Geoethics in natural hazard forecasts, warnings and response: Reflections from experiences in New Zealand
- Sally Potter
- Oct 31
- 5 min read
Geoethics provides a critical foundation for ensuring that scientific information about the Earth system is communicated effectively and ethically, particularly in the realm of natural hazard forecasts, warnings, and scientific response. This post describes some of my experiences from major natural hazard events in New Zealand relating to geoethics in practice.
The aim is to offer practical guidance and key considerations for professionals working at the intersection of geosciences, public safety, and community engagement. If you would like to watch my recent seminar on this topic, click on the image below, otherwise, keep reading for the summary.
Defining geoethics
Geoethics is defined by Di Capua and Peppoloni (2019) as:
1) Consists of research and reflection on the values which underpin appropriate behaviours and practices, wherever human activities interact with the Earth system
2) Deals with the ethical, social and cultural implications of geoscience knowledge, research, practice, education and communication, and with the social role and responsibility of geoscientists in conducting their activities
3) Encourages geoscientists and wider society to become fully aware of the humankind's role as an active geological force on the planet and the ethical responsibility that this implies.
At its core, geoethics involves reflection on the values that underpin responsible behaviour in geoscience practice. Three guiding elements frame this work:
Commitment to openness and honesty in both research and operational practices.
Addressing the ethical, social, and cultural impacts of geoscience communication, especially when information may directly affect public safety.
Recognising the responsibilities carried by scientists as both information providers and members of society.
Case studies: Ethical practice in recent major events
Recent experience with New Zealand’s hazard events reveals how geoethics translates into day-to-day operational practice.
Volcanic unrest and eruptions: In events such as the Tongariro eruptions of 2012, two-way communication with local communities was prioritised. Official meetings with community leaders included transparent discussion of scenarios and uncertainties, highlighting the necessity of humility and respect in engagement.
During Taupo volcanic unrest in 2022-23, information flow was aligned with stakeholder needs, including emergency management, to ensure scientific information was timely, concise, clear, and appropriately contextualised.
Earthquakes: Following significant events like the Canterbury (2010 onwards) and Kaikōura (2016) earthquakes, communication processes were iteratively improved. Technicians visiting affected properties shifted from merely collecting scientific data to also providing information sheets and psychosocial support contact details directly to local residents. This step addressed both ethical responsibility and practical need for support in communities cut off from immediate information sources.
Landslides: Following Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023, we have been evaluating trial rainfall-induced landslide forecast information to improve it going forward and make sure it is adding value to a range of stakeholders during a period of information overload.
Practical ethical challenges
Several recurring ethical challenges were identified during response and research activities:
Uncertainty communication
Stakeholder feedback consistently indicated a preference for clear, frank discussions of uncertainty. While this can be a challenge, we found clear ways to help communicate the uncertainties. For example, probabilities, ranges, and model limitations were included in briefings and products, allowing users to interpret and weigh risks in context. See this blog post for more details about how we communicated uncertainties and changes in forecasts over time for aftershocks.
Crowdsourced data
The emergence of digital tools for collecting public observations introduced new complexities. Collecting observations through online surveys, while valuable, raised privacy and safety risks — not only for contributors (privacy of images, disclosure of address details), but also for bystanders and property owners.
To address this, data collection protocols included explicit opt-in/opt-out clauses for identification, and sensitive spatial data were appropriately aggregated or filtered.
Language and cultural framing
Certain terminology resonated with some audiences, and not others. Map terminology was influenced by feedback from Māori partners, with “hazard maps” revised to “phenomena maps,” reflecting an indigenous worldview that hazards exist only in relation to social context.
Community engagement and information sharing
A persistent lesson is that ethical practice goes beyond compliance. There is a practical obligation to bring information with you — not only to extract stories or data for research. Field teams now systematically provide summary fact sheets with welfare contact details developed in partnership with emergency management agencies on-site during field visits and explain upcoming risks. This approach helps close the loop between data collection and actionable, community-oriented communication.
Research and consultancy ethics
We always follow established ethics processes in both research and practice, and this is required for any research that involves human participants. Usually this is a low-risk ethics notification, but in projects that have a higher risk of harm to participants or the researchers, such as following impactful events, we follow more rigorous high-risk ethics procedures. If you are wondering how to go about this, I recommend that you investigate within your university or institution to see what systems already exists. Sometimes countries have their own independent research ethics committees that can be utilised too. Many scientific journals require ethics procedure details to be described in the text in order to be published.
Meanwhile, my shift toward consultancy work in 2024 has highlighted contrasting approaches to ethics review: whereas academic or government projects might require dedicated ethics board approval for engagement, some projects encountered have less structured expectations. In all cases, best practice is to maintain rigorous ethics standards, prioritising voluntary, informed consent and minimising harm, regardless of client or country context.
Lessons I have learned and key points
Based on my experiences, here are several recommendations that may be useful if you work in the geosciences:
Ensure geoscientific information is shared as openly and accessibly as possible— reducing both paywalls and technical complexity.
Be transparent about uncertainties, providing probability estimates and underlying contextual information whenever feasible.
Design all data collection tools with privacy from inception, and build in dynamic consent options for identification and data sharing.
Engage with affected communities as true partners—respecting linguistic, cultural, and local perspectives in all public-facing resources.
Maintain robust, documented ethical review processes for research, operational response, and consultancy projects.
As hazards and risks evolve, communication channels diversify, and artificial intelligence tools are increasingly deployed, maintaining a strong ethical foundation is vital. The practice of balancing scientific integrity, community engagement, and ethical responsibility will remain a cornerstone of effective hazard forecasts, warnings and response systems — both in New Zealand and globally.
If you are interested in finding out more about geoethics, check out this website: https://www.geoethics.org/
Feel free to share this on your socials!
Comments