magazine_ Interview
Understanding one another for greater resilience
Two interviews on communication, prevention, and risk management in the context of climate change
With extreme weather events becoming more frequent and their impacts more severe, administrations, operational entities, and research institutions must work together to improve the resilience of territories. Achieving mutual understanding is challenging and requires ongoing effort. What can be done to improve communication between these groups? And how can research better communicate with those tasked with making critical decisions? Two interviews highlight the experiences of researchers in the field of climate risk.
Veronica Casartelli is an environmental engineer with extensive expertise in disaster risk management and a background as a civil protection department official. Liz Olaya Calderon is a young researcher from Colombia, currently in Bolzano to develop methodologies and tools for analyzing extreme weather event risks at Eurac Research. These interviews were conducted during the INQUIMUS workshop, held in Bolzano from December 4–6, which brought together international climate and disaster risk experts. Veronica Casartelli was one of the keynote speakers, while Liz Olaya Calderon presented a poster showcasing her research findings.
Veronica, when it comes to preventing and managing risks related to extreme weather events, it’s often said that politics doesn’t listen to science. Could scientists themselves also share some responsibility in this regard?
Veronica Casartelli: I believe this is a two-way issue. It’s not about blame but rather about challenges and opportunities, acknowledging the efforts being made to overcome these obstacles. It’s important to clarify that these aren’t always isolated compartments – sometimes decision-makers have scientific expertise, and many researchers work within administrative frameworks.
That said, it’s undeniable that decision-makers and operators face challenges in incorporating scientific findings into their decision-making processes. Conversely, researchers often struggle to convey their results in a way that is comprehensible and timely.
Can you provide a practical example of these challenges? What happens in the field?
A good example is dealing with uncertainty. For scientists, uncertainty is a familiar concept, part of their everyday work. For decision-makers, however, it can be difficult to understand and evaluate uncertainty when making real-time decisions that carry both civil and criminal responsibility. While scientists analyze a range of possible scenarios, decision-makers face binary choices: evacuate or not? Issue an alert or not?
What needs to change for these two worlds to better understand one another?
Casartelli: Both sides need each other. Decision-makers must develop decision-making processes that integrate scientific evidence, while researchers must align their work to make a tangible impact on resilience efforts.
Improving communication and mutual understanding between political decision-makers and researchers is essential, and it requires specialized skills. Understanding how to interact, what information to share, and how to share it effectively is crucial. Fortunately, this need is being recognized. For example, the Joint Research Center has a dedicated unit addressing these issues. The key lies in strengthening the ability of both parties to understand and communicate with one another effectively.
Research often produces guidelines for administrations. How effective are these documents?
Casartelli: I believe the right approach isn’t just producing guidelines or documents to transfer scientific results. Instead, formal and institutional mechanisms are needed to ensure ongoing collaboration between the two sectors. This cooperative effort should aim to enhance territorial resilience and tackle challenges posed by extreme weather risks.
In practice, this means establishing commissions, working groups, or advisory boards where public authorities work continuously with researchers. This fosters progressively informed decision-making processes that incorporate scientific results, recognizing that science is just one of many factors in these decisions.
At first, solutions like these might face challenges, but eventually, it becomes clear that they are the only way forward. Simply exchanging documents or meeting sporadically is unlikely to be effective.
Are there concrete examples of successful collaboration between administrations and researchers?
Casartelli: Italy offers a good model of institutionalized collaboration. Since 2004, Italy has formally established “Centers of Competence” – universities and research institutions that continuously support civil protection activities.
Each center focuses on specific aspects and collaborates with public authorities to develop, for instance, predictive models. Additionally, the Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks supports the Civil Protection Department by providing technical-scientific insights in disaster risk management.
Another example is Italy’s Civil Protection Functional Centers network, the backbone of its alert system. These centers not only monitor and predict weather phenomena but also assess their potential impact on territories. Thanks to this collaboration, the impact of recent extreme weather events, such as floods, has been mitigated in terms of casualties, despite their exceptional severity.
In my experience, continuous collaboration is vital for mutual understanding and achieving greater resilience.
INQUIMUS: International Experts on Risks and Climate Change Gather in Bolzano
From December 4 to 6, Bolzano hosted the INQUIMUS workshop, bringing together international experts in climate and natural disaster risks. Participants from research, emergency response, and disaster management sectors attended high-level talks, examined global case studies, shared experiences, and collaborated on practical activities. The focus of the event was to explore a new approach based on storylines, demonstrated through specific case studies. This methodology aims to improve the understanding and management of complex events, such as those associated with natural disasters.
Liz, why and when did you join Eurac Research?
Liz Olaya Calderon: I joined Eurac Research in August of last year after completing my master’s degree.
They were looking for someone with expertise in methodologies and standardized tools for disaster risk analysis. During my master’s, I worked on methodologies like system dynamics modeling, so this position was a great opportunity to deepen my knowledge. Additionally, I’m passionate about mountain research. Coming from the Eastern Andean Mountain range in Colombia, it was exciting to continue this work in the Alps.
What exactly does a researcher focusing on disaster risk analysis do?
Calderon: My research focuses on integrating various methodologies to analyze risk, with a specific emphasis on studying past disaster events. Disasters are the materialization of risk, so examining past events through methodologies such as forensic analysis and impact chains helps us understand the factors and drivers that contributed to their occurrence.
This approach allows us to critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of different phases of disaster risk management, including response, recovery, and resilience. Ultimately, this understanding helps us better prepare for future events.
When an extreme weather event occurs, how do you study it to gain useful insights for the future?
Calderon: A significant part of this research involves understanding the social and economic factors that contribute to disasters. One of the methods we use is called the impact chain, which aligns with the IPCC framework by analyzing risk through hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. For example, heavy rain might lead to flooding, which in turn causes damage to infrastructure which in turn impacts people’s daily lives. The impact chain helps us trace these cascading impacts across sectors and identify vulnerabilities associated to them. However, it doesn’t capture the temporal sequence of events.
To address this gap, we integrate impact chains with storylines. Storylines provide a narrative structure, tracing events from past to future, making them easier to understand. By combining forensic analysis, impact chains, and storylines, we achieve a comprehensive understanding of risks.
Can you provide an example of using these methodologies together?
Calderon: During the volcanic eruption in Saint Vincent in the Caribbean, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact chain revealed cascading consequences, such as damaged infrastructure and disrupted public transport. However, it was challenging to track the timing and sequence of these impacts. Storylines complemented the impact chain by focusing on specific sectors or risk pathways, clarifying the sequence of events. Both methods, while using similar elements – hazards, impacts, and risks – offer distinct perspectives that are highly complementary.
What did you present at the INQUIMUS workshop?
Calderon: I presented our work on the 2018 Vaia storm in northern Italy, which brought intense rainfall and strong winds, severely impacting forestry, infrastructure, and tourism in Trento and Bolzano. Initially, we used impact chains and forensic analysis to study the event, but these approaches were too complex for clear communication.
We simplified the findings by creating storylines for each sector, outlining impacts and recovery phases. This approach highlighted pre-disaster conditions, cascading impacts, and recovery measures, helping build resilience and reduce future risks.
What do you think about your work?
Calderon: My work revolves around understanding the complexities of risks and translating them into accessible tools and insights for policymakers and the public. I see myself as a bridge connecting scientific research with practical applications.
By improving comprehension and communication, we can foster actions that reduce risks and build resilience. Effective communication of complex science helps decision-makers take informed action.
At Eurac Research, I’ve benefited from an interdisciplinary environment, learning from climate scientists and social scientists who engage directly with local communities – a perspective that’s been invaluable.
Storylines: A narrative-based approach to climate risk
At Eurac Research, various methods have been developed to better understand, prevent, and manage the impacts of extreme events linked to climate change. Events like floods, severe droughts, heatwaves, and storms encapsulate multiple phenomena that can occur simultaneously in one location. At the same time, these events often trigger chains of consequences that extend far beyond their point of origin, affecting the environment, people, and economies across vast areas. Several projects, including RETURN, funded by Italy's PNRR, X-RISK-CC and PARATUS are now exploring the use of storylines. These narrative frameworks help visualize the causes, impacts, and interconnected phenomena associated with climate risk. Storylines provide a valuable tool not only for research but also for improving risk prevention and management strategies.
Veronica Casartelli
Veronica Casartelli, an environmental engineer and disaster risk management expert, holds a unique position at the intersection of research and operational disaster risk management. With years of experience as a civil servant in Italy's Department of Civil Protection, she transitioned to research in 2019, joining the CMCC (Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change). Here, she leads a research unit focused on risk governance. Casartelli is also part of the deployable expert pool of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, which aims to enhance disaster prevention, preparedness, and response across member states. This dual role enables her to contribute both to academic insights and practical improvements in managing extreme weather events.
Liz Olaya Calderon
Liz Olaya Calderon is a Colombian geologist who completed her Master’s degree in Geography of Environmental Risks and Human Security at the University of Bonn and the United Nations University in Germany. She currently works as a Junior Researcher at the Center for Climate Change and Transformation. Her research specializes in exploring and applying methodologies for analyzing and assessing climate and disaster risks within a multi-risk context, aiming to understand and address their complexities. The methodologies she employs include system dynamics, impact chains, index-based approaches, forensic analysis, and storylines, providing a comprehensive toolkit for tackling diverse and interconnected risks.
My cookie preferences