Editorial: Advanced modeling and management strategies for nuclear and radiological incidents

Nuclear and radiological incidents present a distinctive challenge for emergency preparedness and response. Although such events are relatively rare, their potential consequences for human health, the environment, critical infrastructure, and public confidence demand robust arrangements for anticipating hazards, interpreting rapidly evolving information, coordinating multiple organisations, and making defensible decisions under uncertainty. Advances in modelling, monitoring, digital technologies, and decision-support systems have substantially strengthened the technical foundations of emergency management. At the same time, technical capability alone is insufficient: its effectiveness depends on how models, data, institutions, responders, and affected communities interact.

This Research Topic was established to explore advanced strategies for the modelling and management of nuclear and radiological incidents from both theoretical and practical perspectives, with the broader aim of supporting stronger preparedness, more effective response, and improved safety. The four contributions approach this objective from different directions, but together they reveal a clear common thread: effective preparedness and response depend on the integration of trustworthy information, robust technology, institutional coordination, human judgement, and societal engagement.

Min provides an overarching conceptual perspective by examining the relationship between advanced modelling, decision-support systems, organisational processes, and human decision-making. Viewing emergency preparedness and response as a complex adaptive system, the review identifies a persistent gap between growing analytical capabilities and their effective operational use under conditions of uncertainty, time pressure, and multi-actor coordination. Particular attention is given to the limitations of highly predefined, scenario-driven approaches when emergencies develop in unexpected ways. The proposed concept of Hybrid Emergency Operations Centres provides an integrative perspective in which modelling supports, rather than replaces, human judgement and is embedded within broader governance, communication, and coordination processes.

The growing dependence of emergency management on interconnected digital infrastructure introduces a further dimension of resilience. Agbemava et al. consider the cybersecurity implications of cloud-enabled radiation detection systems. Cloud technologies can provide scalability, rapid processing, and operational flexibility for distributed monitoring networks, but they simultaneously create vulnerabilities that may affect the availability, integrity, and trustworthiness of information on which emergency decisions depend. Through a risk-informed approach, the authors identify threats including supply-chain compromise, manipulation of sensor data, identity spoofing, and disruption of cloud services. Their contribution demonstrates that cybersecurity should be regarded as an integral part of nuclear and radiological monitoring and preparedness rather than as a separate information-technology concern.

Reliable technology must, in turn, operate within clearly defined institutional arrangements. Camtakan and Saloglu examine nuclear security event response within Turkish’s all-hazards emergency management system. Their analysis highlights an important distinction between formal alignment of emergency plans and the operational clarity required when several organisations with different mandates must act simultaneously. Using communication, coordination, collaboration, and cooperation as an analytical framework, the study identifies interfaces requiring particular attention, including command transitions, forensic evidence management, security-sensitive information sharing, response activation following detection, and international notification. The contribution therefore reinforces the importance of understanding how institutional arrangements function at their boundaries, where responsibilities, information, and authority intersect during an evolving event.

A complementary perspective is provided by Bertho, who considers citizen measurement of ambient dose rates. Citizen-based radiation measurements have become particularly visible following major nuclear accidents and can contribute to education, risk awareness, and wider engagement with radiological protection. Their longer-term value, however, depends on overcoming challenges related to sustainability, funding, credibility, measurement quality, and the practical use of collected data. The review highlights both the limitations and opportunities of citizen measurement networks and, more broadly, demonstrates that effective radiological monitoring also has an important societal dimension. Building confidence in measurements and strengthening understanding of radiation risks can complement institutional monitoring while contributing to a more informed risk culture.

A common line running through all four contributions is that effective nuclear and radiological preparedness cannot be achieved through technical capability alone (Figure 1). Whether the focus is advanced modelling, digital radiation monitoring, institutional response arrangements, or citizen-generated measurements, the value of information ultimately depends on its reliability, interpretation, communication, and integration into decision-making processes. The contributions therefore converge on a socio-technical understanding of preparedness and response, in which technology, organisations, human judgement, and societal actors are closely interconnected. They also highlight the importance of interfaces, between models and decision-makers, sensors and digital infrastructure, organisations with different responsibilities, and expert monitoring systems and citizens, as critical points at which resilience can either be strengthened or weakened.

Taken together, these articles encourage a shift from considering individual technologies, models, or procedures in isolation towards understanding emergency preparedness and response as an integrated system of systems. Future advances should therefore combine technical innovation with validation in realistic operational settings, attention to human and organisational factors, secure and interoperable information infrastructures, effective communication of uncertainty, and mechanisms that strengthen institutional and societal trust. Exercises, simulations, and interdisciplinary research will remain important for testing not only whether individual components perform as intended, but whether they function coherently when brought together under demanding conditions.

The articles in this Research Topic illustrate that advanced modelling and management are mutually dependent. More capable analytical tools can improve situational awareness, but their full value is realised only when information is secure, institutions can coordinate effectively, decision-makers can adapt to uncertainty, and relevant stakeholders can understand and trust the resulting processes. By connecting these technical, organisational, governance, and societal dimensions, this Research Topic contributes to the continuing development of more adaptive, resilient, and effective approaches to nuclear and radiological emergency preparedness and response.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. The author has drafted the manuscript and ask AI for improvement. The figure was drafted by AI under the direction of author.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited and reviewed by: Enrico Zio, Université de Sciences Lettres de Paris, France