Many environmental issues can be described as “wicked problems” because, in particular, they often have no “ideal” solution that is acceptable to all or most stakeholders. To expand on this, there can be many actions that could be taken to respond to a specific environmental hazard, but some of those responses might be inadequate in managing the scale of the risk and others may be too expensive to implement when compared to the assets that they would protect or damage they would prevent. In such situations, how can we find out what policy professionals think would be the best response and what influences their thinking?

Q-sort is a research method that can help answer this question. It is used to systematically capture and compare participant’s subjective viewpoints by getting them to order and rank statements in relation to one another.

Here, we present a case study of using q-sort in the context of the management of coastal legacy landfill sites where increasing flood and coastal erosion risks are anticipated. In this case, we used the method to get policy professionals to rank possible responses that could manage the risk of potentially harmful waste being released onto beaches and/or into the sea.

In summer 2025, a major research project in the UK – the Resilience of Anthropocene Coasts and Communities (RACC) project – convened two stakeholder workshops to compile and assess what policy options that could manage legacy landfill sires are preferred. Held in London (July) and Glasgow (September), the two half-day workshops explored how the problem is currently understood and to identify key barriers to management actions. Participants then considered the potential responses and ranked those responses in a q-sort exercise. The participants positioned 28 policy options on a q-sort matrix by deciding what their least- and most-preferred options were in relation to the other options. They also completed a questionnaire to capture the thought processes behind their rankings.

Combining the results from all the participants (n=22), we were able to determine that the most preferred policy options were:

• Vulnerability assessment for who and what is at risk from coastal change and legacy waste
• Treat the whole of the site to remove harmful contaminants
• Emergency preparedness and response planning (of potential legacy waste exposure during storm or flood events)

Conversely, the least preferred policy options were:

• Reopen the landfill
• Do nothing
• Relocate people, assets, or infrastructure away from legacy waste site

The results of this process has given us a starting point for our next steps in engaging even more policy professionals and working with communities with an ultimate aim of building the resilience of those communities.

How to cite: Russell, A., Cotton, I., Clinch, M., and Porter, J.: How do we find out what policy professionals want to do in response to complex environmental hazards? A case study using q-sort to unravel policy professionals’ preferences and thought processes., EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-1752, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-1752, 2026.

Droughts are intensifying due to climate change, yet hydrological scenarios to anticipate future water availability remain far less common than climate projections, making it difficult to translate scientific results into information that is both interpretable and operationally useful. The IT-WATER project addresses this gap by developing the first national-scale water-resource scenarios for Italy through a co-creation process that places stakeholders and their needs at the core of its methodology. Beginning with a webinar and survey in early 2025 and culminating in an in-person workshop in Bologna with representatives of water authorities, research institutions, and public and private operators, the engagement process gathered practical insights and critically reviewed proposed indices for representing hydro-climatic futures. Furthermore, efforts were focused on developing advanced visualization methods for the indicators to ensure their seamless integration into decision-making workflows and to enhance their effectiveness in supporting planning activities. The resulting shared portfolio of indices constitutes a co-designed, practice-oriented reference framework that supports the communication of climate-change impacts on water resources and informs future planning and adaptation strategies.  

How to cite: Avanzi, F., Pelosini, R., Tasso, A., Gualdi, S., and Sansone, G. and the IT-WATER team: Decision-relevant rendering of water- supply climate-change scenarios: a co-produced portfolio, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-1711, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-1711, 2026.

Understanding how scientific knowledge informs climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR) policy remains a critical challenge across African governance systems. Science-Policy Interfaces (SPIs) are widely promoted to strengthen evidence-informed decision-making, yet systematic and comparative assessments of how they function in practice remain limited. This study develops and applies an indicator-based framework to assess SPI performance, empirically tested through 20 CCA and DRR initiatives implemented in Africa between 2008 and 2021.

Drawing on global literature on science - policy engagement, co-production, institutional governance, and knowledge systems, we developed a general analytical framework comprising 22 indicators organised across six domains, designed to capture core conditions underpinning effective SPIs across policy fields. The framework was applied to the CCA/DRR cases through standardised scoring of project documentation, complemented by exploratory Spearman’s rank correlation analysis and Principal Component Analysis (PCA), with cluster stability validated through bootstrap resampling. This mixed-method approach enabled examination of how SPI conditions in the selected case studies co-occur, interact, and form performance patterns.

Results show consistently strong performance in scientific contextual relevance, stakeholder engagement, international alignment, and capacity strengthening, indicating that participatory and context-sensitive practices were widely embedded across the initiatives. However, weaknesses were identified in sustainability-related dimensions, particularly exit strategies, monitoring and feedback mechanisms, long-term resourcing, equity (notably gender representation), and digital infrastructures.

Both correlation analysis and PCA reveal that SPI indicators cluster around three interdependent dimensions rather than linear pathways. A first, socially grounded dimension centres on intermediary capacity, highlighting the role of boundary actors in knowledge sharing and retention, with reflexive practices functioning as a two-way interface that builds understanding, supports uptake, and informs where further scientific input is needed. A second, institutional dimension brings together alignment with institutional policy frameworks and continuity-oriented mechanisms - including institutional capacity strengthening, monitoring arrangements, and exit strategies - emphasising the importance of institutional anchoring and planned continuity for SPI durability. A third, technical - operational dimension links the usability of outputs - timeliness, accessibility, and practical relevance - with policy uptake, showing that practical and accessible outputs are closely associated with policy influence.

Overall, the findings demonstrate that SPIs operate as integrated systems in which social capacities, institutional anchoring, and technical - operational conditions reinforce one another. Beyond DRR and CCA, the framework offers a transferable evaluation tool to support comparative learning and the identification of effective SPI practices across broader green transition initiatives.

Acknowledgements: This study was conducted within the framework of the Africa Regional Centres of Excellence (ArcX) Programme, an initiative of the EU-Africa Science, Technology and Innovation Partnership. The authors acknowledge the support of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the Directorate-General for International Partnerships (DG INTPA) for funding and institutional guidance provided through the ArcX Knowledge Management Mechanism. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Commission.

How to cite: Gomes, I., Andreaggi, M., and Ponte, E.: Assessing Science - Policy Interfaces for Climate Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in Africa: a comparative indicator-based analysis, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-3330, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-3330, 2026.

Scientific projects and initiatives are typically designed around scientific excellence and technical capability, treating policy relevance as a secondary consideration rather than a design driver. This places primary emphasis on outputs, assuming that scientific robustness alone is sufficient to ensure their uptake in policy processes. In practice, decision-makers are a diverse set of actors operating under different mandates, timeframes, legal responsibilities, and risk considerations, all of which condition whether and how scientific knowledge can be used to inform their decisions. Drawing on experience from the EU-funded Geological Service for Europe (GSEU) project, we argue that effective geoscience-policy engagement starts with clearly identifying who the outputs are for and how these actors define usable knowledge.

GSEU brings together European Geological Survey Organisations to provide harmonised subsurface data, information, tools, and knowledge at continental scale. In doing so, it offers an opportunity to explore the challenges and opportunities of engaging with EU institutions, which constitute the project’s main target audience. We reflect on lessons learned from attempting to align scientific outputs with specific decision contexts, including those related to critical raw materials and CO₂ storage.

We highlight the importance of early identification of key actors, mapping their needs and expectations, continuous dialogue with stakeholders working at the science-policy interface, and iterative adaptation of scientific outputs to decision-makers’ needs. We also discuss some of the challenges, such as communicating uncertainty and navigating the mismatch between scientific and policy timelines.

By arguing for a focus on the “who” before the “what,” we aim to provide transferable insights for geoscientists seeking to engage more effectively in policy design.

How to cite: Barros, R., Hollis, J., Dancy, T., Leoni, G., Guerrieri, L., Delfini, C., Rizzo, M., Martín Alfageme, S., Peña Chávez, E., and Šolc, U.: Who needs our data? Lessons from an audience-centred approach in the Geological Service for Europe project, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-5735, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-5735, 2026.

This study presents the results of a qualitative research based on forty interviews conducted in two municipalities of the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (Italy), namely the cities of Lignano Sabbiadoro and Trieste, between October 2024 and November 2025. The research, developed within the framework of the RETURN Project (Multi-Risk Science for Resilient Communities under a Changing Climate) (https://www.fondazionereturn.it/), aims to explore, systematize and critically analyze the multiple perspectives on Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) of local stakeholders operating within the analysed context. Consistently with established theoretical approaches that conceptualize disaster risk as a socially constructed and governance-dependent process (Blaikie, Cannon, Davis and Wisner, 2004, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203714775), the study focuses on how risk knowledge, responsibilities, and practices are articulated across institutional and societal domains.

The stakeholders involved are categorised into different societal categories defined as the Knowledge Production domain (public and private actors with demonstrated scientific expertise), the Knowledge-Based Decision-Making domain (public and private actors vested with formal responsibilities and decision-making authority), and the Knowledge Transfer and Learning domain (actors engaged in communication activities and in the dissemination of risk culture). The identification and selection of interviewees followed an integrated approach combining competence-based, positional, and reputational criteria. Specifically, the selection was based on the analysis of existing databases (e.g. research databases as IRIS or Scopus for the identification of scientific actors), the examination of institutional organizational charts (aimed at selecting actors with relevant technical and decision-making competencies), and a snowball sampling mechanisms (peer recognition and informal referral dynamics within and across the considered categories).

To ensure both comparability and sensitivity to the specificities of each group of actors, semi-structured interview schemes were developed, differentiated according to the typology of actors. The final sample included decision-makers (n.6), university professors and senior researchers affiliated with research institutions (n.12), media professionals (n.6), associations and third-sector organizations (n.5), tourism sector experts (n.6), and technical-operational experts in the management of risks related with natural hazards (n.5).

The interviews were analysed following a thematic qualitative approach, which allowed for the identification of recurrent patterns, convergences, and divergences in stakeholders’ perspectives of DRM and DRR. The analysis highlighted several key dimensions, such as the level of widespread public awareness regarding natural hazards, their possible impacts, and the appropriate response behaviours.

Overall, the adopted approach allowed for the emergence of latent organizational, cognitive, and relational dynamics at local level. While the findings are not  generalizable, they provide analytically rich insights into the ways in which different actors frame risk, negotiate responsibilities, and interact across institutional and sectoral boundaries.
Future research may expand the empirical base through additional interviews and comparative analyses, in order to deepen and consolidate these findings.

How to cite: Sema, M., Calderón-Pacheco, L., Monaco, S., and Peresan, A.: Multi-Stakeholder Engagement: A case study in Friuli Venezia Giulia region (Italy), EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-6962, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-6962, 2026.

Ibero-America ranks among the world’s most vulnerable regions to geohazards, where landslides, rockfalls, debris flows, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions have caused not only severe economic losses, but also thousands of fatalities. In this context, the members of the Association of Ibero-America’s Geological and Mining Surveys (ASGMI) play a key role in bridging science and policy to address these challenges. ASGMI’s Expert Group on Geohazards (GEAG) collaborates in the E4PIGEO project, an initiative designed to strengthen cooperation among Geological and Mining Surveys (SGMI), researchers, and institutions to transfer expert knowledge to decision-makers and improve risk management strategies.

To achieve this objective, four strategic actions have been proposed: (A1) Connect and strengthen collaborations with Ibero-American scientific institutions to promote a culture based on Evidence for Policy (E4P) activities. (A2) Develop an observational study of geohazards in Ibero-America to contextualize the problem and analyze current public policies aimed at mitigating their effects. (A3) Analyze internal science-policy connection mechanisms within SGMI as multidisciplinary scientific organizations and evaluate how innovative knowledge generated by these institutions is considered (A4) Propose training programs to support the education of technicians and researchers in E4P for geohazards.

These actions aim to reduce structural gaps and promote evidence-based decision-making through the development of a regional database and map of geohazard events; advancing common proposals for improving policy briefs and guidelines that integrate geoscientific evidence into territorial planning and emergency protocols; strengthening institutional frameworks and promoting the establishment of standardized protocols for science–policy engagement; and implementing capacity-building programs and strategic dialogues to consolidate knowledge transfer.

This abstract was supported by the E4PIGEO project -Towards Evidence-Based Policies: Geohazard Management in Ibero-America in a Climate Change Context-, funded by Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) (Ref: LINCG24021), and developed within the framework of the Association of Ibero-American Geological and Mining Surveys (ASGMI).

How to cite: Sarro, R., Castellanos, E., Celli, A., Marín David, M., Verdecia, Y., Arcila, M., Choquenaira, G., Sánchez, J., Ahlers, L., Pino, I., Martínez-Corbella, M., Miranda, P., Vera, F., López-Vinielles, J., Carvalho, J., Chávez, R., Reina, J., Figueras, S., Buxó, P., and Antonelli, T. and the rest of Geohazard Expert Group (GEAG) from ASGMI: Bridging science and policy for geohazard management in Ibero-America through Geological and Mining Surveys, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-9689, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-9689, 2026.

Effective climate action depends on decision makers having access to science that is timely, relevant, and readily usable. UK government decision-makers work across diverse priorities and require support to rapidly upskill in new subject areas as scientific evidence evolves. Embedding climate science communicators within government bridges the gap between government evidence needs and the scientific community. By acting as knowledge brokers, secondees ensure decision makers have access to complex climate information that has been translated and tailored into meaningful department specific decision ready insights.

While previous studies recognise knowledge brokering as important for coproduction and stakeholder engagement, much of the literature remains conceptual. Our work contributes a practical case study on the benefits of embedding climate communication secondees across three UK government departments as part of the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (MOHCCP). These departments include (1) the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, (2) the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and (3) the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Secondees split their time evenly between MOHCCP and their UK government department, enabling them to maintain strong links to both scientific development and evolving policy needs.

Our findings show that integration into departmental teams while maintaining connection with MOHCCP is essential for early identification and understanding of evolving policy needs, translation of the latest emerging evidence into decision-ready storylines, and feedback into long-term MOHCCP research planning. Secondees help to strengthen cross departmental dialogue, broaden the reach of scientific expertise, and enable a dynamic push -pull of knowledge that improves clarity and uptake of climate information. The approach is now being trialled internationally in partnership with the World Meteorological Organisation, with promising early feedback.

This case study demonstrates a transferable model of science communication, where embedded knowledge brokers can accelerate evidence uptake and enable joined up climate decision making, a proven approach that could be replicated across countries and contexts with similar success.

How to cite: Poulton, J., Elphick, A., Roberts, L., and Oakes, R.: UK Government Climate Secondees: a case study in integrating climate intelligence into government decisions, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-12458, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-12458, 2026.

The US Secure Water Act of 2010 requires several US agencies to report to Congress every five years on future water-related mission vulnerabilities. Over the last 15 years, 21st century climate projection datasets from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIP) have been downscaled and used to drive hydrologic and streamflow scenarios across the Contiguous United States (CONUS).  The resulting datasets provide input for federal and state agency planning, guidance and policy, for water resources applications from watershed to regional scales, and for the climate-water research community. The advent of CMIP6 triggered the co-development of new, updated hydroclimate impact projections, which is now proceeding via a multi-agency effort that integrates researchers with stakeholders from US federal water, climate and energy agencies. Notably, the scientific approaches used in previous assessments have since revealed capability gaps that US agencies now seek to fill with newer, more robust methods and models. The need to address these gaps motivated a joint effort between US water agencies and researchers to strengthen the scientific underpinnings of the projections, the better to create more credible public datasets for use in agency planning and policy development. This work required creating new strategies for system vulnerability quantification, continental-scale process-based hydrological modelling, multi-decadal high-resolution surface meteorology, and water agency guided performance metrics to inform model training and evaluation. Several hundred CMIP6-based hydroclimate scenarios have been created and tailored to provide Earth system indicators directly linked to water agency planning needs. This presentation summarizes this hydroclimate dataset initiative and highlights the critical role of integrated researcher-stakeholder engagement in achieving fit-for-purpose and actionable large-domain hydroclimate outcomes.  

How to cite: Wood, A.: Filling the gaps: Co-designing hydroclimate projections to support US water security and policy initiatives, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-15776, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-15776, 2026.

Temperature extremes, including heatwaves and cold spells, can have severe societal consequences, notably increased mortality and morbidity. These health impacts place substantial strain on healthcare systems, leading to sudden surges in hospital admissions and heightened demand for inpatient beds. At the same time, temperature extremes are among the most predictable natural hazards, often identifiable with lead times of several weeks. Nevertheless, even countries with well-developed healthcare systems struggle to cope with the resulting burden. Consequently, multiple sectors could benefit from a deeper understanding of the process chain that links temperature extremes to health impacts and the resulting stresses on the healthcare system. Effective policies addressing temperature-related risks have the potential to support several sectors, but they require a well-established framework encompassing prediction, detection, early warning systems, integration with healthcare services, and an assessment of the associated additional costs. This contribution examines the extent to which this process chain is currently understood and identifies opportunities for further improvement.

How to cite: Domeisen, D. I. V., Vicedo Cabrera, A. M., and Barrage, L.: Temperature extremes in a changing climate: From early warnings to impacts on healthcare, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-16539, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-16539, 2026.

This study explores the possibility of adopting a scenario based approach, which relies on the physical modelling of plausible hazardous events, to develop realistic site specific multi-risk storylines for urban contexts of different typologies (Marciano, Peresan, Pirni, Pittore, Tocchi, Zaccaria, 2024. IJDRR, 104972). Properly defining the hazard scenario and the urban context of interest, in fact, is essential for the development of risk storylines, as it enables the identification of relevant exposure features and local vulnerabilities affecting the urban system.

Physical modelling of earthquakes and cascading hazards (e.g. earthquake induced tsunamis or landslides), as well as sequential hazards (e.g. a storm surge followed by a tsunami) provides the basis for defining plausible (yet unobserved) multi-hazard and risk scenarios. For the definition of possible impacts, high-resolution exposure models are also needed at the local scale, especially for hazards which exhibit high spatial variability. In this study a methodology is considered, which allows developing high-resolution exposure models for population and residential buildings, based on different publicly available data sets (Badreldin, Scaini, Hassan, Peresan, 2025. IJDRR, 121, 105403).

The socio-economic characteristics and possible social vulnerabilities are also important factors that may influence impacts and the effectiveness of response and mitigation strategies. The experimental testing of the multi-risk storyline methodology was carried out for two selected urban areas along the Northern Adriatic coasts (i.e. Trieste and Lignano Sabbiadoro), considering both rather frequent (storm surge) and rare (tsunami) events. The proposed approach can be easily replicated in other urban areas with similar features, e.g. those located along the coasts of Western Adriatic (Peresan and Hassan, 2024. MEGR, 6(2), 87–110). The first phase of this experiment aimed to identify the potential impacts of the proposed scenarios on the different components of the urban ecosystem, while the second phase explored the possible interventions and mitigation strategies, in order to highlight relevant complexities and interactions. Through a participatory process, the multi-risk storylines engaged institutional actors, technical experts, and local communities, transforming data, experiences, and perceptions into dynamic and shared risk scenarios. The resulting narratives do not intend to merely describe past events, but rather to anticipate plausible future scenarios and viable response, recovery and mitigation actions, contributing towards integrated multi-risk management strategies.

The study demonstrated that the developed multi-risk storylines, based on plausible multi-hazard scenarios, provide a systematic method for exploring how the complex interplay between hazards and urban systems may impact a society, and can be applied to support and rationalise decision making and inform preparedness for multi-risks management and mitigation.

Acknowledgements: This research is a contribution to the RETURN Extended Partnership (European Union Next-Generation EU—National Recovery and Resilience Plan—NRRP, Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.3—D.D. 1243 2/8/2022, PE0000005).

How to cite: Peresan, A. and Sema, M.: Developing plausible scenario-based multi-risk storylines for coastal urban areas, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-16827, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-16827, 2026.

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) play an increasingly important role in informing climate and sustainability policy, yet their complexity often limits transparency, interpretability and meaningful engagement beyond expert communities. FRIDA (Feedback-based knowledge Repository for IntegrateD Assessments) is a World-Earth system model developed with the explicit aim of increasing transparency and accessibility, in order to enable broader engagement with integrated assessment modelling and support evidence-based policy discussions. To explore how the model can be used in different contexts, for different purposes and with different actors, a variety of applications of FRIDA have been made with diverse actors using an interactive learning environment (ILE), workshop material and other tools for facilitated sessions using FRIDA.

In particular, the Exploring Futures workshop (Brussels, 5 June 2025), the DIAMOND General Assembly workshop (Oslo, 11 June 2025), the ISEE-Degrowth conference workshop (Oslo, 24 June 2025) and the Workshop on Climate Policy Assessment and Modelling (Brussels, 30 October 2025) all engaged relevant actors engaged in the science-policy interface in order to provide them with insights using FRIDA, as well as gather inputs for further development of FRIDA and the FRIDA Users’ Toolbox (where tools include the workshop formats and material, notably). In addition, there have been two iterations of a remote study circle, incorporation of FRIDA in the Bergen Summer Research School 2025, self-paced use of the ILE, and contributions to existing courses and other educational initiatives. Together, these applications illustrate how accessible modelling tools can enable engagement with complex system dynamics that are central to many policy discussions.

Overall, FRIDA shows promise in its use with a diversity of actors. Users have reported that the ILE feels both easily navigable and comprehensive in its indicators and levers. This suggests that using the ILE effectively enables users to run FRIDA themselves without possessing the significant technical knowledge needed to run the model directly. At the same time, numerous points of improvement remain, including intuitively showing causal relationships in the model and in what ways these might explain the results obtained when running FRIDA under different scenarios. In conclusion, the experiences of using FRIDA suggest that it is possible for a diversity of actors to engage with FRIDA and conceivably other World-Earth models using tailored approaches. To build on that potential, it is recommended to continue cultivating collaborations with other actors to enable the continuation and development of approaches to use FRIDA.

This work is supported by FCT, I.P./MCTES through national funds (PIDDAC): LA/P/0068/2020 - https://doi.org/10.54499/LA/P/0068/2020 , UID/50019/2025, https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/PRR/50019/2025, UID/PRR2/50019/2025. This work has also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2.5 – Climate Energy and Mobility programme under grant agreement No. 101081661 through the 'WorldTrans – TRANSPARENT ASSESSMENTS FOR REAL PEOPLE' project.

How to cite: Eriksson, A. E., Collste, D., Gangstø, R., and Köberle, A. C.: Making the FRIDA World-Earth Model Accessible and Transparent for Real People, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-16871, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-16871, 2026.

Having policy and regulation be based on the best available scientific evidence is a widely accepted goal, yet relevant knowledge often fails to reach those most in need due to gaps in data accessibility and technological barriers. We share our experience developing tangible, scalable tools that support policymakers, indigenous groups, and land managers in bringing science to the table when decisions are being made. These projects are united by common principles of participatory user-centered design, digital sovereignty, open-source software development, modern data science, and scientific integrity.

Specifically, we present three case studies across different governance scales: 1) At the international level, we discuss interactive decision support tools to facilitate science-based policymaking in the United Nations Montreal Protocol and Global Plastics Treaty. 2) At the national level, we present a stochastic, open-source simulation platform built in collaboration with the U.S. National Park Service. It enables land managers to model vegetation resilience and evaluate post-fire management scenarios under diverse future climate projections. 3) At the local level, we highlight custom-built, co-developed software to monitor cases of Indigenous land return alongside a biodiversity monitoring application for improved land management decision-making by Indigenous communities.

Across these projects, we will discuss lessons learned regarding the challenges of working with partners in highly interdisciplinary environments, how open science principles can be used to support community sovereignty instead of clashing with it, and the creation of resilient services that survive long-term regardless of infrastructure constraints or organizational change.

How to cite: Layritz, L. S., Zomer, M., le Bruyn, M., Pottinger, S., Gondek, N., Steen, M., Weltman-Fahs, M., Martinez, C., Koy, K., Pérez, F., McCauley, D., and Boettiger, C.: Removing barriers to science-informed decision-making through data science and human-centered design, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-17402, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-17402, 2026.

We co-develop mid-term (2020–2050) extreme yet plausible compound climatic–socioeconomic shock scenarios with EU sectoral experts and policymakers across the energy, finance, and health domains. Through engagements such as webinars and a structured 2-day workshop, participants prioritised hazard combinations including urban heatwaves, widespread drought followed by localised flooding, and global trade disruptions, reflecting perceptions on cascading risks across EU sectors. To anchor scenario design in current mitigation and policy debates, we presented a policy analysis which identified the “Mixed options” and “High renewable energy” pathways as the most relevant mitigation bases for stress tests, while clarifying adaptation-relevant trade-offs implied by each. Through continued iteration of the exercise, participant elicitation also presented policy-critical impacts that are of high interest, though challenging to represent in models—such as limits to health-sector adaptation measures; rising mental health burdens; distributional impacts and inequality (via food prices, property values, and insurability); and potential escalation of conflict risk external to the EU. We therefore synthesise recent peer-reviewed evidence to (i) summarise the evidence base on these stakeholder-defined concerns to complement quantitative modelling results and (ii) identify EU policy options to strengthen resilience to the co-developed compound shocks. We also highlight practical lessons from the engagement process—including how policymaker perceptions were prompted, how scientific outputs will be tailored for policy usability, where methodological gaps emerge, and the remaining steps for validation and delivery in decision-relevant formats.

How to cite: Schmidt, S. and Menke, I.: From co-developed EU compound shocks to policy options: reviewing impacts for stress testing and resilience, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-18142, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-18142, 2026.

Water plays a central connecting role within the climate system, linking meteorological, hydrological, and earth system processes with societal dimensions such as water resource demands and risks associated with pollution, droughts, and floods. Global water challenges are addressed through multiple international agendas related to sustainable development, climate change, biodiversity, and water security. While these agendas share broadly aligned objectives, they differ in scope, scale, and modes of operationalization. Together, they shape how scientific knowledge is mobilized, policies are formulated, and actions are implemented. As the 2030 Agenda approaches its conclusion, there is a growing need to review and map global water agendas in order to better understand their interactions and support more coherent responses to complex water challenges.

Rather than viewing global water agendas as parallel and independent efforts, they can be understood as interconnected learning pathways through which shared objectives, knowledge, and practical experience evolve over time. From this perspective, synergies emerge across these learning pathways through reflection, coordination, and exchange between science, policy, and practice. Clarifying how such synergies can be recognized, supported, and strengthened is therefore essential for advancing more integrated and impactful responses to global water challenges.

The Strategic UN Synergy Working Group (SUN) operates within the IAHS HELPING Science for Solutions Decade (2023–2032) and aims to strengthen the contribution of hydrological science to international policy processes and practical implementation programmes. Guided by the HELPING paradigm, SUN facilitates bottom-up engagement, open science, and co-creation principles to support learning across scales and the translation of hydrological knowledge into policy and action.

This contribution introduces the vision, structure, and core activities of the SUN Working Group, with a focus on understanding global water agendas and supporting synergies through a science–policy–practice approach. SUN builds on the understanding of global water agendas as interconnected learning pathways, and we will illustrate how coordinated learning pathways can help advance more coherent, integrated, and future-oriented global water agenda.

How to cite: Shafiei, M., Gharesifard, M., Thomas, B., Islam, N., Dietrich, S., Mikoš, M., Ouarda, T., Abdollahi, Z., Mirhashemi Dehkordi, S. S., Mosaffa, H., Bogaard, T., and Grimaldi, S.: Charting Synergies in Global Water Agendas: A Strategic Science–Policy–Practice Approach, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-18624, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-18624, 2026.

Air pollution is the greatest environmental risk to human health¹, affecting almost every system in the body and at every stage of life². It also damages ecosystems and leads to biodiversity loss. Science has played a central role in demonstrating the need for action and in developing air quality standards and policies to deliver progress. In the UK there are well-established mechanisms for providing science advice for policy, including Chief Scientific Advisers (CSA) in each government department, and a network of science advisory councils and expert groups. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the government department responsible for national air quality policy and coordination in the UK, and they have a CSA, a science advisory council and the Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG). Despite these structures, academics have struggled to see how their research can reach policy makers or have an impact on policy development.

For the past 13 years I have worked with Defra, embedded in their air pollution team, as a knowledge broker funded through fellowships, seconded to the Chief Scientific Adviser’s Office, and on their Air Quality Expert Group. I initially observed that interactions between academics and policy officials were primarily transactional, often failing to deliver the anticipated value. Through the insights provided by my roles bridging the two communities I have enabled a transformation in how Defra approaches interactions with both the air pollution research community and research funders, resulting in better access to and uptake of science evidence and expertise. I also worked with the AQEG to transition its mode of operation from providing large authoritative reviews of science to providing more accessible, responsive and agile policy advice.

In this presentation I will provide insights from my experience, including what enabled my work to have the impact that it has, how transformations came about, and some examples of the opportunities for policy impact that arose. There is a danger that, with reduced funding availability and increasing time pressures, ways of working begin to regress. I suggest that this would be counterproductive and in fact a strengthening of knowledge exchange mechanisms and relationships at this time would be beneficial to both researchers and policy makers.  

• United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP, https://www.unep.org/topics/air
• Royal College of Physicians, A breath of fresh air: responding to the health challenges of modern air pollution. RCP, 2025.

How to cite: Moller, S., Newington, J., and Bryant, D.: Bridging the Gap: Transforming science advice for air pollution policy, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-19905, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-19905, 2026.

The Geological Society is the UK’s professional body and learned society for geoscience, supporting a global community of geoscientists. By operating a diverse programme of activities, the Society supports geoscientists to conduct and disseminate their work in a range of ways. This facilitates varied pathways for specialist knowledge to have impact, both within the scientific community and with non-specialist audiences.

The Society maintains a high-impact science programme comprising novel thematic meetings, interdisciplinary conferences, research workshops, and research grant funding. We seek to foster collaboration within and out of the geoscience community by bringing together researchers, practitioners, technicians, citizen scientists, policymakers, funders, and representatives from government and Parliament.

Through the substantial body of expertise held by members of the organisation, the Society works to ensure geoscience is represented in public policymaking through a range of opportunities that geoscientists can engage with. These approaches vary from re-active to proactive, as well as in the degree to which scientists are directly exposed to policymakers. These include opportunities to contribute evidence to support policy such as drafting briefing notes, providing direct evidence to decision makers, participation in communities of interest or practice, and participation at policy relevant meetings to connect with stakeholders.

Whilst these opportunities are accessed by many in the community, there are barriers that limit engagement from scientists of certain groups within the community. This may result from unclear framing of opportunities, lesser representation or engagement of certain groups, or lack of exposure and/or resource to prioritise engagement of this type.

In order to ensure robust and inclusive scientific evidence for policy, it is important to understand how these barriers vary across different types of policy work, and between organisations, with a view to improving transparency and widening participation from the community.

How to cite: Harvey, T., O'Donnell, M., and Jones, K.: Pathways to impact through policy: opportunities and barriers for geoscientists, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-20613, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-20613, 2026.