Forensic Disaster Analysis

According to the FORIN report, the methods and reporting forms used in the conventional processing and assessment of loss events leave many questions unanswered, especially if they are primarily discipline-oriented. Accordingly, the focus is usually on investigating the purely physical background of the causes or the technical and structural consequences of the event (IRDR 2011). Preparations for disasters, such as the use of early warning systems, emergency aid, reconstruction measures or political measures, are also assessed (ibid.). However, these approaches usually do not deal with the often underlying long-term effects, which only lead to a disaster event in combination and through complex cascading effects and/or interactions between the various systems (ibid.).

This is where forensic disaster analysis comes in. In order to enable qualitative recommendations for action and intervention measures, the CEDIM analyses focus mainly on the interactions of the triangle of natural events, technical facilities/critical infrastructures and social structures (KIT 2020).  This means that the focus is not only on analyzing the causes and consequences of disasters, but also on looking at the framework conditions that promote and reduce damage. In addition, the aim of CEDIM’s FDA approach is to carry out the analyses as soon as possible after a disaster and to publish the results. Depending on the event and the available resources, initial statements about the extent of a disaster, its consequences and economic damage are made just a few hours to a few days after the event. These rapid analyses are helpful in order to be able to initiate situation-specific measures as quickly and effectively as possible (Kunz 2019 in DKKV Newsletter 04/2019).

Damage estimates are made using statistical methods that link the footprint of the event (e.g. flooded areas, shake maps) with information on comparable past disasters and with key figures for the affected regions (building data, Human Development Index (HDI), gross domestic product, level of education, etc.) (Daniell, 2014; Daniell et al., 2017). The inclusion of both successful and failed disaster management helps to better understand the circumstances under which a natural event becomes a disaster (IRDR 2011).

Interdisciplinarity plays a particularly important role in forensic disaster analysis. Various approaches from (natural) science, technology, remote sensing and crowdsourcing are used here (Kunz et al., 2013; Wenzel et al. 2013). The latter refers to the use of contributions from social media in order to access information quickly from the population (ibid.). However, not only different research disciplines, but also different interest groups and politicians are included in order to ensure optimal synergy and effectiveness of the analyses and balance between the core disciplines (IRDR 2011).

Figure 1 illustrates the approach of forensic disaster analysis according to Oliver-Smith et al. (2016). The “design path”, running from the outside in, shows the background idea of the analysis. It starts with the “root causes” of the process, which influence structures or decisions, for example. The interaction with corresponding risk drivers and the vulnerability of the location then leads to the causes that triggered the event. Building on this, the “research path” shows the actual path of the analysis after the disaster has occurred. Here the path leads outwards, with the identification of the root causes as the end point. This way of working ensures that it is possible to identify as completely and as thoroughly as possible how an event could become a disaster.