@article {bnh-8236, title = {Implications of climate change for emergency services operations - insights from the literature}, number = {699}, year = {2021}, month = {10/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Greenhouse gas emissions to date and existing pledges for emissions reduction from national governments suggest that the world is tracking a medium emissions future at best, and possibly a high emission one. This report consolidates available knowledge of the potential impacts of climate change on key issues that influence the (emergency management services (EMS) in Australia and New Zealand, through a systematic review of the literature (both peer reviewed and grey literature) combined with an analysis of relevant inquiries. It is an output of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project entitled Preparing emergency services for a climate-challenged world.

For the EMS, one of the most immediate and visceral impacts of climate change is increasing frequency and severity of disaster-inducing natural hazards. Yet, it would be a mistake to assume that this is the extent of the challenge: interacting climatic, social, demographic and economic trends will result in transformations in our societies and way of life. For the EMS, the climate change adaptation challenge is more than just {\textquoteleft}more of the same{\textquoteright}. The increasingly significant impacts that climate change is having on the natural and human systems that support livelihoods and wellbeing in Australia and New Zealand present a profound challenge for all communities, businesses and services.

In the decades ahead, Australia is expected to experience increased warming across the whole of the continent with rainfall declines over much of the southern parts of the country very likely. These changes are not unfolding linearly. Already it is clear that the climate has altered over recent decades through a serious of step changes or {\textquoteleft}breaks{\textquoteright}. This means that current rates of change are an unreliable indicator of future rates of change.

Similarly, New Zealand is already registering warming and changing rainfall in some regions. These trends are expected to continue and include increasing average temperatures and more hot days for norther areas, significant shifts in rainfall patterns and more extreme rainfall, and profound increases in the time spent in drought by 2040. Sea level rise is also a major concern for the island nation, with sea level rise around New Zealand projected to be up to 10\% higher than the global average.

For Australia and New Zealand, climate change means more heatwaves, more extreme precipitation events, more bushfire weather, more storms, fewer but more intense cyclones, and more landslides. It also means more compound events and cascading impacts, where multiple extreme events occur simultaneously {\textendash} as was seen in Black Summer, where bushfires, heatwaves and floods were experienced during a long-term drought. Climate change is also increasing the risk that second and third order impacts of disasters, such as a disease outbreak following a flood, themselves cascade into another event of equal or greater severity.

Increasing frequency and severity of climatic hazards are intersecting with growing exposure and changing vulnerability patterns to drive disaster risk. Some of the desirable features of contemporary lifestyles {\textendash} such as high levels of consumption and technology-dependent, centralised systems {\textendash} are further increasing disaster risk. A no-regrets approach to climate change adaptation is\ to build {\textquoteleft}adaptive capacity{\textquoteright}, which is made up of five interlinked domains: assets, flexibility, social organisation, learning, and agency. Building adaptive capacity/reducing vulnerability requires looking beyond direct climate change impacts (e.g. managing heat) to address structural and systemic constraints on the ability of people and ecosystems to adapt to ongoing change, such as social inequalities, low environmental sustainability and poor governance.

Climate change adaptation incorporates a range of objectives and areas of effort. While it necessarily involves {\textquotedblleft}coping{\textquotedblright} at any moment in time, it also extends far beyond just coping to also better {\textquotedblleft}fit{\textquotedblright} emerging conditions and to proactively adjust to, and help positively shape, the future. Criteria of success of a climate change adaptation initiative include effectiveness, efficiency, equity, accounting for externalities, and having an extended time horizon. The inverse of good adaptation is maladaptation: actions that may lead to increased risk of adverse climate related outcomes, increased vulnerability to climate change, or diminished welfare, now or in the future.

Adaptation faces limits and barriers. As climate change worsens, it is likely impacts will exceed some systems{\textquoteright} and groups{\textquoteright} capacity to manage them. Uneven structural vulnerabilities and engrained issues such as downplaying climate change risks means some groups are continually or regularly unable to cope or adapt well. One of the risks of the {\textquotedblleft}shared responsibility{\textquotedblright} paradigm of disaster risk management in Australia is that {\textquoteleft}communities often are left to manage residual risks shifted towards individuals, whether or not they have the financial, physical, mental, or social capacity to manage them{\textquoteright}. It is often assumed that a lack of climate change information or adaptation knowledge is the main barrier to effective and timely adaptation action. While knowledge and information are important, analysis of barriers to adaptation suggests that institutional barriers (e.g. lack of clear mandate, roles, responsibilities, willingness to act) are often more significant.

One of the enablers of good climate change adaptation is systems thinking {\textendash} appreciating systemic relationships and how to manage them. When it comes to the EMS, a systems-based approach widens our understanding of the sector and the many implications of climate change for it. This report presents two frameworks that are useful for contextualising the EMS in a wider context, identifying how climate change might influence various elements of this system, and where the EMS can direct different types of adaptation strategies.

The academic literature provides some valuable insights into the drivers at work in the EMS context. However, very little research addresses the {\textquotedblleft}question of the future{\textquotedblright} per se and that which does, does not do so in a comprehensive manner that incorporates climate change or challenges the assumption that existing trends will unfold linearly. We therefore need to bring together different insights in order to piece together what the future may entail for the EMS. One useful way to begin this process is to systematically consider the {\textquoteleft}STEEP drivers{\textquoteright} - that is, insights into Social, Technological, Environmental, Economic and Policy/Political drivers {\textendash} and to then start thinking through how they may interact with climate change. In response to input from the scenarios team (the other part of this project), we have included a sixth category {\textendash} legal {\textendash} into the framework. This report provides examples of the types of changes and uncertainties the EMS may need to consider as it encounters the climate change adaptation undertaking.

We draw on the literature review to present analysis provided to the scenarios process. This includes a summary of biophysical impacts of climate change to 2035, including a plausible (but not predictive) climate hazard event map. We then summarise the likely flow-on effects to 2035 and finally the likely implications of those flow-on effects for water and environment, agriculture and aquaculture, infrastructure, human health and wellbeing, and society in general. Finally, we explore what adaptive capacity might look like under the four plausible futures developed by the scenarios team. In this way, the EMS has a comprehensive picture of what climate change impacts might influence them and what resources they might have to manage them.\ 

}, keywords = {Climate change, Emergency management, governance, Planning, Scenarios}, issn = {699}, author = {Lauren Rickards and Adriana Keating} } @article {bnh-8235, title = {Preparing emergency services for operations in a climate-challenged world - summary report}, number = {689}, year = {2021}, month = {10/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

EMS agencies are learning to adapt and be prepared for futures where the changing climate will influence the services they deliver, and how they deliver those services. This research project was designed to help the sector to better prepare for these futures and take action to more quickly adapt as it unfolds, and importantly take action to shape the future in ways that reduce the risks of the hazards ahead.

In 2020 and 2021 this research project, under the stewardship of Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC and AFAC and led by Reos Partners and RMIT University, collaborated with a select group of leaders and professionals (a scenario team) from across the Australia and New Zealand EMS. The research project was completed in three integrated parts:

  1. A synthesis of the literature conducted by RMIT on the implications of climate change for emergency services operation
  2. A series of participatory workshops with the project scenario team to develop an explorative and adaptable methodology that is then used to create transformative scenarios (2021-2035)
  3. Develop EMS guidance for using transformative scenarios in a climate-challenged world for planning and decision-making in EMS.

By involving key people from across the EMS in the construction and application of the scenarios (the scenario team), this project has helped to build the sector{\textquoteright}s understanding and capabilities in scenario development and in scenario use and application. The project has not only strengthened the scenario thinking capability of the participants across a range of agencies, but secured positive support and endorsement from the scenario team who can continue to share and apply the project methods across the EMS.

A range of documents and resources are available from www.bnhcrc.com.au/research/climatescenarios. These include a workbook, and a research and methodology pack:

Transformative scenarios in a climate-challenged world {\textendash} workbook:

Transformative scenarios in a climate-challenged world {\textendash} research and methodology:\ 

}, keywords = {Climate change, Emergency management, governance, Planning, Scenarios}, issn = {689}, author = {Stephen Atkinson and Geoff Brown and Russell Fisher and Zoe Fitzgerald and Lauren Rickards and Adriana Keating} } @article {bnh-8127, title = {The southwest Tasmania fires of summer 2018-2019 - a post event review capability study}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, pages = {64}, institution = {Zurich}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

The summer of 2018-19 (December 2018 {\textendash} February 2019) was devastating for the Australian state of Tasmania. Fire services were overwhelmed by the multiple, large fires that burned over 200,000 ha across the western half of the island from the end of December through to early March. This report analyses these fires using the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance{\textquoteright}s Post Event Review Capability (PERC) methodology. It focuses on community and business resilience; while there have been several reviews into firefighting operations, a more systemic view of resilience is less common.

The summer 2018/19 fires officially began on 24 December 2018, in one of the hottest and driest summers on record. On 15 January 2019, 2402 dry lightning strikes hit the state, igniting 70 fires that formed into four massive fire complexes. More than 210,000 hectares burned, including 95,000 hectares in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA). Fortunately, no deaths were directly attributed to the bushfire, although an unknown number of people are believed to have died due to smoke and 114 injuries or accidents were recorded.

The event saw a significant and protracted evacuation, with the Huonville evacuation centre open for 15 days, accommodating up to 700 people daily. The lingering effects on impacted communities are still being felt. It resulted in the destruction of tourism assets, forestry resource and globally precious, protected ecosystems of the TWWHA. Smoke from the fires impacted health and the burgeoning viticulture industry in Tasmania. These impacts, along with others, have had significant flow-on effects to the already-struggling Tasmanian economy and communities.

There is much to learn from this event for Tasmania and other jurisdictions which will likely face similar events. This report outlines the risk landscape in southwest Tasmania, examining trends in climate-change charged bushfire conditions, exposure of people and assets, and their vulnerabilities. It outlines what happened during the event, with a focus on the community safety response. Direct and indirect impacts on people and economies are explored. Key insights are identified across all phases of the disaster cycle. Below we present an abridged version of the final recommendations of the study

}, keywords = {Capability, fires, post event, review, southwest, summer, Tasmania}, url = {https://www.zurich.com.au/content/dam/au-documents/news/the-southwest-tasmania-fires-of-summer-2018-2019-a-post-event-review-capability-study.pdf}, author = {Adriana Keating and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-6883, title = {Models and frameworks for assessing the value of disaster research}, journal = {Progress in Disaster Science}, volume = {6}, year = {2020}, month = {04/2020}, abstract = {

Funders, governments, stakeholders and end-users expect to see tangible evidence that an investment in research is a worthy use of resources. Research has impact if it makes a demonstrable contribution to the economy, society, culture, public policy, health, the environment, or quality of life, beyond academia.

This paper reviews frameworks that assess the impact of research and considers their usefulness in the conceptualisation and measurement of research impact in the disaster domain. Frameworks demonstrate impact through attribution, measurement and quantification of academic, social, and economic impacts in the short, medium and long term. While there is no specific framework in the hazard domain, adaptation of the {\textquotedblleft}pathways to research impact{\textquotedblright} tool created by Cruz Rivera et al. (2017) provides a well-considered basis for assessing disaster research impact.

}, keywords = {disaster, framework, Impact, research, Value, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100094}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061720300314?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Ken Strahan and Adriana Keating and John Handmer} } @article {bnh-7214, title = {The value of research from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, number = {601}, year = {2020}, month = {08/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC {\textendash} the CRC) retained us to develop a transparent, reproducible estimate of the total value to Australia of its research: to answer the question, what is the return to Australia of its investment in the BNHCRC?

Cooperative Research Centres, like the BNHCRC, represent the main formal vehicle for explicitly enhancing research and industry collaboration in Australia.\  With government sponsorship, researchers and industry work closely to produce socially and commercially desirable outcomes.\ 

Funders of all research, including that of bushfire and emergency management, increasingly want to ensure that their investments generate value for the emergency management sector and contribute to risk reduction.\  Research value can take a number of forms, from a readily assessed improvement in performance due to a new widget or process, to increases in capacity and risk management across the emergency sector, and direct and indirect benefits to the whole of society and economy.\ \ 

The ARC (Australian Research Council) has a broad definition of research impact:

{\textquotedblleft}Research impact is the contribution that research makes to the economy, society, environment or culture, beyond the contribution to academic research.{\textquotedblright}\ 

The definition suggested by the European Commission is broader still and includes indirect impacts and effects, on for example, innovation culture, capacity building, and increasing the stock of useful knowledge.\  We use the ARC{\textquoteright}s definition broadened slightly to encompass the specifics set out in the European definition as they help to capture the CRC{\textquoteright}s contribution. This is achieved through four pathways to value, set out in the following section.

}, keywords = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, research, Value}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-7-1}, issn = {601}, author = {John Handmer and Adriana Keating and Ken Strahan} } @article {bnh-5955, title = {The value of disaster research: a review of the literature}, number = {505}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Increasingly, funders, governments, stakeholders and end-users expect to see tangible evidence that an investment in research is a worthy use of resources; that it informs policy and practice; or to justify the provision of current and future funding. The value of research is measured by assessing the extent to which research has impact. Research impact is defined as {\textquotedblleft}a demonstrable contribution that research makes to the economy, society, culture, national security, public policy or services, health, the environment, or quality of life, beyond contributions to academia{\textquotedblright} (Alla et al.). These value-outcomes are achieved via the pathways of knowledge generation, capacity building, creation of scientific methods, researcher and end-user network collaborations, and policymaking support. Bushfire and natural hazard research evidence is utilised by emergency and fire agencies, governments, policymakers, and householders and landowners.

Research impact assessment is undertaken with the aim of addressing advocacy, analysis, accountability and allocation. It is also a valuable tool for use whilst planning research to ensure a greater impact. A major problem associated with research impact assessment is that of attribution: it is extremely difficult to assign causality for any outcome to a specific piece of research. This difficulty is exacerbated by the usually large time lag between research findings and policy impact, behaviour change, or change in environment or economy.

Various frameworks have been developed to assess the impact of research; whilst the majority of those reviewed were developed for the healthcare sector, there are more broad frameworks which have evolved to encompass a breadth of research areas and level of research. Impact has generally been categorised as economic (direct influence on the economy of the researcher, agency, population, or government as well as knowledge, market and network spill overs); academic (influence within academia, researcher and end-user collaborations, capacity building, training and leadership); and social or societal (a broad category including social values, national security, influence on policy and decision making).

Economic impact has largely been measured using cost-benefit analysis or a return on investment approach (including a social return on investment). Over the effect life cycle, public research is valued at 3 to 8 times the initial investment. Median annual rates of return are between 20\% and 50\% but this varies considerably between sectors. (Georghiou (2015)) . At an aggregate level, the return on investment in Australian disaster research has been estimated at between $1.17 to $1.40 for each dollar invested (Access Economics, 2003, Access Economics, 2008) . As most of the research within the natural hazard sector does not produce goods or services which pass through a market, a non-market method of valuing outcomes is required. The application of public value theory has created methodologies including public value mapping to understand the non-economic and non-scientific goals of research; that is, the core values (public values) of the research.

There is no specific framework for assessing the value of research in the bushfire and wildfire context, however adaptation of the {\textquotedblleft}pathways to research impact{\textquotedblright} tool created by Cruz Rivera et al. (2017) may be helpful in achieving appropriate impact measurement.\ 

}, keywords = {cost-effective, economics, Emergency management, Natural disasters, Policy, risk management}, issn = {505}, author = {Ken Strahan and Adriana Keating and John Handmer} } @article {BF-3336, title = {Visions of Sharing Responsibility for Disaster Resilience - Account of a multi-stakeholder workshop}, year = {2012}, month = {March 2012}, institution = {RMIT}, abstract = {This one-day workshop examined the idea and practice of sharing responsibility for disaster resilience. The idea of {\textquoteleft}shared responsibility{\textquoteright} is shaping emergency management thinking in Australia. It has gained significant policy traction following the Victorian 2009 Bushfires Royal Commission and the release of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience. Similar ideas have been circulating in other sectors for some time. Yet it is not clear what the idea really means or what its implications are for policy and practice. The workshop, held on Thursday 29th March 2012, aimed to address two general questions: {\textbullet} First, the idea: what does the idea of {\textquoteleft}shared responsibility{\textquoteright} mean, and what are its implications? {\textbullet} Second, the practice: is it a useful policy concept, and if yes what needs to be done to implement it, and what could undermine it? The workshop was hosted by RMIT{\textquoteright}s Centre for Risk and Community Safety (CRaCS) in the School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences. It was organised on behalf of the Bushfire CRC and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility{\textquoteright}s (NCCARF) Emergency Management Network. Carbon credits were purchased to offset the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the event. This public account of the workshop has been prepared so that others who were unable to attend the workshop can also see the range of issues and perspectives that were voiced at the workshop.}, author = {Karyn Bosomworth and Adriana Keating and Tarn Kruger and Briony Towers} }