Unrealistic expectations in society about science reducing and even eliminating the risk of natural hazards contrasts with the chaotic forces of these events, but such expectations persist nonetheless. Risk mitigation practitioners must grapple with them, including in the cycles of blame and inquiry that follow natural hazard events. We present a synthesis of such practitioner experiences from three consequential bushfire and flood risk landscapes in Australia in which science was being used to change policy and/or practice. We show how they chose to work with, counter and recalibrate unrealistic expectations of science, as well as embrace socionatural complexity and a consequential nature. The mismatch between the challenges faced by the sector and the unrealistic expectations of science, generated more stressful work conditions, less effective risk mitigation, and less effective use of research monies. In response, we argue for structural and procedural change to address legacy pathways that automatically privilege science, especially in relation to nature, with broader relevance for other environmental issues. This is not to dismiss or debase science, but to better understand its use and utility, including how facts and values relate.
Corrigendum: Public Acceptance of Nature-Based Solutions for Natural Hazard Risk Reduction: Survey Findings From Three Study Sites in Europe