AbstractGroundwater is the largest freshwater resource, supporting drinking water, irrigation and ecosystems. As natural hazards intensify and intertwine with social, political and economic challenges, short-term groundwater use is emerging as a low-cost, rapid and distributed response strategy. Here we discuss how groundwater can be used strategically during and after hazard events while safeguarding long-term sustainability. Examples of earthquake, wildfire, flood and drought events in different regions highlight the potential value of temporarily using existing wells, pumps and aquifers. However, shifts in mindsets, policies and planning are urgently needed, along with interdisciplinary and equity-focused approaches that draw on disaster sociology, environmental justice, sustainability science and sociohydrology. Examples of policy direction and thought leadership from around the world show how groundwater use is emerging across diverse hazard contexts, which could be amplified by future interdisciplinary, equity-focused research.
You have full access to this article via your institution.
Download PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Unlocking aquifer sustainability through irrigator-driven groundwater conservation
Article
07 October 2024
Efficacy of mitigation strategies for aquifer sustainability under climate change
Article
Open access
06 December 2024
Decline in Iran’s groundwater recharge
Article
Open access
21 October 2023
MainThe negative impacts of natural hazards are compounded by social, political and economic challenges1,2,3, including political polarization, racism, misinformation and economic challenges. Yet responses to different natural hazard events from around the world, including earthquakes in Japan, wildfires in California, droughts in South Africa and floods in the Czech Republic, hint at an emerging strategy (Supplementary Information). Although groundwater depletion and contamination are widespread around the world4,5, in each of these events short-term groundwater use reduced the impact of the natural hazard event (see Box 1 for terminology).The 2002–2013 UNESCO project ‘Groundwater for Emergency Situations’ identified methodologies, examples and challenges of groundwater use during natural hazards, considering diverse geoscience methods6,7, international case studies and governance8. This work has few citations academically or in natural hazard mitigation plans, and is not incorporated into the recent flagship UN groundwater report9 or the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction10, suggesting that this important work has not significantly impacted regional, national or international natural hazard mitigation. We elevate and extend this previous work through a more interdisciplinary and social-science-oriented approach (beyond primarily geoscience), consistently and explicitly considering equity, describing recent case studies from around the world and including wildfires, which have emerged as a more common natural hazard. Specifically, we develop a visualization to examine susceptibility (Fig. 1) and suggest different tools and approaches to reduce it (Fig. 2). Moreover, we offer a way of thinking about groundwater use for natural hazards inspired by a recent, popular approach11 to groundwater governance (Table 1). For groundwater governance during emergencies, Vrba8 proposed a framework of institutional and technical capacities, and identified serious gaps, including low compatibility between governmental and community level organizations, and the lack of legal frameworks for water rights in emergency situations. Figure 2 is a concrete way of visualizing how technical and institutional capacities can reduce susceptibility.Fig. 1: Classification of natural hazards on the basis of the potential for warning before the natural hazard and the potential for impact on water supply.Each hazard is scaled by the global frequency of each type of natural hazard13 and positioned along the relative scale of the axes on the basis of the expert knowledge of the coauthors. The size and location of ‘drought’ on this graph does not consider flash droughts.Full size imageTable 1 Comparisons of characteristics, timescales, primary uses and challenges of groundwater supply during normal times and during or after natural disastersFull size tableFig. 2: The potential to reduce susceptibilities to different types of natural hazard.We can draw on approaches and insights from other disciplines while using groundwater in the short term during or after natural hazards.Full size imageGroundwater use for natural hazards can be considered across the whole ‘disaster cycle’: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery8,12. The impact of natural hazards on water supply can be direct, such as water pipes breaking in earthquakes, or indirect, such as electrical system damage. Herein we focus on the direct impacts but allude to the more complex indirect impacts below by considering how natural hazards relate to the food–energy–water nexus. We focus herein on earthquakes, wildfires, droughts and floods, which represent different causes, potential warning times and water impacts. There is limited current literature that is focused on groundwater use with the other types of natural hazard or on combining groundwater and surface water use after natural hazards, both areas for future research.Box 1 TerminologyNatural hazards are the very harmful impacts on a society or community brought about by natural phenomena such as droughts, earthquakes or floods. Although some natural hazards are directly exacerbated by human activities, such as climate change or urbanization, all ‘natural’ hazards are interwoven with social dynamics. Herein we emphasize the importance of social dynamics and avoid the term ‘natural disaster’, which is highly contested since disasters happen only when natural hazards impact vulnerable and exposed populations68. We only use the term ‘disaster’ when used predominantly in related literature. We focus on the ‘susceptibility’ of water supplies to natural hazards rather than vulnerability, since vulnerability has a much broader meaning in the scientific literature69,70. We consider susceptibility to be the combination of potential warning before the natural hazard and the potential for the natural hazard to impact water supplies (Fig. 1). Water supply refers to the storage, provision and delivery of water to various users, including agricultural, domestic and industrial sectors. Its temporal dynamics and spatial heterogeneity arise from a complex web of human–water interactions shaped by infrastructure, governance and institutions.Natural hazards impact water supplyWe consider the nine different natural hazards tracked by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters13, which represent a range of causes and consequences for water supply (Fig. 1). Various factors could be used to examine if or how groundwater could be useful during or after natural hazards. We suggest two factors that relate to the timing and severity of possible impacts: the potential warning before the natural hazard event and its potential to impact water resources (Fig. 1). The potential warning ranges from seconds (for rapid-onset natural hazards such as earthquakes) to years (for slow-onset natural hazards such as droughts) and determines the time available for prediction and deliberation about how to react. The potential impact on water supply also ranges from low impact (negligible change in water supply) to high impact (water supply temporarily lost in a ‘water outage’). Combining these two factors conceptually results in a susceptibility of water supply to natural hazards.Groundwater is less likely to be impacted by natural hazards than is surface water6,7. Natural hazards such as earthquakes, volcanic activities, floods, storms or wildfires often impact centralized water infrastructure that is more often dependent on surface water. These infrastructure impacts such as breaking pipes are more likely to be single point failures. Groundwater is generally more decentralized11 so less likely to be impacted by single point failures. Second, surface water can be contaminated or salinized rapidly and extensively by natural hazards such as floods, wildfires, tsunamis or storm surges. Groundwater is less likely to be contaminated rapidly and extensively, although this depends on the aquifer type as well as other factors such as land use, natural hazard type and connectivity to surface water. Generally, contamination of unconfined aquifers (those directly connected to surface water and atmosphere) will be slow. For example, salinization after a tsunami or storm surge can take months to move downwards14. Confined aquifers are separated from surface water and atmosphere by a low-permeability confining layer that makes contamination or salinization from the surface much less likely. For these reasons, we argue that groundwater can and should be used strategically during or after natural hazard events, sometimes in conjunction with surface water.From hazard risk to reduced susceptibilityPolicies and practices for earthquakes, wildfires, droughts and floods in a variety of countries provide clues for how groundwater could be strategically used to reduce susceptibility to natural hazards.Earthquakes in Japan, where privately owned wells become public assets in emergency situations, are the most closely studied example15,16,17. The 1995 Hanshin-Awaji earthquake struck highly urbanized Kobe and adjacent cities, highlighting both the susceptibility of modern water infrastructure and the resilience of local groundwater as an emergency water supply, prompting the establishment of ‘disaster emergency well’ programmes. Private well owners pre-register and are expected to provide groundwater voluntarily after an earthquake. Currently 1,316 of the 1,741 municipalities in Japan have plans to use groundwater during emergencies, including major cities such as Kyoto, Sapporo and Sendai16. Key policies include enhancing social capital, pre-registering local wells for emergency use and facilitating information sharing and collaboration between well owners and public relief organizations. Marginalized communities can be disproportionately impacted by earthquakes in Japan18 and elsewhere19, and although the disaster emergency wells could ensure that water is accessible for marginalized communities, to date municipal plans do not explicitly consider equity or marginalized communities.Groundwater is a useful water source before (prevention and protection), during (suppression) and after (recovery) wildfires, while also helping to maintain soil moisture. Wildfires can have disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities20,21,22; climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of weather conducive to fire ignition and spread23 and the importance of groundwater for wildfires is magnified by drought, water scarcity or seasonal water availability. Policies in various jurisdictions such as British Columbia24 clarify the importance of groundwater use for wildfires but do not explicitly consider equity and could consider the use of non-potable groundwater before or during wildfires. The literature25,26,27 on water supply and wildfires is dominated by examples and warnings of erosion, mudslides and contamination of water supply. It is crucial to rapidly test and repair water supply after fires, while also elevating the crucial role of groundwater use before, during and after fires as a source of potable water, less likely to be contaminated or affected by erosion or landslides. For example, two large wildfires in California damaged thousands of structures and caused extensive damage to the water distribution systems, but the potable water sources including wells were not impacted28.Droughts are slower-onset events, usually with more warning than other natural hazards (Fig. 1). Short-term strategic groundwater use can be important when surface water resources are limited or unavailable. Droughts can exacerbate groundwater use and depletion4,29,30, so it is important that groundwater use during droughts considers equity and does not exacerbate long-term groundwater depletion (sometimes called strategic aquifer depletion)30. A case in point is the 2015–2018 drought in South Africa, which culminated with the Day Zero water crisis in the city of Cape Town, where drought impacts were unevenly distributed because of stark social inequalities characterized by unsustainably high levels of water consumption by the city elites31,32. During drought restrictions, wealthier households drilled wells and integrated municipal water supply with groundwater.Flood events often contaminate surface water and thus can severely affect water supply. Groundwater resources can be used as a substituting supply during flood emergencies33. The 2002 flooding in the Czech Republic is a case in point. Isotope groundwater dating was applied in the flooded region to identify aquifers with the longest groundwater residence, recommended as alternative supply in the case of major flooding34. Similarly to the other hazards, flood risk is unevenly distributed across societies1,35. The unequal impacts of the 2005 flooding in New Orleans, for example, are emblematic of how marginalized communities often have less resources to prevent, cope with and recover from floods36,37. Finally, it is important to integrate the response to floods and droughts in relation to groundwater—for example, by alleviating droughts by strategically recharging aquifers during floods, as argued in a recent California water policy white paper38.Importantly, in each of these types of natural hazard, we are not discussing or proposing entirely different technology or groundwater resources—generally the same wells, pumps and aquifers would be used (although in some cases strategic well drilling may be useful). We propose to shift thinking, policy and planning when addressing natural hazards.The value of short-term thinkingHere we differentiate short-term groundwater use during or after natural hazard events from normal long-term use. Long-term thinking is broadly advocated for groundwater—the largest available freshwater resource, which is essential for drinking water, irrigation and ecosystems around the world39. Long-term thinking over years to decades is crucial to support the sustainability of this slowly renewed resource, but here we propose short-term use over days and months during various natural and human-made disasters. For natural hazards, the timescales are probably hours to months; the primary uses are probably domestic water and fire suppression and key challenges include rapid and equitable access and contamination (Table 1). Groundwater resources in normal times have three distinctive characteristics (invisible, slow and distributed), which challenge resource management of this common-pool resource11. Invisibility leads to underprioritization, slowness makes it challenging to observe management changes and the distributed nature means there are many well owners spread over great distances.However, short-term thinking is more important during or after natural hazards, which suggests considering alternative characteristics (inexpensive, speedy and distributed). Groundwater sharing at community level after a natural hazard can be inexpensive because it does not need new equipment or facilities. Wells can quickly supply water to a community, potentially faster than water trucks or other means, depending on the organizational response or damage to infrastructure. Finally, the distributed characteristic has a positive meaning during or after natural hazards since a broader population can access water supply. Importantly, inexpensive, speedy and distributed may also lead to more equitable outcomes in that more people have water access regardless of socio-economic status, race and geographic location. Adopting such ‘short-term thinking’ has various barriers, including deciding quickly, having systems and plans in place before the natural hazard event, legal barriers to water use (for example changing private wells into public usage) and concerns about water quality (wildfires, tsunamis, storm surges). While we argue that short-term thinking is useful, groundwater use in these circumstances still needs to be sustainable in the longer term so as not to compromise access to sufficient, good quality groundwater for future generations. Next, we draw on insights and practices from other disciplines to enable this short-term thinking.Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary opportunitiesWe highlight interdisciplinary literature and transdisciplinary practices including disaster and environmental justice, disaster sociology, sustainability science and sociohydrology to frame or better understand the potential of groundwater use for natural hazards or possibly accelerate the adoption of this new approach. Geoscientific methods and groundwater governance are also important but have been previously summarized6,7,8. Figure 2 highlights how scientific analysis and communication could possibly increase the warning time before earthquakes, floods, storms and wildfires, while a host of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary practices and approaches introduced below could reduce the impact of natural hazards on water supply.Marginalized communities are often disproportionately impacted by all four types of natural hazard described above, highlighting the importance of equity, specifically disaster and environmental justice. Disaster and environmental justice emphasize the importance of equitable treatment and involvement of all communities, particularly those that are historically marginalized in interwoven processes related to disasters and the environment37,40,41. Marginalized communities are better included after disasters by removing challenges, recognizing diversity, participating in decision-making and tailoring approaches42. Additionally, established environmental justice tools could be applied, such as geospatial, statistical or demographic analysis43,44,45, as well as community-based research and knowledge co-production46,47. For example, to equitably include groundwater use more explicitly in California earthquake or wildfire planning, it could be important to consistently include all stakeholders who have been largely excluded from groundwater sustainability planning to date48. For groundwater’s inexpensive, speedy and distributed characteristics to reduce the differential impacts on marginalized communities, hazard planning needs to better incorporate disaster and environmental justice.Important social dynamics examined by disaster sociology during or after natural hazard events include emergent groups and temporary altruism. Organizations are classified49,50 as established, extending, expanding and emergent on the basis of whether the tasks conducted by an organization during and after disasters are regular or not, and whether the organizational structure is existing or new. Figure 3 highlights how groundwater use after earthquakes could be enabled by these different types of organization, and herein we focus on emergent groups (an ad hoc association of volunteers who appear spontaneously after a disaster), since we envision these organizations catalysing and enabling groundwater use in different natural hazards. The disaster emergency wells in Japan are an example of such an emergent organization, and we need to develop strategies to seed and support such organizations for other types of natural hazard, as well as coordinating emergent organizations with the other organizational types (Supplementary Information). Additionally, temporary altruism is common to people affected by natural hazards and is important to consider and amplify, since this can extend and strengthen the impact of the different types of organization51,52,53.Fig. 3: Disaster sociology classification of how different types of organization respond to natural hazards.This classification has not previously been applied to water, but here we suggest how these insights could be applied to using groundwater in emergencies using the example of earthquakes in Japan (see Supplementary Information for more details).Full size imageUsing or adopting approaches from sustainability science could enable groundwater use during natural hazard events. Groundwater sustainability39,54 and the groundwater connected systems framing55 argue for the importance of equity (intra- and intergenerational), adaptive management and groundwater as a social–ecological system. Groundwater is a common-pool resource, so principles for how commons can be governed sustainably and equitably by communities56 could complement insights from disaster sociology, further enabling emergent groups. Instead of considering groundwater only as a physical resource, the groundwater connected systems framing suggests identifying the ecological (for example groundwater-dependent ecosystems), Earth system (for example groundwater–climate interactions) and social (for example food security) functions to prioritize. These key functions could maintain resilience through natural hazards and/or be important to recovery after natural hazards. Two additional concepts from the broad sustainability science domain could be important: nature-based solutions57 and the food–energy–water nexus58,59. Nature-based solutions include a broad set of green infrastructures that can complement or replace traditional grey infrastructure5 to reduce hazard impact (for example, to increase slope stability after wildfires). The food–energy–water nexus reminds us that the direct impacts of natural hazards on water discussed above can be magnified when natural hazards damage and disrupt energy systems and reduce food production60.Sociohydrology focuses on the complex web of interactions and feedbacks between hydrological and social processes61 to advance the understanding of complex human–water systems, and inform sustainable water resource management. Qualitative and quantitative methods including historical analyses and system dynamics models draw on diverse fields62, including water resource systems63, integrated water resource management64 and social–ecological systems65. Sociohydrological approaches are important since they analyse how community resilience and social networks can help mitigate the negative impacts of natural hazards. Sociohydrological methods also emphasize the potential for unexpected cascading effects or unintended consequences, such as how groundwater use in the short term can backfire on long-term goals such as reduced groundwater depletion30. Sociohydrology has helped recognize that the effect of hazard-preventing interventions deteriorates over time; this community and institutional memory loss66 may also affect procedures for emergency groundwater use. Social capital, the networks and resources available to people through their connection to others53, is important but yet to be included in the sociohydrology literature related to natural hazards. It is crucial to consider equity along with social capital, since social capital can ameliorate or exacerbate the impacts of natural hazards, depending on social dynamics53. Finally, in relation to groundwater, sociohydrogeology specifically includes social sciences in hydrogeological assessments and elevates the importance of reciprocity and responsibilities, as well as the ethical, social and cultural implications of groundwater-related research67.Short-term groundwater use is one possible strategy to reduce the impacts of natural hazards but certainly not a panacea. Unfortunately, current social and economic conditions could challenge some of the suggestions above: political polarization and misinformation could undermine efforts to improve scientific prediction, economic challenges could reduce funding of such efforts and systemic racism could challenge reduction of these impacts on marginalized communities. However, we hope to galvanize research, policy and practice with this vision of a deeply interdisciplinary and equity-driven approach incorporating disaster and environmental justice, disaster sociology, sustainability science and sociohydrology (see Supplementary Information for important research questions).
ReferencesCutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J. & Shirley, W. L. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84, 242–261 (2003).
Google Scholar
National Research Council Facing Hazards and Disasters: Understanding Human Dimensions (National Academies Press, 2006).Di Baldassarre, G. et al. An integrative research framework to unravel the interplay of natural hazards and vulnerabilities. Earth’s Future 6, 305–310 (2018).
Google Scholar
Lall, U., Josset, L. & Russo, T. A snapshot of the world’s groundwater challenges. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 171–194 (2020).
Google Scholar
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Global water resources and the role of groundwater in a resilient water future. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 4, 87–101 (2023).
Google Scholar
Vrba, J. & Renaud, F. G. Overview of groundwater for emergency use and human security. Hydrogeol. J. 24, 273–276 (2016).
Google Scholar
Vrba, J. & Verhagen, B. T. Groundwater for Emergency Situations: a Methodological Guide (UNESCO, 2011).Vrba, J. The role of groundwater governance in emergencies during different phases of natural disasters. Hydrogeol. J. 24, 287–302 (2016).
Google Scholar
Groundwater: Making the Invisible Visible UNESCO World Water Development Report (United Nations, 2022).The Report of the Midterm Review of the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 124 (UNDRR, 2023).Villholth, K. G. & Conti, K. I. In Advances in Groundwater Governance 3–31 (CRC Press, 2017).Khan, H., Vasilescu, L. G. & Khan, A. Disaster management cycle—a theoretical approach. Manag. Mark. 6, 43–50 (2008).
Google Scholar
2022 Disasters in Numbers (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, 2023).Yang, J., Zhang, H., Yu, X., Graf, T. & Michael, H. A. Impact of hydrogeological factors on groundwater salinization due to ocean-surge inundation. Adv. Water Res. 111, 423–434 (2018).
Google Scholar
Endo, T., Iizuka, T., Koga, H. & Hamada, N. Groundwater as emergency water supply: case study of the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, Japan. Hydrogeol. J. 30, 2237–2250 (2022).
Google Scholar
Endo, T. Current situation of disaster emergency well in Japan based on local disaster management plans (1). J. Groundw. Hydrol. 63, 227–239 (2021).
Google Scholar
Endo, T., Iizuka, T., Koga, H. & Hamada, N. Governance of disaster emergency wells in three cities in Japan affected by earthquakes. Hydrogeol. J. 31, 1147–1163 (2023).
Google Scholar
Pongponrat, K. & Ishii, K. Social vulnerability of marginalized people in times of disaster: case of Thai women in Japan Tsunami 2011. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 27, 133–141 (2018).
Google Scholar
Crawford, G. & Morrison, C. Community-led reconstruction, social inclusion and participation in post-earthquake Nepal. Dev. Policy Rev. 39, 548–568 (2021).
Google Scholar
Masri, S., Scaduto, E., Jin, Y. & Wu, J. Disproportionate impacts of wildfires among elderly and low-income communities in California from 2000–2020. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 3921 (2021).
Google Scholar
Winker, R. et al. Wildfires and climate justice: future wildfire events predicted to disproportionally impact socioeconomically vulnerable communities in North Carolina. Front. Public Health 12, 1339700 (2024).
Google Scholar
Davies, I. P., Haugo, R. D., Robertson, J. C. & Levin, P. S. The unequal vulnerability of communities of color to wildfire. PLoS ONE 13, e0205825 (2018).
Google Scholar
Jones, M. W. et al. Global and regional trends and drivers of fire under climate change. Rev. Geophys. 60, e2020RG000726 (2022).
Google Scholar
Interim Guidance for Water Authorizations: Water Use for Fire Prevention and Suppression (Province of British Columbia, 2022).Dao, P. U. et al. The impacts of climate change on groundwater quality: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 912, 169241 (2023).Robinne, F. et al. Scientists’ warning on extreme wildfire risks to water supply. Hydrol. Process. 35, e14086 (2021).
Google Scholar
Robichaud, P. J. L. & Padowski, J. C. Drinking water under fire: water utilities’ vulnerability to wildfires in the Pacific Northwest. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 60, 590–602 (2024).
Google Scholar
Schulze, S. S. & Fischer, E. C. Prediction of water distribution system contamination based on wildfire burn severity in wildland urban interface communities. ACS EST Water 1, 291–299 (2021).
Google Scholar
Castle, S. L. et al. Groundwater depletion during drought threatens future water security of the Colorado River Basin. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 5904–5911 (2014).
Google Scholar
Di Baldassarre, G., Mazzoleni, M. & Rusca, M. The legacy of large dams in the United States. Ambio 50, 1798–1808 (2021).
Google Scholar
Savelli, E., Rusca, M., Cloke, H. & Di Baldassarre, G. Don’t blame the rain: social power and the 2015–2017 drought in Cape Town. J. Hydrol. 594, 125953 (2021).
Google Scholar
Savelli, E., Mazzoleni, M., Di Baldassarre, G., Cloke, H. & Rusca, M. Urban water crises driven by elites’ unsustainable consumption. Nat. Sustain. 6, 929–940 (2023).
Google Scholar
Šilar, J. Floods and groundwater resources in emergency situations. In Proc. International Workshop: Groundwater for Emergency Situations (eds Vrba, J. & Verhagen, B. T.) 15–34 (UNESCO International Hydrological Programme, 2006).Šilar, J. Ground-Water Resources for Emergency Cases in the Lower Reaches of the Labe (Elbe) River (Czech Republic) (UNESCO International Hydrological Programme, 2003).Kreibich, H. et al. The challenge of unprecedented floods and droughts in risk management. Nature 608, 80–86 (2022).
Google Scholar
Rusca, M., Messori, G. & Di Baldassarre, G. Scenarios of human responses to unprecedented social–environmental extreme events. Earth’s Future 9, e2020EF001911 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bullard, R. D. & Wright, B. Race, Place, and Environmental Justice after Hurricane Katrina: Struggles to Reclaim, Rebuild, and Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast (Routledge, 2009).Potential State Strategies for Protecting Communities and Fish and Wildlife in the Event of Drought 33 (California Water Commission, 2024).Gleeson, T., Cuthbert, M., Ferguson, G. & Perrone, D. Global groundwater sustainability, resources, and systems in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 48, 431–463 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bullard, R. D. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots (South End, 1993).Waldron, I. R. There’s Something in the Water: Environmental Racism in Indigenous & Black Communities (Fernwood, 2021).Mendis, K., Thayaparan, M., Kaluarachchi, Y. & Pathirage, C. Challenges faced by marginalized communities in a post-disaster context: a systematic review of the literature. Sustainability 15, 10754 (2023).
Google Scholar
Temper, L., Del Bene, D. & Martinez-Alier, J. Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: the EJAtlas. J. Polit. Ecol. 22, 255–278 (2015).
Google Scholar
Temper, L., Demaria, F., Scheidel, A., Del Bene, D. & Martinez-Alier, J. The Global Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas): ecological distribution conflicts as forces for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 13, 573–584 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kuruppuarachchi, L. N., Kumar, A. & Franchetti, M. A comparison of major environmental justice screening and mapping tools. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 6, 59–71 (2017).
Google Scholar
Jull, J., Giles, A. & Graham, I. D. Community-based participatory research and integrated knowledge translation: advancing the co-creation of knowledge. Implement. Sci. 12, 150 (2017).
Google Scholar
Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020).
Google Scholar
Perrone, D. et al. Stakeholder integration predicts better outcomes from groundwater sustainability policy. Nat. Commun. 14, 3793 (2023).
Google Scholar
Dynes, R. R. Group behavior under stress. Sociol. Soc. Res. 52, 416–429 (1968).
Google Scholar
Shaheen, I., Azadegan, A. & Roscoe, S. Who takes risks? A framework on organizational risk-taking during sudden-onset disasters. Prod. Oper. Manag. 30, 4023–4043 (2021).
Google Scholar
Twigg, J. & Mosel, I. Emergent groups and spontaneous volunteers in urban disaster response. Environ. Urban. 29, 443–458 (2017).
Google Scholar
Whittaker, J., McLennan, B. & Handmer, J. A review of informal volunteerism in emergencies and disasters: definition, opportunities and challenges. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 13, 358–368 (2015).
Google Scholar
Aldrich, D. P. Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery (Univ. Chicago Press, 2012).Mace, R. E. Groundwater Sustainability: Conception, Development, and Application (Springer, 2022).Huggins, X. et al. Groundwater connections and sustainability in social–ecological systems. Groundwater 61, 463–478 (2023).Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).2018 UN World Water Development Report, Nature-Based Solutions for Water 139 (UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme, 2018).Cai, X., Wallington, K., Shafiee-Jood, M. & Marston, L. Understanding and managing the food–energy–water nexus—opportunities for water resources research. Adv. Water Res. 111, 259–273 (2018).
Google Scholar
Scanlon, B. R. et al. The food–energy–water nexus: transforming science for society. Water Resour. Res. 53, 3550–3556 (2017).
Google Scholar
Daher, B., Hamie, S., Pappas, K., Nahidul Karim, M. & Thomas, T. Toward resilient water–energy–food systems under shocks: understanding the impact of migration, pandemics, and natural disasters. Sustainability 13, 9402 (2021).
Google Scholar
Sivapalan, M., Savenije, H. H. & Blöschl, G. Socio-hydrology: a new science of people and water. Hydrol. Process. 26, 1270–1276 (2012).
Google Scholar
Baldassarre, G. D. et al. Sociohydrology: scientific challenges in addressing the sustainable development goals. Water Resour. Res. 55, 6327–6355 (2019).
Google Scholar
Brown, C. M. et al. The future of water resources systems analysis: toward a scientific framework for sustainable water management. Water Resour. Res. 51, 6110–6124 (2015).
Google Scholar
Savenije, H. H. G. & Van der Zaag, P. Integrated water resources management: concepts and issues. Phys. Chem. Earth A/B/C 33, 290–297 (2008).
Google Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473 (2005).
Google Scholar
Viglione, A. et al. Insights from socio-hydrology modelling on dealing with flood risk—roles of collective memory, risk-taking attitude and trust. J. Hydrol. 518, 71–82 (2014).
Google Scholar
Re, V. Socio-hydrogeology and geoethics—state of the art and future challenges. In Advances in Geoethics and Groundwater Management: Theory and Practice for a Sustainable Development (eds Abrunhosa, M. et al.) 373–376 (Springer, 2021).Chmutina, K. & von Meding, J. A dilemma of language: “natural disasters” in academic literature. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 10, 283–292 (2019).
Google Scholar
Adger, W. N. Vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 268–281 (2006).
Google Scholar
Birkmann, J. et al. in Assessment of Vulnerability to Natural Hazards (eds Birkmann, J. et al.) 1–19 (Elsevier, 2014).Download referencesAcknowledgementsThis research was supported by the Invited Scholar scheme of the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN: a constituent member of NIHU) in Kyoto, Japan, the Asahi Glass Foundation, Japan, and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. ChatGPT was used to search for key references but not in writing or editing.Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsDepartment of Civil Engineering and School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaTom GleesonCollege of Sustainable System Sciences, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, JapanTakahiro EndoResearch Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, JapanMakoto TaniguchiDepartment of Earth Sciences, Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, SwedenGiuliano Di BaldassarreAuthorsTom GleesonView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarTakahiro EndoView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarMakoto TaniguchiView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarGiuliano Di BaldassarreView author publicationsSearch author on:PubMed Google ScholarContributionsT.G., T.E. and M.T. led the initial conceptualization of this research. T.G., T.E. and G.D.B. led the writing of the manuscript. All authors edited and reviewed the manuscript.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to
Tom Gleeson.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Geoscience thanks Hubert Savenije and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Tamara Goldin and Aliénor Lavergne, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.
Additional informationPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Supplementary informationSupplementary InformationSupplementary Information.Rights and permissionsSpringer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleGleeson, T., Endo, T., Taniguchi, M. et al. Natural hazard susceptibilities and inequities reduced by short-term groundwater use.
Nat. Geosci. 19, 12–18 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01884-0Download citationReceived: 26 September 2024Accepted: 14 November 2025Published: 07 January 2026Version of record: 07 January 2026Issue date: January 2026DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-025-01884-0Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy shareable link to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative More
