When resilience meets sustainability: turning science into policy guidance for a climate-ready Europe

As floods sweep across Europe, questions resurface about our readiness for climate extremes. A European research team has developed practical tools to bridge the gap between science and policy. Yet experts warn only by coupling adaptation with emission cuts can we achieve truly sustainable resilience

When, in October 2024, Valencia was hit by devastating floods, the city became an unexpected testing ground for Europe's ability to face climate extremes. Entire districts were submerged and infrastructure collapsed, and once again the question arose: how can cities prepare for what science has long been warning about?

Among those following the disaster closely was Roberto San José, professor of computer science at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM). His team later worked with the city as part of DISTENDER, an EU-funded Horizon 2020 project designed to help regions and municipalities integrate mitigation and adaptation strategies in a single, data-driven framework. Now reaching its conclusion after four years of research and collaboration, DISTENDER leaves behind a system that turns scientific modelling into actionable guidance — a tool meant to help decision-makers anticipate risks, balance priorities, and plan for a more resilient future. In this interview, San José reflects on what the project achieved, the lessons learned from Valencia, and why bridging science and policy is essential for Europe's climate resilience.

Valencia's flood revealed how vulnerable cities are to extreme events. How can DISTENDER help manage such risks, and what was the project's role there?

Cities and regions are increasingly exposed to climate impacts. We developed a comprehensive methodology to assess vulnerability under different climatic and socioeconomic scenarios. Impacts in water, energy, air quality, health and agriculture are analysed together with each area's adaptive capacity, and from there come integrated strategies that help manage risk. Valencia took part as a follower city: rather than running full model applications, it helped test and validate the project's decision-support approach and explore strategies relevant to its context. After the floods, that collaboration gained new meaning and also inspired discussions around a future European early-warning network.

What was the main objective of DISTENDER, and why is it so urgent today to integrate mitigation and adaptation?

Our goal was to create an integrated methodological framework for the joint analysis of both dimensions of climate action. We must adapt to the impacts already occurring, but we cannot stop reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Only by tackling both dimensions together can we move toward sustainable resilience and avoid measures that solve one problem while worsening another.

How did you apply this in practice across so many different contexts?

Pilot work in Austria, Portugal, Italy and the Netherlands showed how difficult — and necessary — it is to connect local and national levels of action. Adaptation typically happens at city scale, while mitigation often sits at national or regional level. A multi-scale, participatory approach made that integration feasible and proved flexible enough to transfer across very different territories, using the same structure while adapting to local data and priorities.

You mentioned a decision-support approach. What makes it useful for policymakers?

The decision support system (DSS) distilled complex climate and socioeconomic information into a clear, comparable set of indicators and options. It presents a "decision matrix" where rows represent possible strategies and columns represent indicators such as cost, emissions or health. Policymakers can weigh what matters most to them — costs, emissions, public health, land use — and see how different strategies perform against those priorities. It's a practical way to navigate trade-offs and identify balanced choices, especially when budgets and timelines are tight.

What are the most significant results from the project?

Scientifically, the system framework. Practically, it translates that evidence into structured guidance for policy choices and prepares recommendations for integrating both sides of climate action in European planning. A large, harmonised dataset will be made openly available to support further research and replication. These results did not come easily, though.

So, what were the biggest challenges you faced along the way?
The toughest part? Turning highly technical outputs into something useful for decision-makers. Scientists and policymakers speak different languages: one needs precision, the other clarity and relevance. A co-creation process — workshops and continuous dialogue among researchers, public authorities and stakeholders — was essential to align the modelling with real policy needs.

How did you avoid "maladaptation" — solutions that fix one problem but create another?
By looking across sectors and scales at the same time. If a strategy improves air quality but raises energy demand, that side effect becomes visible early in the assessment. The structured comparison helps users spot trade-offs, adjust priorities and select options that are effective without shifting risks elsewhere. Stakeholder involvement was crucial here: bottom-up socioeconomic scenarios grounded the analysis in local reality and helped keep strategies robust and applicable.

What will be the long-term legacy of DISTENDER, and what comes next?
Two things stand out. First, a replicable method that any region or city can adopt to frame integrated climate strategies. Second, an operational decision-support practice — and a shared, open dataset — that others can build on. Looking ahead, the team is exploring follow-up initiatives, from the European early-warning network for extreme events to projects that combine this methodology with AI-based forecasting. The knowledge and partnerships built over these years will continue well beyond the project's formal end.

And looking at the broader picture — how do you see the balance between science and policy in tackling climate risks?

Europe needs strong scientific foundations for policy decisions. Policymakers are not scientists, and they shouldn't have to be — but they do need clear, evidence-based messages. Recent EU calls reflect this by asking for more rigorous attribution and clearer analysis of human influence. Strengthening that bridge between science and policy is central to effective climate action.

On a personal note, what do you take away from this experience?

Coordinating a multidisciplinary consortium — from physical modellers to social scientists and public authorities — was demanding but deeply rewarding. Seeing the results emerge after 42 months of collaboration was satisfying. Above all, our project shows that resilience is not just a scientific concept; it's a way of working together across disciplines and borders to build a safer, more sustainable future.

Contacts:

Project Coordinator:

Roberto San José - roberto@fi.upm.es

Communication & Dissemination:

Eylul Aksekili, ICONS – eylul.aksekili@icons.it

Project website: www.distender.eu

LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/distender/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/people/Distender/61566737850357/

Cover photo credit: Pexels, Kelly

Provided by iCube Programme