the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 Feb 2026
Doctoral Task Forces on High Impact Natural Hazard Events
Abstract. Around the globe, disasters are becoming more frequent and more damaging. Therefore, forensic disaster analysis is needed that creates a deep and comprehensive understanding of a recent event and its root causes to inform disaster risk reduction. As part of their qualification within a research training group, PhD candidates at the University of Potsdam formed Task Forces to investigate recent damaging events. Based on eleven semi-structured interviews, two informal interviews and Task Force outputs, this study evaluates past Task Forces with regards to their implementation into structured doctoral training, their contribution to researcher development and to transferring insights both to the academic community and to non-academics. We find that Task Forces in doctoral training programs serve a dual purpose in providing problem-based and experiential learning opportunities for doctoral researchers and at the same time providing the flexible, high-level investigative capacity needed for immediate post-event analysis. For future Task Forces, we recommend forming interdisciplinary teams, aligning the Task Force with the PhD topic and methods and providing targeted support in the initial phase to enable near-real time analysis.
Competing interests: Author Annegret Thieken was one of the interviewees in this study. To ensure the integrity and objectivity of the research, the data analysis and coding were carried out independently by Karen Lebek. Annegret Thieken provided intellectual input and editorial revisions after the primary analysis was completed.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(619 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-645', Bruno Pace, 24 Apr 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Karen Lebek, 28 Jul 2026
We thank the referee for their insightful and encouraging feedback. We are pleased that they found our study on doctoral task forces to be innovative and well-suited for Geoscience Communication. Below, we address each specific point and outline our proposed manuscript modifications.
Specific Comments
Referee Comment 1: The sample size (11 interviews) is relatively small. Although sufficient for a qualitative pilot study, the authors should discuss the limitations of generalizability regarding other doctoral programs with different funding structures or disciplinary focuses.
- Author Response: We agree that this qualitative case study is inherently context-specific rather than statistically generalizable. In fact, being statistically representative is not the goal of qualitative research in social sciences. Still, we offer a proof-of-concept. We agree that a different funding and disciplinary structure could hinder the implementation of Task Forces elsewhere.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: We will clarify the goal of qualitative research in the introduction. Additionally, we will add a paragraph to the Discussion section 5.4 that includes the limitations of the study with regards to replication and frames it explicitly as a context-specific case study.
Referee Comment 2: The manuscript would benefit from a comparison with other international rapid response models (e.g., the GEER model in the USA or EMERGEO-INGV team in Italy). What makes the proposed “Doctoral” model unique compared to teams of professionals or senior researchers?
- Author Response: We thank the referee for introducing us to these comparative models. We agree that contrasting our doctoral setup with established frameworks like GEER and INGV’s EMERGEO greatly clarifies our study's unique contribution. While groups like EMERGEO are highly structured, professional emergency response units designed to deliver rapid, specialized geohazard mapping directly to Civil Protection, our model serves a distinct educational purpose and operates at a localized university scale, co-prioritizing career development of young researchers and experiential learning for PhD candidates. However, as the GEER Association itself states, it is crucial to "provide reconnaissance experiences to a wide range of researchers, such that the pool of researchers experienced in reconnaissance grows." Our model directly acts as an experiential training environment to achieve this.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: We will add a new subsection to the Discussion (Section 5) to introduce GEER and EMERGEO-INGV. We will contrast these with our doctoral setup and argue that localized doctoral task forces can complement national and global professional networks by training young researchers in rapid disaster analysis.
Referee Comment 3: To make the paper more "actionable" for other universities, I suggest the authors expand the Recommendations section. Specifically, how can institutions formalize these task forces within the ECTS or provide "contract extensions" to compensate for the time spent on field investigations?
- Author Response: We agree that addressing these administrative and structural challenges is important for institutional replication. As outlined in Section 2, the Task Force was formalized as a core curriculum component worth 6 ECTS of the total 30 ECTS required within the doctoral qualification program. The PI of a Task Force was responsible for helping to define and limit the scope and timeframe. Task Forces were seen as a valuable opportunity to develop time management skills, among others.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: In section 5.4, we will add a recommendation on the formalization of Task Forces within the ECTS.
Referee Comment 4: The manuscript mentions the importance of interdisciplinarity. It would be beneficial to provide a brief example or a "case-study" (perhaps it is enough in a box or table) showing how a specific task force integrated social sciences with physical sciences in the field.
- Author Response: We agree that a concrete empirical example will clarify how interdisciplinary integration was operationalized on the ground. To address this, we will introduce a dedicated Case Study Box focusing on the Braunsbach Task Force (2016), which represents our most successful model of integrating social with physical sciences, as reflected in the publications (e.g., Bronstert et al., 2016; Vogel et al., 2017).
- Proposed Manuscript Change: We will insert a text box adjacent to the interdisciplinarity subsection, structured around the following three integrated dimensions of the Braunsbach deployment:
- Hydro-Meteorological Analysis: Reconstructing the meteorological drivers (such as convective cloudbursts) and modeling peak discharge rates (e.g., of the Orlacher Bach) to quantify the hazard intensity.
- Geomorphological Process Assessment: Mapping mobilized sediment, landslides, and debris-flow dynamics along the steep valley flanks to trace how physical blockages and logjams altered the flood's destructive energy.
- Impact, Damage, and Vulnerability Analysis: Conducting rapid on-site structural damage assessments (e.g., evaluating 96 affected buildings)
- Integration Output: Illustrating how combining these dimensions revealed how dynamic physical cascades (such as debris transport and physical structural barriers) interacted with human exposure to create unexpected, highly localized damage patterns
Minor comments
Suggested improvements will be incorporated.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-645-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Karen Lebek, 28 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-645', Maria Ortuño, 02 Jun 2026
The manuscript submitted an excellent contribution to Geoscience Communication, addressing a novel and relevant aspect of doctoral training programs; the training under the Task Forces-approach, oriented to provide rapid forensic analysis in real cases of Natural Disasters. The manuscript analyzes the work carried out by the NatRiskChange Task Forces within a doctoral program at the University of Potsdam over nearly a decade. The study is primarily based on the results of 18 interviews with principal investigators and PhD candidates involved in these activities.
The paper clearly demonstrates how this component of the program: 1) enhances student motivation and engagement by exposing them to practical, real-world challenges; 2) strengthens research and social skills through problem-based and experiential learning, including coordination tasks and teamwork; 3) Provides a valuable service to society by contributing to disaster risk reduction (DRR), generating field-acquired data (FAD) that are useful for rapid response and for designing future prevention strategies.
The main outcome of the paper is a set of recommendations for integrating similar initiatives into doctoral programs focused on natural hazards worldwide. The manuscript is well structured, and the presentation, organization, and discussion of the main points are clear and easy to follow. The results of the interviews are synthesized effectively, allowing the reader to grasp the key findings without unnecessary complexity. Overall, the work provides useful insights into how such approaches can be implemented in other doctoral programs, as well as reflections on how to improve the work carried out by the NatRiskChange Task Forces.
General comments
In the introduction, the authors suggest that Task Forces are primarily devoted to supporting crisis management during natural disasters. However, upon examining the case studies, some experiences (e.g., Randi Forest 2017) appear less directly related to immediate disaster response (IRDR) and instead correspond to more traditional hazard research, albeit applied.
I recommend clarifying that the Task Forces analyzed may have two possible orientations:
(i) direct involvement in emergency response, and
(ii) applied research related to natural hazards outside immediate crisis situations.Additionally, it would be important to highlight more explicitly that PhD candidates temporarily interrupt their own research activities to participate in these Task Forces, sometimes for extended periods. The impact of this involvement on their doctoral progress is not sufficiently addressed. This issue is only clearly mentioned for Task Force 11 and in one interview (I-A3). It would be useful to clarify to what extent participation contributes to their PhD research; Perhaps including a paragraph refering to how the data collected were incorporated into their theses (even as secondary components). If I did understand well, this was only possible in a single case, but probably I am wrong. Even when direct integration into the thesis is limited, it would be valuable to emphasize the significant training benefits derived from this experience in their particular PhD projects (i.e., give some exemples).
As a final remark, it would be interesting to know whether students involved in the Task Forces experienced emotional and psychological difficulties during the development of the tasks. While the manuscript mentions preparatory training, it is unclear whether this aspect is explicitly addressed. Research conducted in areas affected by natural disasters often involves exposure to difficult human conditions (e.g., fatalities, material losses, lack of access to basic resources), which can have a significant emotional impact. Even if such issues were not prominent in the cases studied, this would be important to clarify, as it is a relevant component of the preparation needing to do research in Disaster Reduction.
Minor comments
Section 2
During the description of the different Task Forces, it would be helpful to:
- Number the Task Forces (1, 2, 3, etc.) for easier reference;
- Specify the background and expertise of the doctoral candidates involved. This information is currently provided only in a few cases (e.g., cases 1, possibly 7, and 10);
- Indicate whether the activities were closely related to the candidates’ academic background or to their PhD research projects.
It would also be useful to systematically report whether there was interaction between PhD candidates and stakeholders, media, or institutional actors, and how such interactions were conducted. At present, this is only described in case 2. If no such interactions occurred in some cases, this should also be explicitly stated (possibly summarized in Table 1).
Section 3
The manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of what is meant by “structured” and “semi-structured” interviews. In Table 2, interviews with principal investigators are described as being conducted by telephone—however, it is unclear whether these were structured or semi-structured.
Additional points to clarify:
-Was funding a limiting factor in the development of any of the Task Forces?
-In the discussion section, the statement that “collaboration with local partners is valuable” should be clarified: does this accurately reflect the views expressed by the interviewees?
It is somewhat surprising that participants—many of whom work in remote areas—do not consider such collaboration to be fundamental. This may be influenced by how the interview questions were framed.
At the end of Section 5.1, differences between the NatRiskChange program and the ClimExtreme Post AG program are mentioned. It would be helpful to briefly indicate the nature of these differences, even if they are minor.
I attach a few other comments included in the manuscript pdf.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Karen Lebek, 28 Jul 2026
We thank the referee for her supportive evaluation and for recognizing the value of the Task Force approach in doctoral training. We appreciate her clear synthesis of the paper's main focus areas—experiential learning, multidisciplinary teamwork, and the generation of field-acquired data for disaster risk reduction. The constructive feedback provided in the detailed comments below are highly valuable in refining the manuscript.
Specific Comments
Referee Comment 1: In the introduction, the authors suggest that Task Forces are primarily devoted to supporting crisis management during natural disasters. However, upon examining the case studies, some experiences (e.g., Randi Forest 2017) appear less directly related to immediate disaster response (IRDR) and instead correspond to more traditional hazard research, albeit applied. I recommend clarifying that the Task Forces analyzed may have two possible orientations: (i) direct involvement in emergency response, and (ii) applied research related to natural hazards outside immediate crisis situations.
- Author Response: We fully agree that not all Task Forces responded to a hazardous event immediately. In some cases, when no suitable event took place within the first half of the funding period of the PhD, an event was selected that occurred further in the past, as explained in section 4.1.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: In section 4.1, we will further clarify that the Task Forces differed in this respect and add this information to Table 1.
Referee Comment 2: Additionally, it would be important to highlight more explicitly that PhD candidates temporarily interrupt their own research activities to participate in these Task Forces, sometimes for extended periods. The impact of this involvement on their doctoral progress is not sufficiently addressed. This issue is only clearly mentioned for Task Force 11 and in one interview (I-A3). It would be useful to clarify to what extent participation contributes to their PhD research; Perhaps including a paragraph referring to how the data collected were incorporated into their theses (even as secondary components). If I did understand well, this was only possible in a single case, but probably I am wrong. Even when direct integration into the thesis is limited, it would be valuable to emphasize the significant training benefits derived from this experience in their particular PhD projects (i.e., give some examples).
- Author Response: We would like to clarify that while the Task Forces did temporarily divert time during active field deployments, the program was structured to run in parallel with their doctoral studies. The PIs supported the Task Forces in defining and limiting their scope and timeframe to avoid considerable delay of PhD-related research. We agree that discussing the direct benefits of Task Force participation on the candidates' primary PhD projects is important. Out of the 36 core members of the research training group, 5 members successfully integrated a peer-reviewed research article resulting directly from a Task Force into their cumulative doctoral dissertations. Moreover, the Task Forces had a positive impact on the development of the doctoral researchers, as illustrated in sections 4.7 and 5.3., with direct, short-term effects on their PhD research as well as long-term effects on their career.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: In section 4.2, we will clarify the time management of Task Forces as described above. In section 4.7, we will highlight the integration of articles resulting from Task Forces into dissertations. In section 5.3, we will distinguish between immediate benefits to the PhD progress (such as project management skills) and the long-term career benefits.
Referee Comment 3: As a final remark, it would be interesting to know whether students involved in the Task Forces experienced emotional and psychological difficulties during the development of the tasks. While the manuscript mentions preparatory training, it is unclear whether this aspect is explicitly addressed. Research conducted in areas affected by natural disasters often involves exposure to difficult human conditions (e.g., fatalities, material losses, lack of access to basic resources), which can have a significant emotional impact. Even if such issues were not prominent in the cases studied, this would be important to clarify, as it is a relevant component of the preparation needing to do research in Disaster Reduction.
- Author Response: We thank the referee for raising this important point. We agree that researchers in disaster areas are likely to experience emotional and psychological difficulties and need to be prepared for these. Yet, these aspects were hardly discussed in the interviews. Importantly, as explained in section 4.1, Task Forces did not undertake field work in severely affected disaster zones where fatalities had recently occurred.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: In section 5.4 we will add a paragraph on the preparatory training, drawing from the experiences outlined in section 4.1 and 4.3 and adding a recommendation with regards to the psychological and emotional challenges that come along with field work in post-disaster settings. Furthermore, we will recommend defining remote tasks for disasters with very severe impacts.
Minor comments
Minor comment 1: During the description of the different Task Forces, it would be helpful to: - Number the Task Forces (1, 2, 3, etc.) for easier reference; Specify the background and expertise of the doctoral candidates involved. This information is currently provided only in a few cases (e.g., cases 1, possibly 7, and 10); Indicate whether the activities were closely related to the candidates’ academic background or to their PhD research projects.
- Author Response: We agree that adding the background of the Task Force participants can give valuable insights into the interdisciplinary nature of the Task Forces and the relation between the Task Force activities and the candidates’ academic background and PhD research.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: We will number the Task Forces and include the background of the participants in Table 1.
Minor comment 2: It would also be useful to systematically report whether there was interaction between PhD candidates and stakeholders, media, or institutional actors, and how such interactions were conducted. At present, this is only described in case 2. If no such interactions occurred in some cases, this should also be explicitly stated (possibly summarized in Table 1).
- Author Response: The interactions among PhD candidates and local stakeholders were described in section 4.3 and interactions among PhD candidates and media were described in detail in section 4.5. To our knowledge, there were no interactions beyond the described ones.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: In section 4.3 and 4.5 we will clarify that there were no further interactions among PhD candidates and local stakeholders or the media.
Minor comment 3: The manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of what is meant by “structured” and “semi-structured” interviews. In Table 2, interviews with principal investigators are described as being conducted by telephone—however, it is unclear whether these were structured or semi-structured.
- Author Response: In this study, we worked with semi-structured interviews only. A semi-structured interview is a qualitative research method where the interviewer works with an interview guide of open-ended questions. A semi-structured interview is flexible and can be adapted to the natural flow of the conversation, also allowing for follow-up questions. The telephone interviews were also semi-structured.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: We will add the term “semi-structured” to the telephone interviews with two PIs in table 2. Furthermore, we will briefly explain the term “semi-structured interview” in section 3.
Minor comment 4: Was funding a limiting factor in the development of any of the Task Forces?
- Author Response: No, since the project was well funded and Task Force activities, including funds for travelling had successfully been applied for.
Minor comment 5: In the discussion section, the statement that “collaboration with local partners is valuable” should be clarified: does this accurately reflect the views expressed by the interviewees? It is somewhat surprising that participants—many of whom work in remote areas—do not consider such collaboration to be fundamental. This may be influenced by how the interview questions were framed.
- Author Response: The statement that “collaboration with local partners is valuable” was a summary of the positive experiences that some participants that we interviewed had made in the collaboration with local partners. Only some Task Force actually undertook field visits and not all of them interacted or collaborated with local stakeholders.
Minor comment 6: At the end of Section 5.1, differences between the NatRiskChange program and the ClimExtreme Post AG program are mentioned. It would be helpful to briefly indicate the nature of these differences, even if they are minor.
- Author Response: The differences between the NatRiskChange program and the ClimExtreme Post-AG were outlined in section 4.8.
- Proposed Manuscript Change: We will add a reference to section 4.8. to section 5.1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-645-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Karen Lebek, 28 Jul 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 714 | 418 | 82 | 1,214 | 79 | 108 |
- HTML: 714
- PDF: 418
- XML: 82
- Total: 1,214
- BibTeX: 79
- EndNote: 108
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General Comments
The manuscript explores an innovative pedagogical and operational model: the integration of multidisciplinary rapid task forces within structured doctoral programs, to conduct forensic disaster analysis. The study is interesting, as it is clear as natural hazards demands agile scientific responses. The manuscript successfully evaluates the dual benefit of these task forces: enhancing the professional development of PhD candidates and providing rapid, high-level scientific insights for disaster risk reduction.
The paper is well-structured, the language is clear, and the qualitative approach (interviews and output analysis) is appropriate for the research questions posed. The topic fits perfectly within the scope of the journal, bridging the gap between disaster science, education, and social impact.
Specific Comments
Minor reviews
Recommendation
The manuscript provides a valuable contribution to the field of disaster research and higher education. It addresses a real-world problem with a practical, tested solution. The suggestions above are intended to strengthen the critical reflection and the practical utility of the findings.
Decision: Minor Revision