Objective Over the past 40 years, China has made major progress in geological disaster prevention with a strong focus on protecting people. However, academic research has mainly concentrated on disaster mechanisms and movement processes. Many studies are also attracted by the surface appeal of so−called intelligent technologies. Practical applications and field validation are often overlooked. As a result, academic outputs have increased rapidly, but real improvements in scientific understanding and disaster reduction effectiveness remain limited.

Methods The author divides the historical development of China's understanding and prevention of geological disasters into five stages: primitive cognition in ancient times, recognition of exogenic geological processes, awareness of engineering geological issues, identification of geological disaster problems, and the stage of geological disaster prevention and control.

Results The article outlines the fundamental attributes and causative−hazard characteristics of geological disasters. The former includes natural, social, and resource−related attributes, while the latter encompasses causative mechanisms, spatial distribution, temporal evolution, and hazard intensity characteristics. It asserts that geological disasters are both understandable and controllable. By reflecting on lessons learned from major geological disaster prevention and control efforts, the article highlights existing problems in scientific and technological support. In response to issues across the dimensions of science, technology, and disaster prevention, the author proposes a three−pronged framework: the epistemology of geological disasters, the methodology of technologies, and the theory of preventive strategies. The epistemology consists of the theory of causation and the theory of hazard. The theory of causation considers the inevitability, complexity, randomness, superposition, and evolutionary nature of geological disasters, while the theory of hazard evaluates their gradual onset, suddenness, progression, destructiveness, interconnectivity, and long−range impact. The methodology includes both a holistic approach and a segmented approach to survey and assessment techniques. The holistic approach seeks comprehensive and systematic evaluation methods, while the segmented approach focuses on dissecting and understanding the essential nature of critical components. The theory of preventive strategies includes legal and engineering dimensions. The legal aspect provides the foundational basis for geological disaster prevention and control, while the engineering aspect emphasizes the practical evaluation of prevention and mitigation effectiveness.

Conclusions In order to enhance the capacity of scientific and technological support for decision−making and improve the professional sensitivity of specialists, it is proposed that the fundamental concept of geological disaster prevention and control should emphasize prototype−based research. The recommended technical approach focuses on identifying susceptible zones, closely monitoring high−risk points, and assessing and managing potential disaster chains.