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
-
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.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 685 | 396 | 76 | 1,157 | 75 | 105 |
- HTML: 685
- PDF: 396
- XML: 76
- Total: 1,157
- BibTeX: 75
- EndNote: 105
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