-4.

n The Network: Alexandra Aragão, Alessia Rochira, Anamaria Richardson, Antony Milligan, Bruno Costelini, Carlos A.S. Batista, Carlos Murillo, Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, Claire A. Nelson, Cornelia E. Nauen, Eduardo Marone, Francesc Bellaubi, Jas Chambers, Javier Valladares, Luis Marone, Martin Bohle, Nic Bilham, Paul Hubley, Rika Preiser, Sharon Stein, Silvia Peppoloni, Vincent Blok, Will Steffen.

How to cite: Marone, E., Bohle, M., and Prieser, R.: Supradisciplinary approach: a (geo)ethical way of producing knowledge and guiding human actions in the XXI Century., EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-4066, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-4066, 2023.

David Crookall and Pimnutcha Promduangsri

Values underlie geoethics and geoscience, especially climatology.  Can we understand or build geoethics without reference to values?  Are values and geoethics driven by beliefs, or should values remain unchanged despite changing beliefs?  Those are some of the questions that we may ask when considering ethics in life, in the geosciences and in climate change and action.  Values include honesty, compassion, quality, patience, objectivity, truth, respect, individualism, justice, power, peace and beauty.  How are these related to geoethics?  Often an ethical dilemma stems from two or more underlying value conflicts, such as individual identity and social value.  It is not easy to understand the principles and dynamics of such relations.

One way into this quagmire is by using a values clarification exercise or game (VCE or VCG).  A VCE can be a useful geoethics literacy tool to help people explore the complexities of such relationships, to allow them to express their own ideas, to confront their ideas with those of others and to gain a rich understanding of their own values that underlie geoethics.  Undorf and colleagues (eg, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-12732, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03435-7) have adopted a philosophical approach.  We take an easier approach, that of interactive, participatory gaming.

We have designed and used VCEs and VCGs in a variety of cultural and social settings and with encouraging results.  Our poster will outline our prior experience and allow you to participate, albeit superficially, in a VCE.  Please come to see us during the poster session, and be sure to bring along one or two friends so that you can play; three players is better than two.  Also bring some paper and a pen.

How to cite: Crookall, D. and Promduangsri, P.: Geoethics values clarification: A playable poster, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8259, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8259, 2023.

Silvia Peppoloni and Giuseppe Di Capua

In the science and technology domain, common methods, procedures, and protocols (rules allowing to make science) guarantee the quality and reliability of scientists’ and technicians’ work. When those rules are adequately followed, there should not arise any problems in deciding what is the best action to take while carrying out research and technological activities. But this is not enough to ensure that activities are conducted ethically.

Ethics influences personal and collective conduct and thereby shapes relationships and resulting outcomes. Research institutions/networks/organizations and their operators have societal responsibilities since their activities may have an impact on stakeholders, partners, and general end users with consequential effects on the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment, or quality of life that goes way beyond a purely academic impact. Science, technology, and ethics are closely interconnected and they mutually influence the subject of their analyses and reflections. Thus, research and technological activities have to consider ethics to develop their full potential.

The mission of EPOS is “To establish and underpin a sustainable and long-term access to solid Earth science data and services integrating diverse European Research Infrastructures under a common federated framework.” This mission encapsulates ethical aspects that must be considered by the EPOS community (scientists, technicians, and data providers, who have different roles and therewith responsibilities within the EPOS community) and that are reflected in EPOS’ goals (https://www.epos-eu.org/about-epos).

In the EU H2020 EPOS-SP project, we developed first draft of the ethical guidelines for the EPOS community, that considers the following EPOS key-concepts:

  • multidisciplinary research;
  • integrated use of data, models, and facilities;
  • appropriate legal solutions;
  • common and shared data policy;
  • open access policy;
  • transparent use of data;
  • mutual respect of intellectual property rights.

The ethical guidelines are essential for establishing an informal “contract” between all members of the EPOS community for managing the relationships within the research infrastructure and with partners by defining principles and values to be shared for building a community of purposes, that is a set of individual and institutional subjects who share an organization, a language, a mission, goals to be achieved, a working method and operational tools.

These guidelines shall ensure that the research conducted within EPOS and services operated in this context are done in an ethical way.

The ethical guidelines are an orienting document for the implementation of the EPOS ERIC’s (European Research Infrastructure Consortium) tasks towards its reference community and stakeholders and are preparatory to the drafting of the final version of the EPOS ERIC ethical guidelines on which to develop subsequent ethical codes for managing specific activities or issues concerning EPOS activities.

How to cite: Peppoloni, S. and Di Capua, G.: Proposal of ethical guidelines for the European Research Infrastructure EPOS, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-1391, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-1391, 2023.

Elena Egidio, Andrea Gerbaudo, Manuela Lasagna, Francesca Lozar, and Marco Davide Tonon

The annual Congress of the Società Geologica Italiana (SGI) and Società Italiana di MIneralogia e Petrologia (SIMP), held in Turin in September 2022 and dedicated to Geosciences for a sustainable future, has been the occasion to critically think on the role of the Geosciences for our society and planet, on the position geoscientists deserve and the role they must take in the formation of citizens, protection from natural hazards and preservation of cultural and natural heritage. In continuation of our previously published work Are we ready for a sustainable development? A survey among young geoscientists in Italy , the present study broadens the sample analyzed to include the entire Italian community of geoscientists and aims to highlight: 1) The relevance of the ethical aspects connected to the work of professionals and scholars, in accordance with the values of geoethics; 2) the most widely held views about the connections between the Earth Sciences and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the UN 2030 Agenda; 3) which initiatives have been put in place by Italian Earth Sciences departments on education for sustainability and which can be the best strategies for developing sustainability education related to geoscience issues. Based on 230 answers to a questionnaire with open and closed questions sent to the participants at the Congress, the results show that the Italian geocommunity has great awareness of the ethical implications of its work and research, in particular of the responsibility towards the environment; despite this consciousness, the average level of knowledge about the 2030 Agenda and its goals is still scarce. To fill this gap, the need for sustainability education initiatives in departments is recognized as urgent, as well as the use of inter- and transdisciplinary educational approaches that can train scholars and professionals capable of addressing the complex challenges of our time.

How to cite: Egidio, E., Gerbaudo, A., Lasagna, M., Lozar, F., and Tonon, M. D.: For a sustainable future: a survey about geoethics and 2030 Agenda among the Italian geosciences community, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-7377, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7377, 2023.

Odin Marc, Elodie Duyck, Laurent Lassabatère, Iñigo Viton, and Marthe Wens

The climate and ecological crises question the role and responsibility of scientists and scientific institutions as producers and conveyers of knowledge. Decades of thorough reporting, efforts at communication towards policy makers, and strong-worded scientific warnings, have not yet lead to policy changes significant enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt environmental degradation. This questions whether geoscientists and scientific institutions should remain distanced from the political and societal implications of their research work, or if on the contrary they have a responsibility to lead by example and to use their position to press for urgent action on the climate and ecological crisis. 

We argue that the failure of governments and international institutions to address these crises at the appropriate scale gives scientists and scientific institutions a responsibility to be more than mere producers of knowledge.  Indeed, doing “science as usual” while warning of the ever growing urgency to act on the climate and ecological crisis risks is widening the already-existing dissonance between, on the one hand, our stated raison d’être and discourses and on the other hand, our everyday practice and institutional mechanisms ; effectively undermining our impact on the broader society.

We first discuss the issue of scientific institutions and the scientific community at large not yet leveling with the urgency to address the climate and ecological crises. A prominent example is that despite repeated campaigns for universities to severe ties with the fossil industry, most  are still accepting sponsoring and research funding from fossil companies, which contributes to the legitimization of companies that have been and are still actively opposing effective climate action. While some universities are taking initiatives to limit carbon intensive behavior such as flying, serve plant-based food as a standard, stop accepting polluting companies on campuses, or include climate education in all curriculums, these are still individual initiatives, dependent on the voluntary mobilization from student and staff.

 We then argue that we, as geoscientists, can not only lead by example with individual changes to our lives, but can also have a strong impact when engaging in collective action, pressing our universities and governments to enact strong climate and environmental policies. Public engagement of universities, of other scientific institutions, and of scientists can amplify and legitimize the voice of the climate and environmental movements in a mutually beneficial science-society approach, notably because the former produce the very scientific knowledge empowering these movements.  We propose to discuss recent examples, including from our own experience, of the impact of scientists engaging in demonstrations and civil disobedience as part of environmental groups, at the ethical level, but also regarding consequences within and outside of academic circles.

How to cite: Marc, O., Duyck, E., Lassabatère, L., Viton, I., and Wens, M.: The specific responsibility of geoscientists in the midst the climate and ecological crises: a need to address personal and institutional dissonances, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8173, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8173, 2023.

Susanna F. Jenkins, Geoffrey A. Lerner, George T. Williams, Elinor S. Meredith, and Jenni Barclay

The global and transdisciplinary nature of volcanology means that research takes place across institutions in a wide variety of locations around the world. The concentration of volcanic activity within certain regions means that researchers frequently conduct research outside their own borders. Collaboration between international and local researchers has the potential to produce mutual benefit and improve research. For local scientists, international collaboration can provide niche expertise that may not be currently available in the region where the volcano is located, in addition to resources, analyses, or equipment. For international researchers, in addition to different scientific perspectives, collaboration with local scientists can provide vital knowledge of local and regional information, access to field sites, and greater research relevance to the communities and organizations the research is often intended to benefit.

Despite these noted benefits, there is often a lack of inclusivity of local scientists in international research. In this study we use a bibliometric approach to understand who is doing and leading volcanic research, and in which countries the research is taking place. We assessed the metadata of ~24,000 volcanological works from 1901-2021 with 768 volcanoes identified across 68 countries. Our evaluation of affiliations shows that 40% of articles that name a volcano do not include any authors affiliated with the volcano’s country. We also look at case studies of island territories to explore to what extent local scientists are involved in doing research compared to the mainland or foreign countries. We find that only 23% of studies on volcanoes located on island territories have an author affiliated with the territory. Our assessment of bibliometric data provides insights and support for ongoing conversations on the inclusiveness of international research, both spatially and temporally, and can be used to identify geographical areas for improvement, as well as trends in inclusion and leadership.

How to cite: Jenkins, S. F., Lerner, G. A., Williams, G. T., Meredith, E. S., and Barclay, J.: Research in Volcanology: where, when, and by whom? A global bibliometric analysis, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-10946, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-10946, 2023.

Mo-Hsiung Chuang, Kuo-Chen Ma, and Yih-Chi Tan

This 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference clearly pointed out that global warming is progressing. The threat of climate change and extreme disasters will increase rapidly, and the risk of community disasters will increase significantly. Therefore, effective disaster risk management and risk communication can enable community residents in disaster potential areas to understand disaster risks and build disaster prevention organizations, which has become a Practitioner in Disaster Risk Management. This study aims to explore training methods for resilient Communities. These include community environment diagnosis map making, including natural disaster risk and vulnerability discussion and disaster prevention map drawing, and secondly, how to train resilient community to conduct disaster risk control and disaster management measures before or during disaster events and recovery periods. Finally, combine the geographic information of the public sector and volunteers to conduct public-private cooperation to build disaster risk management and practice with resilient communities as the key players.

How to cite: Chuang, M.-H., Ma, K.-C., and Tan, Y.-C.: Study on the effective disaster risk management and communication for resilient community, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-2805, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-2805, 2023.

Multi-crisis resilience gain: on the sustainable model-based paradigm of resource governance
Yuriy Kostyuchenko
Lorenz König, Mike Teucher, Katrin Ziegler, Daniel Abel, Torsten Weber, Heiko Paeth, and Christopher Conrad

The African continent faces various challenges and numerous risks due to current and future climate change. To strengthen the resilience of West African societies in the sectors of agriculture, food security, water and risk management, adaption measures need to be implemented in time. In the WASCAL-LANDSURF project, an earth system model for West Africa is developed to enable high-resolution regional climate change information. The obtained data must be accessible to the public so that interested stakeholders and smallholders can incorporate them into their decision-making processes.
To realize this, a web based spatial decision support system (SDSS) is developed with state-of-the-art open-source technologies to give information on climate change as well as relevant cross-sector indicators. For successful co-development, stakeholder workshops were held to identify important key functionalities and indicators that need to be implemented. The SDSS will be multilingual and easy to use to ensure an extensive range of applications. Users will have the possibility to familiarize themselves with the Web Portal by means of different guides in order to ease the entry into the SDSS. The current prototype supports map and diagram visualization and selection of various indicators and climate data, as well as query functionalities for different West African regions. Many other functionalities, such as the possibility to download data and statistical outputs of selected indicators, will be integrated soon. The final web portal will give users the opportunity to include climate indices in a simple and clear way into their decision-making process to strengthen their resilience towards climate change.

How to cite: König, L., Teucher, M., Ziegler, K., Abel, D., Weber, T., Paeth, H., and Conrad, C.: Development of a Web Based Decision Support System to Provide Relevant Climate Indicators for Climate Change Adaption, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-12019, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-12019, 2023.

Kalijn Peters, Steye Verhoeve, and Wiebe Nijland

Watching the documentary ‘The Leadership’ led to a consentient discussion amongst colleagues. In this documentary a group of female scientists set off on a cruise to learn about and experience leadership. Personal experiences, what happens on board and statistics about social safety, show that feeling socially safe and included is still an issue amongst (female) scientists, especially when working in the field. The significantly high numbers of female field scientists in STEM research having experienced discrimination, gender inequality and (sexual) harassment cannot be ignored, so we decided this subject has to be embedded in our bachelor curriculum.

In order to enhance social safety in our earth sciences program, we set up a workshop on this subject for our bachelor students as part of a 15ECTS fieldwork course. In the field, students are physically and mentally challenged, while operating in an often unfamiliar environment, working in bigger and smaller groups, for longer periods of time and integrating all they have learned over the past year(s). With the many challenges this encompasses, they will likely face the boundaries of their comfort zone. This makes them more vulnerable and increases the risk of creating an unsafe working, studying/living environment. However, when treated with care, these experiences can have a significant positive impact on the students personal growth and become beneficial to their professional skills and learning.

The workshop we designed starts with discussing daily practicalities and individual responsibilities, including sanitary hygiene and proper field-equipment, and continues with professional attitude, an exercise on group dynamics, how to function in a team that is not your own choice, and getting to know your teammates in a playful manner. We finish with the discussion of (sexual) harassment, providing tools to become an active bystander, and giving the students case studies of socially (un)safe settings in the field. They present these case studies to each other on how they would react, reflecting on their own capabilities and responsibilities.

After this first year, student evaluations and discussions with field staff point out that this is a valuable part of the fieldwork. For example the staff could more easily refer to some manners discussed in the workshop, and the students could recognize the case studies and use this to tackle unsafe situations at an earlier stage. We now continue with optimizing the existing workshop, and would like to exchange experiences about this subject with colleagues to enhance improvement of social safety and personal growth in the field for both students and teaching staff.

How to cite: Peters, K., Verhoeve, S., and Nijland, W.: Social safety in the field – preparing the students, our future colleagues, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-4384, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-4384, 2023.

Selby Hearth and Carrie Robbins

When the core ideas of Geology were being developed in the 19th century, geologists used colonial expeditions for transport, access, data, and -- critically -- specimens. Mineral specimens were sent from colonized and mined localities around the world to centralized collections in Europe and European settler states, forming diverse repositories of minerals, rocks, and fossils that geologists could then draw on without having to leave their home country. The accumulation of these specimens contemporaneously spurred the growth of museums and formed the collections at the heart of object-based pedagogy. As curators of these collections today, how can we use these specimens and their histories to illustrate these connections? This presentation will examine how the Bryn Mawr Mineral Collection is using mineral specimens in cataloging, display, and teaching to provoke reflection on this critical social dimension of our science. One of these strategies has been to recruit student research into mine sites and the provenance and provenience of individual specimens. Activating historical collections in this way helps make them relevant to today’s students. It also helps students recognize that geo-colonialism is not restricted to the past. Lithium, cobalt, and other rare minerals will be central to the production of batteries and anti-carbon technologies for the new “green economy” in the coming decades. It is important that mineral collections begin to use specimens to teach broader social histories of mining, extraction, and Western colonial relationships so that differential distributions of power are taken into account.

How to cite: Hearth, S. and Robbins, C.: Minerals as lenses to illustrate the relationships between Geology and colonialism, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-4443, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-4443, 2023.

Dr Munira Raji, Dr Rebecca Williams, Dr Anya Lawrence, Dr Nicholas Evans, Professor Trevor Burnard, Dr M. Satish Kumar, Keely Mills, Steven Rogers, Catharine Souch, George Jameson, Jacqui Houghton, and Natasha Dowey

At the height of colonial Europe, during the late 18th century, many of the principles, theories, laws and practices that shape the (Western) academic discipline of Earth Science were established. However, during this imperial production of knowledge, there was little reference to or acknowledgement of any pre-existing geological knowledge. The legacy of colonialism is perpetuated through many modern Earth Science practices and education activities, and the influence of this legacy adds to the perception of Earth Science as a white, western-dominated subject and the erasure and dismissal of other geological knowledge. This project explores the unacknowledged local geological knowledge and labour upon which the foundational institutions of Earth Science are built and how this legacy creates modern-day exploitation, unethical behaviour and inequity in our discipline. 


We uncover some of the hidden histories of colonial mineral exploitation, including the role of British geologists and geological institutions in expanding colonial rule in Africa and how local geological knowledge and local guides underpinned the activities of the colonial geological surveys. British mineral exploitation in Africa started in the seventeenth century with a series of expeditions by pioneer British geologists and prospectors into South Africa's interior to make preliminary observations and geological surveys for minerals. More expeditions to other parts of Africa followed in the eighteenth century. During the late eighteenth century, many of the principles, theories, laws and practices that shaped the academic discipline of Earth Science were established in parallel to colonial expansion. The British Empire sustained a programme of exploratory geological surveys and activities directly linked with mapping the geological features to locate and discover economic mineral resources to fuel the British economy and industrialise the British Empire. Exploitable deposits of coal, copper, iron and limestone's essential smelting flux were vital for the long-term development of steamship lines, railways, and industry. 


At the end of the First World War, the British government promoted and intensified geological surveys in several British Empire territories – Uganda, Sierra Leone and Nigeria in 1918, Tanzania in 1925 and Kenya in 1933. Some pioneer British geologists were heralded for their pioneering work and credited with the discovery of economically significant minerals in Africa. Our archival investigation reveals many of these mineral resources were already used and mined locally and that local knowledge underpinned these resource 'discoveries' and local people were used as field assistants, guides, carriers, labourers, and camp guides. These pioneer geologists relied on the colonial structure to obtain information from natives central to fieldwork, mineral investigation, and discoveries. Still, history has omitted the contributions of the natives involved in these mineral discoveries and the acknowledgement of any local geological knowledge. Perhaps it is time to change the narrative from one of discovery to one of exploitation. As a discipline, by reckoning with the colonial legacy of our past, we can seek to normalise working with local knowledge and knowledge outside the boundaries of (western) Earth Science, leading to ethical,  equitable, interdisciplinary work, better preparing the discipline for current global challenges.

How to cite: Raji, D. M., Williams, D. R., Lawrence, D. A., Evans, D. N., Burnard, P. T., Kumar, D. M. S., Mills, K., Rogers, S., Souch, C., Jameson, G., Houghton, J., and Dowey, N.: Changing the narrative: the hidden histories of British colonial mineral exploitation in Africa, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-15959, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-15959, 2023.

Examples of transdisciplinary research for urban air quality and mobility policy
Erika von Schneidemesser, Alexandre Caseiro, and Sean Schmitz
Fabian Kneier, Laura Woltersdorf, and Petra Döll

Local climate change risk assessments and climate resilient adaptation are best supported by a quantitative integration of physical hazards, exposures and vulnerabilities that includes the characterization of uncertainties. However, it is challenging to take into account the complex information of climate change projections and uncertainties in participatory risk assessments with decision-makers. We propose to use Bayesian Networks (BNs) for this task. Bayesian Networks are a cutting-edge integrated modelling approach for combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge in uncertain and complex domains, such as climate change impacts on water. To quantify potential future hazards of climate change on water, it is state-of-the-art to rely on multi-model ensembles to integrate the uncertainties of both climate and impact modelling. At the same time, local expert knowledge needs to be integrated in local climate change risk assessments. We show how to integrate freely-available output of multiple global hydrological models into BNs, in order to probabilistically assess risks for water supply. To this end, a roadmap to set up BNs and apply probability distributions of risk levels under historic and future climate and water use in a participatory manner was co-developed with water experts from Spain and the Maghreb. Multi-model information on hydrological variables was computed by three global hydrological models driven by the output of four global climate models for four greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. The output of projected relative changes of hydrological hazards was pre-processed using MATLAB, taking into account local information on water availability and use, to set up the BN. Results show that the method is useful for probabilistically computing climate change impacts on water stress and to assess potential adaptation measures in a participative process with stakeholders and decision-makers. Local water experts positively evaluated the BN application for local climate change risk assessments. While requiring certain training, the presented approach is suitable for application in the many local risk assessments necessary to deliver efficient and successful climate resilient adaptation.

How to cite: Kneier, F., Woltersdorf, L., and Döll, P.: Participatory Bayesian Network modelling to assess climate change risks and adaptation regarding water supply: integrating multi-model ensemble hazard information and local expert knowledge, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8861, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8861, 2023.

What makes science-and-policy-dialogue successful? Impact analysis of a parliamentary evening in the German Bundestag.
Marie Heidenreich
Jean-Philippe Vidal, Céline Berni, Marina Coquery, Alexandre Devers, Leslie Gauthier, Claire Lauvernet, Matthieu Masson, Louise Mimeau, and Martin Turlan and the RiverLy Downstream team

This communication aims at testifying how individual commitments of researchers can be combined to engage a whole research lab – in this case INRAE RiverLy – in a carbon transition path. INRAE RiverLy is an interdsciplinary research unit for the management and restoration of river systems and their catchments. In 2020, a group of RiverLy people started questioning the downstream impacts of their research practices. An official internal action called RiverLy Downstream was thus launched to address these issues. A first lab-scale carbon accounting for the year 2019 was performed thanks to the GES 1point5 tool (https://apps.labos1point5.org/ges-1point5). It showed a large contribution of air travel to the total carbon footprint. Further carbon accounting for 2020 and 2021 however highlighted the even larger impact of purchases (equipment, consumables, etc.) thanks to newly implemented features in GES 1point5. An open “climate day” was organized in the lab in September 2022 for (1) raising awareness through a general-public-oriented tool, (2) provide live feedback from other research labs engaged in a carbon transition, and (3) collectively identify propositions of local actions on different themes: purchases, travels, premises, computing, food, and research activities. These propositions fed a lab-wide survey that will help defining a few carbon footprint reduction scenarios based on their social acceptability. These scenarios will then be submitted to the lab board for implementation. The whole process benefited from rich interactions with INRAE national to regional strategy for reducing its environmental footprint (https://www.inrae.fr/en/corporate-social-responsibility-inrae), and with the French national initiative Labos1point5 (https://labos1point5.org/).

How to cite: Vidal, J.-P., Berni, C., Coquery, M., Devers, A., Gauthier, L., Lauvernet, C., Masson, M., Mimeau, L., and Turlan, M. and the RiverLy Downstream team: How to collectively engage in reducing the carbon footprint of a research lab?, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-3462, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-3462, 2023.

Nicolas Champollion and the Ma Terre en 180 Minutes team

A growing portion of scientists realized the need to not only alert about climate change, but also change their professional practices. A range of tools have emerged to promote more sustainable activities, yet many scientists struggle to go beyond simple awareness-raising to create concrete transition actions. This study proposed the use of a new game-based transition support system called " Ma Terre en 180 Minutes ", which is, to our knowledge, the first tool developed by and for the academic community. It has been designed to build scenarios of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions reduction in the academic community, and present its deployment during the year 2021, including six hundred participants from 9 countries and 50 cities.


After the phase 1, called awareness, that aims to build a common scientific background about the context (global warming, its causes and consequences, planetary boundaries) and challenge (50% reduction of our carbon budget by 2030), the participants, with the phase 2 called role-playing, immerse themselves into fictional characters, to simulate the behavior of real research groups. Phase 1 and 2 are separated by a few days interphase helping participants to embody their fictional characters and be comfortable with the virtual research group they will simulate, as well as having time to perform their personal carbon footprint. Finally, an important final phase after the game-playing phase 2 take place to discuss, analyze and assess the results of phase 2.


Results show clear pathways for GHG reductions between 25 and 60%, and a median reduction of 46%. The alternatives allowing the greatest reduction are video communication tools (36%), followed by mutualization of professional activities and voluntary cancellation or reduction, thatrepresents 22 and 14% of reduction, respectively. The remaining 28% of reduction is composed by the use of trains as a transport alternative, the relocation of professional activities, the duration extension of some missions, etc… In addition, the analyses pointed out the importance of guided negotiations to bring out some alternatives such as relocation, local partners and computing optimization. An added value of this transition support system is that the information it collects (anonymously) will be used to answer pressing research questions in climate change science and environmental psychology regarding the use of serious games for promoting changes in attitudes and behaviors towards sustainability, and including broader questions on how network structures influence “climate behavior”, knowledge, and the governance of the commons.

How to cite: Champollion, N. and the Ma Terre en 180 Minutes team: Ma Terre en 180 Minutes: a transition support system to build decarbonization scenarios in the academic community., EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-6356, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-6356, 2023.

Florian Pantillon, Sylvain Kuppel, Sylvain Biancamaria, Solene Derrien, François Gheusi, Jürgen Knödlseder, Marion Maisonobe, Odin Marc, Arnaud Mialon, Pierrick Martin, Luigi Tibaldo, and Florence Toublanc

To maintain global warming below 1.5°C the last IPCC report indicates global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should be reduced by 45% and 80% before 2030 and 2050, respectively, reaching an average of 2tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1 on Earth. Recent estimates of the carbon footprint of universities and research centers accounting for indirect emissions often exceed 10tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1.

Here we find similar or higher values (10-30tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1) for the year 2019 for five research labs encompassing the solid Earth and the environment, the superficial biosphere, oceanography and glaciology, atmospheric physics and chemistry, and astronomy and astrophysics. These values are derived through a common procedure (see Mariette et al., 2022) in which any activity data quantifying the usage of a given resource (e.g., in kWh or km) is multiplied by an appropriate emission factor quantifying the unitary carbon footprint of the resource (e.g., electricity production or air travel). Our budget quantifies the share of emissions from local facilities (about 1tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1), lunch meals and commuting (about 1tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1), professional trips (2-6tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1), services and equipment (3-5tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1), and the use of observational data from research infrastructures, in particular scientific satellites (up to 10tCO2e.pers-1.yr-1; derived similarly to Knödlseder et al., 2022).

These numbers imply radical changes to make scientific activity sustainable and have strong implications on potential strategies to reduce GHG emissions. For example, a predominant discussion in the literature in the past years focused on avoiding air travel. However, in our case, shifting all national travels to train or halving the number of plane trips would reduce the total emissions by a fraction only. Similarly, any strategy targeting local building efficiency or individual habits will little influence the budget. In contrast, reducing or changing practice for services and equipment may have stronger impact but requires collective thinking, especially for research infrastructures that are planned and managed at national and international levels.

The sheer magnitude of our GHG emissions questions the degree of reduction that can be achieved without redirection of scientific activity. We present and discuss examples of changes such as shifting to interdisciplinary research including social sciences, focusing on archived data, relocating field work, or engaging more with students and society.

How to cite: Pantillon, F., Kuppel, S., Biancamaria, S., Derrien, S., Gheusi, F., Knödlseder, J., Maisonobe, M., Marc, O., Mialon, A., Martin, P., Tibaldo, L., and Toublanc, F.: How to reduce the carbon footprint of Earth and Space Science? Potential strategies based on a comprehensive greenhouse gas budget for five French labs, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-8882, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-8882, 2023.

Yomna Eid and Edzer Pebesma

Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15788dfGPL5ehDaDsO7BsOKoGk3Bk7g2epKQ58HiYZVM/edit

The core of the modern data revolution is data centers: “the central nervous system of the 21st century,” [1] housing networking and storage equipment, and servers that enable services such as cloud computing. They consume increasing quantities of energy not only to run their operations, but also to cool down their servers. With advances in cloud computing and the growth of Internet services use, data centres are estimated to have the fastest growing carbon footprint from across the whole ICT sector.

Although the opportunities and risks of Big Data are often discussed in the geosciences, most of the literature and initiatives surprisingly neglect a crucial risk for sustainable development: the fact that the data revolution hampers sustainable development because of its environmental footprint. Therefore, the ability to quantify and project data centre energy use is a key energy and climate policy priority.

Remote sensing products present one of the highest storage-capacity demands, with imagery archives spanning petabytes. High- and very high-resolution remote sensing imagery has emerged as an important source of data for various geoscientific analysis, most of which are highly computationally taxing. With this trend in increasing spatial and temporal resolution, a crucial question remains - is the accuracy and overall quality of analysis results significantly impacted by substituting the standard high-resolution product with a less computationally-intensive, coarser-resolution one?

Emerging products such as the World Settlement Footprint [2] and Dynamic World [3] land use land cover maps, which are produced at very high temporal resolution (5 day) and spatial resolution (10 m). A generally accepted attitude is that developing products at higher resolutions is a legitimate scientific goal. However, the interest is often not which 10 m pixel changes land use and when exactly this happens, but rather how many pixels change land use over a larger area (a country, or basin) and over a larger time period (e.g. by year over a decade). For a few high resolution products we evaluate and report how such aggregated target quantities computed from lower spatial and temporal resolution data change the quality (accuracy) of the final product, and which resolutions still seem acceptable.

[1] Lucivero, F. Big Data, Big Waste? A Reflection on the Environmental Sustainability of Big Data Initiatives. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1009–1030 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00171-7

[2] Marconcini, M., Metz-Marconcini, A., Üreyen, S. et al. Outlining where humans live, the World Settlement Footprint 2015. Sci Data 7, 242 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00580-5

[3] Brown, C.F., Brumby, S.P., Guzder-Williams, B. et al. Dynamic World, Near real-time global 10 m land use land cover mapping. Sci Data 9, 251 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01307-4

How to cite: Eid, Y. and Pebesma, E.: Is maximizing spatial resolution worth the computational cost?, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-14915, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-14915, 2023.

Posters virtual: Thu, 27 Apr, 16:15–18:00 | vHall EOS

Chairpersons: Giuseppe Di Capua, Louise Mimeau, Antti-Ilari Partanen
Giuliana Rubbia, Daniele Bravi, Valeria De Paola, Sergio Gurrieri, Maria Valeria Intini, and Silvia Peppoloni

According to the current legislation of Italy (e.g., Law No. 165/2001) public organizations must have a code of conduct in place, which specifies and complements the General Code of Conduct for public employees, embedding issues that are typical for the specific context. 

The Authority aimed at disseminating a culture of integrity and legality, the Italian National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC), provided a set of directives over time that specifies key actors and procedures, drafting methods, and fundamental principles that the Code must contain.

In this framework, public research institutes are no exception. At the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology of Italy (INGV) an interdisciplinary working group with diverse experiences and profiles has been created and committed to reviewing the current code of conduct and proposing a new one.

The drafting process progressed through a thorough examination of fundamental principles and compliance with laws, on the one hand, and with an in-depth analysis of areas of application in the context of the institute and its activities. 

Once drafted, the first version has been proposed for provisional approval by the Board of Administrators (CdA), and submitted for stakeholder consultation.  INGV personnel commented on the first version, expressed their concerns, and proposed various amendments. These comments have all been addressed, partially or completely accepted, or refused; an updated version has been created and submitted for a further round of approval by the Independent Evaluation Body (OIV), a body assessing the performance, clearness, and integrity of the administrative action.

The values on which the Code is structured refer to four geoethical domains: 1) the individual dimension, which concerns the ethical action of each individual recipient of the Code in the context of his/her specific work activity; 2) the interpersonal/professional dimension, which refers to relationships with colleagues; 3) the societal dimension, which includes relations with all the various components of society; and d) the relationship with the natural environment, which includes actions aimed at minimizing negative impacts on ecosystems and promoting eco-sustainable behaviors. Moreover, the code benefits from the principles expressed in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity and the European Charter for Researchers.

At present, the Code contains both ethical and legal norms, i.e. both principles underpinning appropriate behaviors and rules, which if violated give rise to sanctions.  Code recipients are called to observe them in order to ensure workplace well-being, quality of research and services, prevention of corruption phenomena, compliance with the constitutional duties of diligence, loyalty, impartiality, care of the public interest, and achievement of INGV institutional goals. The Code will be updated according to the structure of a new General Code of Conduct to be issued by the Italian Government.

How to cite: Rubbia, G., Bravi, D., De Paola, V., Gurrieri, S., Intini, M. V., and Peppoloni, S.: The evolving Code of Conduct at the National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology of Italy: a participatory process to combine law compliance and geoethics principles, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-7063, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-7063, 2023.

Ester Piegari, Giovanni Camanni, Daniela Flocco, Maurizio Milano, Nicola Mondillo, and Umberto Riccardi

Most students living in disadvantaged areas do not trust that their school education will have much bearing on their future and become disaffected from school as early as in lower secondary school.

We here report the results of teaching Geosciences through several practical activities carried out in suburban schools characterized by a high dropout rate. The lectures were given in the framework of the STEM project Next Land, which has the overarching goal of instilling interest towards scientific topics into young students and promoting the role of scientific education for sustainable development.

We propose a sequence of four laboratory activities on the subject of natural calamities (e.g. earthquakes and tsunamis), which are based on the use of both manual and IT skills.

The didactical experimentation has been conducted on 21 seventh-grade classes (age ~12) involving about 350 students from the area of Naples (Southern Italy). The final aim of the teaching is to test the potential of the Geosciences in generating attitudes and behaviours of solidarity and responsible global citizenship.

All the proposed activities try to make students aware that they are part of a connected global system, therefore through these lectures we attempt to help these young students to put in perspective their local reality in a larger one.

How to cite: Piegari, E., Camanni, G., Flocco, D., Milano, M., Mondillo, N., and Riccardi, U.: Teaching Geosciences through practical activities to enhance global citizenship education in schools with a high dropout rate, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-10073, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-10073, 2023.

Does climate change science inform England’s local flood risk management strategies?
Andrew Russell
Laurent Jeanneau, Emilie Jardé, Anne-Laure Argentin, Annick Battais, Thomas Bernard, Alexandre Coche, Marion Fournereau, Frédérique Moreau, and Laure Guerit

The impact of our productivist societies on our environment is now clearly demonstrated. It is illustrated in particular by the alteration of biogeochemical flows, the erosion of biodiversity, the chemical pollution of environments, the anthropisation of soils, the alteration of the water cycle, the acidification of the oceans and climate change.

As higher education and research staff working at the interface between science and society, we are aware of the need for an environmental transition that can only be achieved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and our environmental impact. We do not believe that the content of our research justifies any form of exemption and are aware of the benefits of being exemplary. As a research lab, we are committed to participating in limiting the increase in the Earth's average temperature, ideally targeted at less than 1.5°C compared to the pre-industrial period. This objective requires achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

From 2021 the Sustainable Development & Social Responsibility working group of the research laboratory “Géosciences Rennes” has been created (i) to determine the C footprint by using GES1.5 (Research Consortium labo1.5), (ii) to communicate and raising staff awareness of the climate emergency, (iii) to propose indicators for reducing the carbon footprint, (iv) to convey a message to the supervisory authorities to work on the various reduction items.

The calculated C footprint includes heating of buildings, electricity, purchase of goods and services, scientific missions and commutes. Between 2019 and 2021, the C footprint was 879, 520 and 708 T CO2eq, which corresponds to 5.8, 3.6 and 5.1 T CO2eq/person. The purchase of goods and services was the main item, representing 48 ± 8 % (mean ± SD) of the C footprint. Scientific missions represented 14 ± 9 % of the C footprint. Sanitary restrictions due to the covid pandemy induced a drastic decrease of the C footprint of scientific missions from 220 T CO2eq in 2019 to 43 T CO2eq in 2020.

Thanks to the GES1.5 toolkit, it is possible to identify the main emission items for a given laboratory and to design and quantify specific actions to collectively reduce the C footprint. These data were the corner stone of collaborative workshops to invent our low-carbon laboratory. This presentation will feature the data and the process of collective decision in “Géosciences Rennes” laboratory. These results highlight that achieving the European Union targets will require a rethinking of the way we do science. 

How to cite: Jeanneau, L., Jardé, E., Argentin, A.-L., Battais, A., Bernard, T., Coche, A., Fournereau, M., Moreau, F., and Guerit, L.: Carbon footprint and reduction initiatives in a French geosciences laboratory, EGU General Assembly 2023, Vienna, Austria, 23–28 Apr 2023, EGU23-14085, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu23-14085, 2023.