The subsurface is often overlooked in the field sustainable natural resources management, even though it provides us with supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural geosystem services. Additionally, the subsurface can contribute to the transition towards a more sustainable society by, for examples, storing energy and extracting geothermal energy. Currently exploitation of the subsurface occurs on a first-come-first-served basis, which might lead to inefficiencies and inequities. The need for sustainable development policies becomes progressively more essential, as subsurface exploitation is expected to increase. Six challenges are defined for sustainable use of geological resources: value pluralism, overexploitation, geological interferences, inequalities, multi-actor economies and uncertainties. To formulate scientifically sound advice for policymakers, it follows that expertise to tackle these challenges comes together. Addressing the diverse knowledge requirements to solve complex problems evidently necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration. This collaboration has its own opportunities, including enhanced creativity and the ability to address complex issues. However, challenges frequently arise. For instance, difficulties emerge in finding consensus due to a wide array of viewpoints, accepted assumptions which are not shared in other disciplines, and a need to learn about each other’s fields. Such issues can cause friction when working on problems collectively. This paper proposes a novel framework for effective interdisciplinary collaboration, based on ongoing research within the DIAMONDS project. We present interdisciplinary methods and approaches for sustainable development of the subsurface. We aspire to grapple with challenges related to geological resource use by building an interdisciplinary team, developing an integrative framework and studying a stakeholder-validated case. The identified challenges form a guideline to establish which expertise is necessary to study sustainable subsurface management. Once adequate expertise is found, the integrative framework, as detailed below, supports the team in integrating their knowledge and research outcomes. Firstly, we highlight the need for repeated interaction. This requires sustained consortium meetings, which address previously outlined interdisciplinary challenges. Additionally, we aim to increase the validity of our research by performing a stakeholder mapping and engaging key stakeholders to ensure adequate representation. Secondly, our management practices aim to support collaboration, both within the project (e.g. consortium, researcher and one-on-one meetings) and with external stakeholders. Interactions with stakeholders are tailored to their expertise, ranging from interviews with a technical focus to workshops discussing equitable ownership of segments of the subsurface. Finally, all insights are synthesized and serve as input to flexible methodologies which allow integration across disciplines. For example, causal loop diagrams show causal connections, possibly crossing disciplines, when describing the subsurface system. This framework on interdisciplinary collaboration is applied to a stakeholder-validated case study. It examines two potentially interacting shallow subsurface activities: aquifer thermal energy storage and groundwater extraction. This paper describes our interdisciplinary approach and the methods we applied to the case.
Located in
Library
/
RBINS Staff Publications 2025
Almost all geological subdisciplines depend, to varying extents, on regional geological knowledge. Stratigraphic terminology is typically well-defined, while other concepts rely on generally accepted definitions or hierarchical schemes, such as palaeontological, structural and magmatic terminologies. This is much less the case for the regional geological building blocks. Their nomenclature is usually composed of a reference to a geographical locality and a geological term. Examples from Belgium include the (Anglo-)Brabant Massif, Campine Basin, and Malmedy Graben. Despite wide recognition, such terms often lack precise definitions and may even present conflicting interpretations across different contexts and authors. Even when their meanings have drifted or become less precise, these terms continue to be utilized. Increased awareness has led to significant yet isolated initiatives aimed at improving the structure and definition of regional geological information [1-3], recently brought together through pan-European cooperation [4]. Lithotectonic unit appears to be the most effective concept for encompassing all geological features. A lithotectonic unit is characterized by its composition, structural elements, mutual relations, and/or geological history [5]. Following a geotemporal conceptual approach, lithotectonic units are defined and bounded by relative limits in time and space [6]. Lithotectonic limits are planar features corresponding to geological events which have formed and define these units. Examples of lithotectonic units include orogens, terranes, sedimentary basins, and grabens, while examples of lithotectonic limits include deformation fronts, faults, and unconformities. This approach facilitates the organization and formalization of relationships between units and limits through ontologies. The data model can be linked to established ontologies, such as the ICS Geological Time Scale Ontology [7], and allows future extensions, such as attribution to orogenic cycles [2]. The associated concepts can be linked to 2D and 3D visualizations, thereby adding an important layer of knowledge to geological maps and models. Primary objective of the newly established Lithotectonic Working Group, under the National Commission for Stratigraphy in Belgium, is to create a comprehensive lithotectonic framework, that systematically defines and describes the main geological units and limits of Belgium. This initiative aligns closely with emerging standards currently being developed and implemented at European level [4] and largely based on GeoSciML [8]. [1] Hintersberger et al. 2017, Jb Geol B-A 157:195-207. [2] Németh 2021, Miner Slovaca 2:81-90. [3] Le Bayon et al. 2022: https://doi.org/10.1051/bsgf/2022017. [4] GSEU 2022-2027: https://doi.org/10.3030/101075609. [5] INSPIRE 2015: https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/theme/ge. [6] Piessens et al. 2024: https://doi.org/10.31223/X5RT28. [7] Cox & Richard 2005: https://doi.org/10.1130/GES00022.1. [8] GeoSciML 2016: http://www.opengis.net/doc/geosciml/4.1.
Located in
Library
/
RBINS Staff Publications 2025
