Disaster Research Unit (Katastrophenforschungsstelle); Cordula Dittmer
Original German version published December 7, 2022
Translated version published July 30, 2024
In 1984, Lars Clausen and Wolf R- Dombrowsky, pioneers of German Catastrophe-Sociology and founders of the Disaster Research Center (Katastrophenforschungstelle) at Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, described the concept of warning systems:
“In negative terms, a warning system is a technical apparatus, which, even in perfect functionality, is meaningless as a “bare warning”. A warning without reference to understandably dangerous natural hazards and related reactions of those warned, is not able to exist. Without these considerations, the communication measures are simply a “forecast” of scientific patterns. Warnings must be more, they should specifically foster social behaviors that aim to prevent the predicted event, ie the disaster, not to happen. One can only speak of a socially functional warning system if all related matters are discussed, a wide range of anticipated dangers are defined, technical consideration are considered and public reactions are addressed.” (translated from the original)
While public debates over the aspects of a successful warning- such as those observed in the last few days- often focus on the possibilities and limits of the use of operationalized technical tools, the Disaster Research Unit (KFS in German) instead aims its attention at the social preconditions for communication. The basic assumption is that warning should not be understood as a linear transfer of information whose success is primarily dependent on the technical transfer of information from sender to receiver. Instead, communication is to be understood as a complex social process that has various preconditions on different levels. The specific warning address, that is operationalized as a warning in acute situations, is interconnected with previous (disaster) communication, as well as, the experiences, expectations, situational patterns, etc. of a heterogenous, constantly changing population. As a result, any specific warning results in diverse receptions and interpretations. To fully understand the preconditions of a successful warning, it is essential that these social factors be considered.
At the DRU and the Akademie der Katastrophenforschungsstelle (AKFS), we are involved in various trans- and interdisciplinary projects that address topics of communication in general and warnings specifically. As such, we are led by the assumption that warnings can’t be successful without proper consideration of socio-cultural, economic, historic, and political (ie examining society as a whole).
General aspects of warnings and warning communication
Who perceives warnings and how do they perceive them?
The DRU, under the project WEXICOM, developed criteria for the perception, evaluation and use of weather warnings with consideration of the different interests, needs and habits of use of the diverse population. Building upon these, we are developing action recommendations for user specific communication of weather warnings. The first results developed by the DRU on communication of weather warnings as part of the previous WEXICOM II project have been published in Schriftenreihe Sicherheit.
In a project carried out by the AKFS by assignment of the metropolitan area of Aachen, communication concepts for specific groups as part of a warning system have been developed. The motivation for this project is to create social science accompaniment for the advanced siren installations already present in the region. Up to this point, the project has illustrated that it is necessary to operationalize a “mixed warning system”, ie a mixture of “simple” Sirenwarnings through loudspeakers, personal addresses and warnings over apps, in order to reach a large amount of people. First results of this project could already be presented to the public. To create a successful warning sequence, it is also important that the warned know which steps should follow a warning and where they can turn to for additional information. As such, we examine the concept of decentral Katastrophenschutzleuchttürmen as well as the questions, whether voluntary engagement should be stronger promoted? and also, how the self-help skills of the population can be supported? The proactive communication of public authorities regarding their limits and capabilities related to safety tasks has an increasingly important role in warning systems. More information regarding this project can be read here.
How do experts expect the population to receive warnings and which effects does this have for the warning process?
The disaster myths and population stereotypes held by responsible authorities often hinder the ability of warnings to reach populations the way they actually should. The beliefs that people “can’t handle the truth” or that they would panic once gaining the knowledge of a danger, are elements of a dominant and central narrative that heavily influence the decisions of responsible actors, particularly regarding the warnings, they content, and possible behavioral instructions. The DRU has published their thoughts regarding this here.
In a Quick-Response-Research in reaction to the hurricane “Sabine” in 2020, the DRU researched how the population perceived and reacted to the warnings. A summary can be found in the Bevölkerungsschutz-Magazin from the BBK of the topic „Warnung der Bevölkerung“ (Warning the populations). The complete results and conclusions of the research can be found in the DRU Working Paper Nr. 24.
How to not only warn, but also involve the population in assistance measures?
The project ENSURE explores this question in connection with the development of the app “Katretter”, that is available for download in the different app stores. The DRU prepared practical recommendations, a manual and a toolbox (to be used for trainings for example) for staff of the BOS to assist with the successful integration of helpers.
Currently, a meta-analysis within the project ATLAS-ENGAGE is combining research and practical approaches towards engagement in Crises. An interim conclusion can already be drawn: the population wants not only to be “warning beginners”, but rather to be involved actively as well as engage in communication. As a result, demands for verified information, multi-dimensional communication and participation are growing.
What is the situation regarding trust for the actors that are responsible for warning, such as authorities or organizations?
The perceptions of warnings aren’t only influenced through the content of these warnings nor the context of these communications, but also through the trust, or rather lack thereof, in the source of information. As part of a AKFS research project examining communication during the pandemic, that official began mid-2020, a report on “Risiko- und Krisenkommunikation: Ein Überblick” (Risk and Disaster Communication: an Overview) was created. This report brings forward the central meaning of trust (as well as the precondition and result of successful crisis communication) and identifies on the basis of the current state of research several quality criteria for risk and disaster communication, particularlz transparency, comprehensibiltiz, believabitiy und trust, consistency and coordination, dialoguefocus, proactivity, target audience focus and consistency. The perception of warnings is influence not onöy through the content of such warnings, but also the trust in the source of information.
The actors granted the highest level of trust can be read about in further KFS studies about the COVID-19 pandemic, disaster prevention in Jena or Berlin, and the 2013 Floods. Actors who are trusted the most are also the most likely to be believed when such warnings are released. In connection to this, not only social networks and knowledge about disaster protection structures are relevant, but also fundamentals of Bevölkerungsschutz, specifically regarding specific actors as well as reliable sources of information like higher level authorities or organizations.
Anticipation and definition before the warning
Before a warning is released, specific metrics- ideally those determined in advance- must be reached. This means that distinct preparations and risk/danger analyses must be implemented with consideration of present capacities, vulnerabilities and protection goals. As such, only then is it possible to adequately warn of an event and propose related actions. Based on the specific scenario, these metrics or “tipping points” can be connected to various Abstraktions-Ebenen. For example, in a relatively well-known flood scenario by now, the situation remains relatively manageable since a variety of meteorological, hydrological, etc., data are available, allowing for the calculation of forecasts which, in turn, enable statements about the probabilities of water levels. However, for other scenarios such as so-called slow disasters like a pandemic or a refugee situation, it is often less straightforward (and often significantly more politicized). In the past years, the KFS has analyzed in the two research projects BEPAL and WAKE how to deal with atypical situations where the boundaries between anticipation and concrete warning blur and yet necessities for action to protect the population arise in the field of civil and disaster protection amidst this unclear situation.
Warnings as a central part of an integrated disaster risk management system (IKRM)
As part of the INCREASE project, the KFS analyzed literature relevant to disaster risk management on national and international levels. KFS researchers determined and investigated the indicators and conceptional elements needed to promote an integrative disaster risk management system. As such, they examined the possibility of an integrated disaster risk management system to become systematic: How can we successfully overcome dangers and mobilize all available societal resources, rather than just those related to specific employment relationships and responsibility sectors? In order to answer this question, the history of international integrated disaster risk management and disaster prevention in Germany can be used. Building upon this, new challenges of implementation of IKRM can be located and future methods of research and approaches to Bevölkerungsschutz can be suggested. Some previous results indicate the absence of an overarching IKRM approach. IKRM is mostly just a catch-all term for numerous, very differently positioned ideas and methods, but far from operationalizability. This highlights the need for a more comprehensive theory and methodology to further promote IKRM.
A nationwide exercise such as the “Warntag” (Warning day), which crosses many different levels and institutions, is an element of disaster preparedness and prevention. In addition to verifying the functionality of technical warning systems, a “Warntag” provides an opportunity to reflect on and close gaps. Furthermore, it promotes cooperation among stakeholders and raises public awareness of potential disasters, potentially motivating people to consider response and behavioral options in such an event. However, early warning systems are only effective when their technical and social elements are multidimensionally integrated. Concrete “lessons to learn” regarding communication and warning are subsequently formulated in the report on the state and future of civil protection in Germany.
Warnings and Warning Communication in special Contexts or Situations
How did people in Berlin and Brandenburg protect themselves from water-related dangers in the past?
In the project “Climate and Water under Change (CliWaC)”, since the beginning of 2022, the DRU has investigated the history of water related hazards in Berlin/Brandenburg, particularly how they were received and dealt with by local populations. How did people perceive lasting dryness and drought, water shortages and pollution? How did they deal with droughts, water spread diseases and floods after heavy precipitation events? What warning mechanisms were used for the protection of humans, agricultural lands and buildings? Which of these mechanisms were effective? The DRU aims to address these questions from a historical perspective in an aim to better understand how current communication behavior and the socio-political communication aspects that they are based on have developed.
How can the Indonesian Tsunami Warning system be improved through cooperation between scientific and practice actors?
The Indonesian Tsunami Warning system was officially inaugurated in 2008. In 2018, two Tsunamis with devastating effects hit Indonesia. Unfortunately, the warning system did not register these and thus, no warnings were released. The reason for this was that they were triggered by the flank collapse of a volcano and by a landslide – the warning system, however, was focused only on earthquakes, not on landslides or other possible tsunami triggers. In addition, since the development of the 2008 warning system paid little attention to the actual transmission of information to those to be warned, it could be described more accurately as a technical system that informed authorities about possible tsunamis resulting from earthquakes, rather than as a tsunami warning system. As a result, German and Indonesian geoscientists associated with the Tsunami Risk project, have been researching non-seismically induced tsunamis, drawing from various fields, including, seismology, volcanology, geology, oceanography, and geoengineering. The aim of the DRU project is to critically observe the warning process and support and integrate the exchange between the specialist disciplines and local practitioners. A first important insight from this research has been that social aspects such as communication processes and ex-inclusion of local perspectives on “risk” and “danger” played a big role than the failures of technical systems or elements. This clearly shows that a warning system is to be regarded not (only) as technology but also as a social process.
Warning, Coordination, and Cooperation – How can critical infrastructure facilities and companies be alerted?
Not only the civilian population, but also businesses and operators of critical infrastructures rely on warnings. Without knowledge of an impending danger, they are unable to implement self-protection measures and ensure their functionality. This can have fatal consequences, especially in regard to critical operations such as hospitals.
Crisis communication and information dissemination between warning organizations, authorities, security organizations, and operators of critical infrastructures are often in need of improvement. Usually, available information and warnings are collected, evaluated, and interpreted internally within organizations, but the insights gained are not shared with each other. This results in disconnected situational awareness, which can significantly hinder joint crisis management when needed.
The DRU addresses this issue in the research project RESIK, which primarily investigates hospital emergency management and evacuation in flood situations. Exemplary issues regarding warning and communication between municipal security authorities and hospitals can be found in a published case study on the evacuation of a hospital during the 2021 flood disaster, which considers the entire evacuation as a social process dependent on communication.
Warnings before and during the heavy rainfall and flood events in July 2021.
Early papers on evaluation and lessons learned, which were published rapidly following the heavy rainfall and flood events in July 2021 in North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate (e.g., Beinlich 2021), clearly indicated that one cause of the very high number of fatalities in the German context was the absence of warnings or failure of proper dissemination, specifically, the extent of possible damage was not communicated clearly enough, and many lives could have been saved if the warning chains and messages had been reliable. From a meteorological perspective, the signs of the event were clear; many of the severely affected areas could have been evacuated with some lead time. However, a more differentiated view emerges in case studies within the context of the HoWas21 project, showing that there were indeed a variety of warnings disseminated through different warning channels (warning apps, social media, sirens, loudspeaker vehicles, personal contact by local emergency services, and personal warnings), which were perceived and acted upon very differently. In small, closely-knit communities such as Mayschoß or Schuld, many people were warned through personal contact by local fire departments, resulting in few fatalities.
The problem, according to the current state of examinations, was on one hand, that warnings were issued before the heavy rainfall events (and also partly before the resulting flood events), but did not communicate magnitude or urgency required, and especially not in regard to flash floods. The question of whether and how the impacts, (i.e., the impact of the rainfall) could have been predicted, remains part of intense discourse among the various warning actors from the German Weather Service (DWD), state environmental agencies and district governments. In this situation, it seems that a crucial element was how the communication framework was structured and based on this, how a potentially damaging event is perceived and interpreted. What matters is not just the information about an extreme meteorological event itself, but rather whether the actors at all levels are open in their perceptions to consider the previously unexperienced, entirely unexpected. Empirical studies show that warnings, if they reach affected individuals at all, were sometimes not taken seriously enough by both the civilian population and those responsible for disaster management. A factor contributing to this situation may also be the previous existence of similar warnings, or in the case that the population received the warnings but did not know what actions should follow (e.g., Thieken et al. 2022). Exacerbating the problem may have been the fact that coordinated, coherent warning and information concepts between districts and municipalities – although defined as a genuine task of local self-administration in the respective state civil protection laws – were rarely available.
Media Contributions
The KFS not only researches the scientific foundations of warnings but also actively seeks to contribute its findings to public-media discussions. Below is a selection of contributions relevant for the 2022 National Warning Day, with more information available here.
vorwärts, 06.12.2022: Haben wir verlernt, mit Katastrophen umzugehen, Professor Voss? https://www.vorwaerts.de/artikel/haben-verlernt-katastrophen-umzugehen-professor-voss
Stadt Aachen, Pressemitteilung, 06.12.2022: Zum bundesweiten Warntag: Stadt stellt Leuchtturm-Konzept vor https://www.aachen.de/DE/stadt_buerger/politik_verwaltung/pressemitteilungen/leuchtturm.html
Tagesspiegel, 05.12.2022: Bald ist bundesweiter Warntag: Ist der Katastrophenschutz jetzt gut aufgestellt? https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/bald-ist-bundesweiter-warntag-ist-der-katastrophenschutz-jetzt-gut-aufgestellt-8975749.html
Tagesschau, 25.10.2022: Notfallpläne in Kommunen: “Bei komplexen Krisen ziemlich hilflos” https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/kommunen-notfallplaene-101.html
Ruhrbaron, 16.10.2022: Katastrophenschutz: Kritik an Ländern und Kommunen https://www.ruhrbarone.de/katastrophenschutz-kritik-an-laendern-und-kommunen/213805/
taz, 11.04.2022: Katastrophenschutz in Deutschland: Wenn es ganz dicke kommt https://taz.de/Katastrophenschutz-in-Deutschland/!5844687/
RBB, 11.05.2022: Zivilschutz in Brandenburg: Schlecht vorbereitet für den Ernstfall https://www.rbb24.de/politik/beitrag/2022/05/brandenburg-schutzraeume-zivilschutz-kriegsfall-bunker.html
Forum (das Magazin des Medizinischen Dienstes), Ausgabe 2/2022: Müssen wir uns besser auf Katastrophen vorbereiten? https://md-bund.de/fileadmin/dokumente/forum_das_Magazin_des_Medizinischen_Dienstes/Leseproben/Ausgabe_2_2022/forum_2-2022_-_Muessen_wir_uns_besser_auf_Katastrophen_vorbereiten.pdf
Zum Warntag 2020
Deutschlandfunk, 10.09.2021: Ein Jahr nach dem bundesweiten Test: Aus Mängeln und Defiziten des Warntags lernen https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/ein-jahr-nach-dem-bundesweiten-test-aus-maengeln-und-100.html
Süddeutsche Zeitung, 10.09.2020: Warntag: “Die Pandemie hat viele Elemente einer Katastrophe” https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/warntag-katastrophe-probealarm-sirene-1.5026256
Süddeutsche Zeitung, 10.09.2020: Katastrophenübung: Warum um elf die Sirenen heulen. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/warntag-2020-deutschland-1.5025134
Literatur/weiterführende Veröffentlichungen zum Thema
Bayerisches Zentrum für besondere Einsatzlagen gGmbH (2021): Konzeptionsanalyse BayZBE. Lesson Learnt des Ahrtal Hochwassers Juli 2021. Available online at https://www.dkkv.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Veroeffentlichungen/Publikationen/Konzeptionsanalyse_BayZBE_Lesson_Learnt_des_Ahrtal_Hochwassers_Juli_2021.pdf
BBK (2020): Warnung der Bevölkerung. Magazin Bevölkerungsschutz 03/2020. Available online at https://www.bbk.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Mediathek/Publikationen/BSMAG/bsmag_20_3.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5
Büser, Till (2019): Kommunikation und Warnungen. In: Kox, T. & Gerhold, L. (Hrsg.): Wetterwarnungen: Von der Extremereignisformation zu Kommunikation und Handlung. Beiträge aus dem Forschungsprojekt WEXICOM. Forschungsforum Öffentliche Sicherheit, Berlin. Available online at https://www.sicherheit-forschung.de/forschungsforum/schriftenreihe_neu/sr_v_v/SchriftenreiheSicherheit_25.pdf
Clausen, Lars; Dombrowsky, Wolf R. (1984): Warnpraxis und Warnlogik. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie. Jg. 13, Heft 4, S. 293-307. Enke Verlag Stuttgart. Available online at https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zfsoz-1984-0402/pdfTitel
Landtag Nordrhein-Westfalen (2022): Zwischenbericht des Parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschusses V („Hochwasserkatastrophe“). Drucksache 17/16930. Available online at https://opal.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/MMD17-16930.pdf
Mayer, Aljoscha; Voss, Martin (2021): Risiko- und Krisenkommunikation. Ein Überblick. AKFS Report Nr. 4. Berlin: AKFS. Available online at https://a-kfs.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/4_Risko-und-Krisenkommunikation_AKFS_2021.pdf
Reiter, Jessica; Wenzel, Bettina; Dittmer, Cordula; Lorenz, Daniel F.; Voss, Martin (2017): Das Hochwasser 2013 im Elbe-Havel-Land aus Sicht der Bevölkerung. Forschungsbericht zur quantitativen Datenerhebung. KFS Working Paper 04. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/21893/KFS_Working_Paper_Nr_04_Reiterx_Wenzelx_Dittmerx_Lorenzx_Voss.pdf
Reiter, Jessica; Dittmer, Cordula; Lorenz, Daniel F.; Voss, Martin (2018): Katastrophen und Katastrophenvorsorge in Jena aus Sicht der Bevölkerung. KFS Working Paper Nr. 12. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/23536/181204_Katvorsorge_Jena_finale_Version.pdf
Reiter, Jessica; Nunes Muniz, Janaina; Dittmer, Cordula; Lorenz, Daniel F.; Voss, Martin (2019): Katastrophen und Katastrophenvorsorge in Berlin-Neukölln aus Sicht der Bevölkerung. Ergebnisse einer quantitativen Bevölkerungsbefragung. KFS Working Paper Nr. 13. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/25096/13_Working_Paper_KFS_Reiter__Nunes_Katastrophenvorsorge_in_Berlin_Neuk%c3%b6lln.pdf
Schulze, Katja; Lorenz, Daniel F.; Wenzel, Bettina; Voss, Martin (2015): Disaster Myths and their Relevance for Warning Systems. Available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330116501_Disaster_Myths_and_their_Relevance_for_Warning_Systems
Schulze, Katja; Voss, Martin; (2016): Manual zur Zusammenarbeit mit Mithelfenden bei der Katastrophenbewältigung. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/21932/KFA_Arbeitsmaterial_1_Schulze_Voss_2016_Manual_zur_Zusammenarbeit_mit_Mithelfenden.pdf
Schulze, Katja; Voss, Martin (2016): Handlungsleitfaden zur Zusammenarbeit mit Mithelfenden bei der Katastrophenbewältigung. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/21839/KFS_Arbeitsmaterial_2_Schulze_Voss_2016_Handlungsleitfaden_zur_Zusammenarbeit_mit_Mithelfenden_Layout.pdf
Schulze, Katja (2016): Werkzeugkasten zur Zusammenarbeit mit Mithelfenden bei der Katastrophenbewältigung. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/21878/KFS_Arbeitsmaterialien_3_Schulze_2016_Werkzeugkasten_zur_Zusammenarbeit_mit_Mithelfenden.pdf
Schulze, Katja; Merkes, Sara T.; Kleinebrahn, Anja; Flörchinger, Verena; Voss, Martin (2020): Veränderte Wahrnehmungen der COVID-19-Lage von März bis April 2020: Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Panelbefragung. KFS Working Paper Nr. 17. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/27622/17_WP_KFS_Schulze_et_al_2020_Veraenderte_Wahrnehmung_der_COVID-19-Lage.pdf
Schulze, Katja; Voss, Martin (2020): Sturm „Sabine“ – Wahrnehmung der Warnungen und Reaktionen. Ergebnisse einer deutschlandweiten Bevölkerungsbefragung. KFS Working Paper Nr. 18. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/29058/Schulze_Voss_2020_Sturm_Sabine_Wahrnehmung_der_Warnung_und_Reaktion1.pdf
Schulze, Katja & Voss, Martin (2022). Weather Forecast and Weather Warning Preferences in Germany. Results of a national representative study. KFS Working Paper Nr. 24. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/34940/Schulze_Voss_2022_Weather_Forecast_and_Weather_Warning_Preferences_in_Germany_digitalversion.pdf
Thieken, A. H.; Bubeck, P.; Heidenreich, A.; von Keyserlingk, J.; Dillenardt, L.; Otto, A. (2022): Performance of the flood warning system in Germany in July 2021 – insights from affected residents, EGUsphere. Available online as a pre-print at https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-244/
Voss, Martin (2022): Zustand und Zukunft des Bevölkerungsschutzes in Deutschland – Lessons to learn. KFS Working Paper Nr. 20 (Version 4). Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/ethnologie/forschung/arbeitsstellen/katastrophenforschung/publikationen/Lessons_to_learn_2022.pdf,
Voss, Martin; Rüger, Anja; Bock, Nicolas; Dittmer, Cordula; Merkes, Sara T. (2022): Die Evakuierung des St. Antonius-Hospitals Eschweiler während der Flutereignisse im Juli 2021. Katastrophenforschungsstelle Berlin. KFS Working Paper Nr. 25. Berlin: KFS. Available online at https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/fub188/35555/Evakuierung_Krankenhaus_Eschweiler_2021.pdf