@article {bnh-6977, title = {Australian inquiries into natural hazard events: Recommendations relating to urban planning for natural hazard mitigation (2009-2017)}, number = {571}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This document reports on an assessment of major Australian post disaster and emergency event inquiries and reviews from the past 10 years in terms of recommendations relating to the integration of urban planning and natural hazard mitigation.

Findings from this review must be understood in the context of inquiries {\textendash}examinations of events seeking mainly to identify problems and areas for improvement.\  Accordingly, the recommendations do not typically highlight successes or existing strengths, even while these may be well understood and recognised by those involved. Additionally, this report has avoided making detailed assessments of the numbers of various recommendation types, given the uneven distribution of a relatively low number of events. Nonetheless, the emphases upon certain areas and omission of others suggest areas for future improvement.

}, keywords = {events, inquiries, mitigation, Natural hazards, urban planning}, issn = {571}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-7341, title = {A Culture of Burning: Social-Ecological Memory, Social Learning and Adaptation in Australian Volunteer Fire Brigades}, journal = {Society and Natural Resources}, year = {2020}, month = {09/2020}, abstract = {

While Australian government agencies are increasingly emphasizing the need to {\textquotedblleft}build community resilience{\textquotedblright} to bushfires, communities in many rural landscapes have a strong history of actively managing fire risk, in particular through involvement in volunteer fire brigades. This paper explores social-ecological memory, social learning, and adaptation in volunteer Country Fire Authority brigades in western Victoria, specifically in the context of planned burning of strategic roadside fire breaks. It examines the relationships between local knowledge, narratives and practices of burning and how these shape volunteer identities, embodying {\textquotedblleft}shared responsibility{\textquotedblright}. Findings show that participation in roadside burning is critical for supporting social learning and ongoing community engagement in fire management. However, changing land uses, social demographics and regulatory processes are negatively impacting local volunteer capacities. While brigades have responded by re-organizing their practices, questions remain as to what extent this constitutes adaptation or transformation connecting to broader landscape-level risk management.

}, keywords = {adaptation, Bushfire, community-based fire management, planned burning, resilience, volunteering}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1819494}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08941920.2020.1819494}, author = {Sarah Dickson-Hoyle and Ruth Beilin and Karen Reid} } @article {bnh-6576, title = {Integrated urban planning for natural hazard mitigation}, number = {535}, year = {2020}, month = {01/2020}, institution = {Bushfire \& Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report is the third in a series produced for the BNHCRC-funded project Integrating Urban Planning and Natural Hazard Mitigation. The first report constituted a theoretical exploration of integration between urban planning and emergency management supported by an overarching understanding of national and state contexts for these two fields of inquiry and practice, with a focus on the states of Victoria and South Australia. This report generated a preliminary framework used to subsequently interrogate a series of urbanplanning-related recommendations from royal commissions of inquiry and reviews targeting natural-hazard-related events in the past ten years, summarised in the second report.

Building on the preliminary framework of integration previously developed, this current report presents the development of an analytical framework for assessing integration between urban planning and emergency management arrangements and practice and its application in a real case in the state of Victoria. Findings presented in this report serves as the basis for the analysis of the South Australian case of integration in a moment when its planning system is under considerate reforms. A separate report containing findings from this subsequent analysis is to be submitted next.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, mitigation, Natural hazards, Risk assessment, urban planning}, issn = {535}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-7013, title = {Integrating bushfire risk reduction and statutory mechanisms in South Australia: assessment of the draft Planning and Design Code 2019}, number = {584}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Bushfires pose significant threats to life and property in many parts of Australia.\  The frequency and intensity of bushfires are increasing over time in association with worsening weather conditions that support extreme fires (Dowdy, 2018) and ongoing settlement growth (Allen, 2018). High bushfire risks generally occur when fires interact with human settlements, where housing and other structures are near flammable vegetation and associated impacts such as ember attack.

This report is an output of the wider project {\textquotedblleft}Integrating Urban Planning with Disaster Risk Reduction{\textquotedblright} funded by the Bushfire Natural Hazard Cooperative Research Centre. It is part of a critical review of the integration of emergency management and urban planning in South Australia focusing on the detail of bushfire treatment mechanisms proposed in the State Planning Reform Document Draft Planning and Design Code {\textendash} Phase 2 Rural Areas (DPTI, 2019b) released in October 2019 by the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure, and State Planning Commission. In parallel, the review also considered other relevant regulations and codes such as AS 3959-2018 Building in Bushfire Prone Areas (Standards Australia - Committee FP-020, 2019) and Ministerial Building Standard MBS008 Designated Bushfire Prone Areas {\textendash} Draft October 2019 (DPTI, 2019a). The present report provides a basis for later work in subsequent stages that develops new approaches and improvements in collaboration with practitioners.

The review begins by setting out the conceptual and theoretical basis of integration and moves to presenting a general description of bushfires and the main factors that contribute to bushfire risks in the built environment. Then, it sets out the main elements of investigation relating to the integration of bushfire risk reduction in the built environment, summarising the adopted research approach and the role of this report in the wider research project. Then the report moves to critically analysing the outcomes of applying these integration principles to bushfire risks as they are dealt with by the draft Code. Findings point to elements of the Code that could be improved to reduce risks across the areas of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.

}, keywords = {bushfires, planning and design code, risk reduction, south australia}, issn = {584}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-7510, title = {Urban planning and natural hazard risk reduction: critical frameworks for best practice}, number = {631}, year = {2020}, month = {11/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

Urban planning offers a range of potential benefits to reduce or even avoid many of the risks associated with natural hazards.\  However, it is is not always fully utilised as a core mechanism to manage natural hazard risks, particularly those relating to human settlements.

This document sets out a critical framework to guide improved integration of land use planning and wider natural hazard risk reduction actions. It is intended to support emergency managers and urban and regional planning practitioners in the complex task of integrating land use planning and disaster risk reduction in different Australian jurisdictions. The critical framework has been designed to speak to current terminology, processes and arrangements already used by these audiences.

The diagnostioc tools are scalable and adapatable to various circumstances and needs. Hence, the diagnoses can be applied to particiular hazards, certain geographical places, parts of or the entire planning system, or specific challenges associated with disaster risk reductions.

Three interconnected elements comprise the diagnstic tools, based on developing and applying knowledge regarding:

  1. Natural Hazards, the sources of harm or situations with a potential to cause loss with their core transmission systems in the natural world.0F[1]
  2. Cross-Cutting Themes, core disaster risk reduction principles that apply to all urban planning, settlement and natural hazard circumstances.
  3. Diagnostic Focus Areas, risk reduction principles that relate to key categories of urban planning, communities and the range of other systems they interact with.

The diagnostic tool includes a sequenced approach to examine complex situations and to develop logical and evidence-based directions for improved urban planning. This also allows improved connections with wider Disaster Risk Reduction practices.\ 

1 {\textendash} Establish Context, scope and key focus

2 {\textendash} Analyse focus area(s) in terms of relevant hazards

3 {\textendash} Analyse focus area(s) in terms of cross-cutting themes and challenges

4 {\textendash} Analyse focus area(s) in terms of specific diagnostic focus areas

5 {\textendash} Review and adjust or modify as appropriate

[1] It is assumed here that expertise and data will mainly come from a variety of credible sources as a basis for effective action.\  Accordingly, detailed descriptions of each hazard are not included here. Rather, reference to more exhaustive materials available elsewhere is provided.

}, keywords = {frameworks, natural hazard, practice, risk reduction, urban planning}, issn = {631}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Hedwig van Delden and Janet Stanley and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-7164, title = {Urban planning capabilities for bushfire: treatment categories and scenario testing}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {35}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, pages = {32-40}, abstract = {

The challenges facing settlements relating to bushfire require integrated approaches that manage risks across a wide range of factors. This paper sets out a framework demonstrating how urban planning, when coupled with appropriate decision support and future scenario testing, can reduce risks relating to bushfire while considering future growth. Examples of how planning can modify aspects of risk in association with scenario testing are included. Five main categories of risk reduction treatments are shown. The paper contributes to risk reduction by providing practical mechanisms for risk avoidance and treatment via urban and land-use planning systems combined with forward scenario testing to guide existing settlements and future growth.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, capabilities, scenario testing, treatment, urban planning}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-july-2020-urban-planning-capabilities-for-bushfire-treatment-categories-and-scenario-testing/}, author = {Alan March and Graeme Riddell and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Dovers, Steve and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-6577, title = {Integrating bushfire risk reduction and statutory mechanisms in South Australia}, number = {536}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, institution = {Bushfire \& Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Bushfires pose significant threats to life and property in many parts of Australia. The frequency and intensity of bushfires are increasing over time in association with worsening weather conditions that support extreme fires (Dowdy, 2018) and ongoing settlement growth (Allen, 2018). High bushfire risks generally occur when fires interact with human settlements, where housing and other structures are near flammable vegetation and associated impacts such as ember attack.

This report is an output of the wider project {\textquotedblleft}Integrating Urban Planning with Disaster Risk Reduction{\textquotedblright} funded by the Bushfire Natural Hazard Cooperative Research Centre. It is part of a critical review of the integration of emergency management and urban planning in South Australia focusing on the detail of bushfire treatment mechanisms proposed in the State Planning Reform Document Draft Planning and Design Code {\textendash} Phase 2 Rural Areas (DPTI, 2019b) released in October 2019 by the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure, and State Planning Commission. In parallel, the review also considered other relevant regulations and codes such as AS 3959-2018 Building in Bushfire Prone Areas (Standards Australia - Committee FP-020, 2019) and Ministerial Building Standard MBS008 Designated Bushfire Prone Areas {\textendash} Draft October 2019 (DPTI, 2019a). The present report provides a basis for later work in subsequent stages that develops new approaches and improvements in collaboration with practitioners.

The review begins by setting out the conceptual and theoretical basis of integration and moves to presenting a general description of bushfires and the main factors that contribute to bushfire risks in the built environment. Then, it sets out the main elements of investigation relating to the integration of bushfire risk reduction in the built environment, summarising the adopted research approach and the role of this report in the wider research project. Then the report moves to critically analysing the outcomes of applying these integration principles to bushfire risks as they are dealt with by the draft Code. Findings point to elements of the Code that could be improved to reduce risks across the areas of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, mechanisms, risk reduction}, issn = {536}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-6665, title = {Australian inquiries into natural hazard events}, number = {544}, year = {2018}, month = {11/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This is the second research report for the Integrated Urban Planning for Natural Hazard Mitigation BNH-CRC project and constitutes a preliminary assessment of selected current approaches to integrating urban planning and natural hazard mitigation. Major post-event inquiries can play an important role in pushing for the reform of current urban planning arrangements to target disaster risk reduction. This was evident in the implementation of the Bushfire Management Overlay (see Appendix 1) and related statutory mechanisms in the State of Victoria after the 2009 Bushfires. Furthermore, recommendations can shed light on areas perceived as gaps during wider assessments of causes and contributory factors relating to major hazard events. Therefore, a review of urban-planning-related recommendations following major post-event inquiries and reviews across all-natural hazards will form the basis of this report, considering the role of urban planning in reducing emergent and legacy risks associated with the built environment.

The form of post-event inquiries varies widely, from the focused, technical and brief, to wide-ranging and lengthy such as those carried out by a Royal Commission (Eburn \& Dovers, 2015). While the recommendations of inquiries are very rarely binding on governments, they nonetheless carry significant weight and implementation is the norm. There were 142 post-event inquiries in Australia between 2009 and 2017, constituting by far the largest body of evaluation data regarding actual or perceived issues in disaster prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. This report begins to explore those recommendations from 55 major inquiries that relate to urban planning (Cole, Dovers, Eburn, \& Gough, 2017; Cole, Dovers, Gough, \& Eburn, 2018).

In this context, a preliminary assessment of urban-planning-related recommendations put forward by major post-event inquiries and reviews proved a worthwhile undertaking as the first step into understanding current approaches to integrating urban planning and natural hazard mitigation in the past 10 years.

The assessment of these recommendations was informed by the analytical framework developed in the first research report for this project, developed through a review of relevant literature and in consultation with end-users. This analytical framework proposed a set of elements of an approach to integration, and a general list of urban planning tools and another of urban planning treatments of risk that can be used to support natural hazard mitigation.

Assessing urban-planning-related recommendations against the set of categories proposed in this analytical framework targeted both the mapping of these recommendations to unveil concentrations as well as the testing and expansion of the framework through its first practical application.

Findings from this preliminary assessment will inform the next stage of this research project which consists in the assessment of specific Australian and international case studies. The former will provide an opportunity to contrast recommendations with implemented integration while the later holds potential for an expansion of possibilities to integration to those already being employed in Australia.

}, keywords = {events, inquiries, mitigation, Natural hazards, urban planning}, issn = {544}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-4955, title = {Practical and theoretical issues: integrating urban planning and emergency management}, number = {414}, year = {2018}, month = {10/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

This report examines selected examples of integration between urban planning and emergency management in Australia. It seeks to identify initial issues to implementation at National and State level. Overall, this report argues that an integrated approach will require a coordinated framework at the strategic, tactical and operational levels, across functional areas and stakeholders, to establish an effective integrated governance approach that offers desired societal outcomes when faced with extreme events.

The key purpose of urban planning is to bring about improvements and avoid problems in human settlements that would not be achieved without intervention, organization and facilitation (Hall, 2007).\  While urban planning can occur in various forms and can use many mechanisms that seek a range of goals, its actions are primarily oriented to the physical characteristics of cities, towns and regions.\  This combines with the characteristics and distribution of people and the interactions and activities they undertake in various locations as the outcomes of planning.\ 

}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Dovers, Steve and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-1814, title = {It{\textquoteright}s not a {\textquoteleft}thing{\textquoteright} but a {\textquoteleft}place{\textquoteright}: reconceptualising {\textquoteleft}assets{\textquoteright} in the context of fire risk landscapes}, journal = {International Journal of Wildland Fire}, volume = {24}, year = {2015}, month = {12/2014}, pages = {130-137}, type = {Journal}, chapter = {130}, abstract = {

At a national policy level, Australian governments have embraced the notion of shared responsibility between agencies and communities for disaster resilience, including bushfire. Emergency management agencies take an asset-based approach to management based on an assumption that valued places can be quantified by cataloguing individual {\textquoteleft}things{\textquoteright} in the landscape. Implicit in shared responsibility, however, is incorporation of local knowledge of landscape and risk into planning. This already difficult task can be made more complex as local constructions of risk in the landscape sometimes appear at odds with management agency perspectives. This research examined local constructions of bushfire risk in two contrasting Australian landscapes {\textendash} one semi-rural, one peri-urban. The results suggest that local ecological knowledge arises from interactions between people, the landscape and objects (e.g. flora and fauna) in the landscape. Place meanings transcend individual {\textquoteleft}things{\textquoteright}, emerging instead from experience of the whole landscape, both social and ecological and at multiple scales. We argue therefore, that understanding bushfire cannot be segregated from wider social and ecological processes at a landscape level. Shared responsibility will involve respectful and meaningful engagement between agencies and landholders in collaborative planning to ensure local knowledge informs asset-based management.

}, doi = {10.1071/WF14035}, url = {http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/114/paper/WF14035.htm}, author = {Ruth Beilin and Karen Reid} } @article {bnh-1835, title = {Making the landscape {\textquotedblleft}home{\textquotedblright}: Narratives of bushfire and place in Australia}, journal = {Geoforum}, volume = {58}, year = {2015}, month = {01/2015}, pages = {95-103}, chapter = {95}, abstract = {

This study investigated how the meaning of {\textquoteleft}home{\textquoteright} influences the social construction of bushfire in two Australian communities at high risk. An increasing number of Australians are living in proximity to areas of high bushfire risk due to climate, vegetation and demographic changes. Land and Fire Management Agencies recognise an urgent need to understand what motivates residents to take action to mitigate bushfire risk, and individual decisions whether or not to evacuate when bushfire is imminent. In bushfire policy and management, the home is considered to be synonymous with the house and associated built structures. Using a combination of visual and ethnographic research methods, we {\textquoteleft}mapped{\textquoteright} residents{\textquoteright} understanding of {\textquoteleft}home{\textquoteright}. The findings suggest that the concept of {\textquoteleft}home{\textquoteright} embraces more than the private spaces of house and garden. Landscape practices such as gardening with indigenous plant species, ecological restoration, and habitual walking extend the home territory beyond the house and garden and into public landscapes. Physical elements of the landscape such as mountains and locally significant species of trees form part of the {\textquoteleft}imaginary{\textquoteright} of home. These findings are important to the on-going study of the meaning of home. The implications are also significant for land and bushfire managers as they suggest that community education programs that focus solely on the house may fail to connect with people{\textquoteright}s wider sense of home in the landscape.

}, doi = {doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.005}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718514002218}, author = {Karen Reid and Ruth Beilin} } @article {BF-4308, title = {Putting {\textquoteleft}it{\textquoteright} together: mapping the narratives of bushfire and place in two Australian landscapes - final report for the Social construction of fuels in the interface 2 project}, year = {2014}, month = {2014}, abstract = {The landscape means different things to different people and these {\textquoteleft}social constructions{\textquoteright} strongly influence what people value in landscapes and how they think about management. Community landscape values may not always correspond with the assets that fire management agencies prioritise for protection. This pilot research project aimed to (1) understand the underlying social and ecological values people associate with the landscape, and (2) investigate how understanding the interface between scientific-ecological and local-intuitive knowledge can contribute to fire management. Taking a {\textquotedblleft}place-mapping{\textquotedblright} approach, we interviewed residents in two contrasting Australian landscapes {\textendash} the Adelaide Hills and the Southern Grampians. Research participants were asked to {\textquoteleft}mud map{\textquoteright} their social and ecological landscapes at local and regional scales. Key findings from the research were: There is little evidence of an {\textquoteleft}information deficit{\textquoteright} about the risk of bushfire among residents. Many however expect to be taken surprised by fire (local ignition, low risk day) and therefore construct multiple fire plans to suit multiple scenarios. Home-making practices (gardening, planting indigenous species, walking the landscape creating a home-territory) extend the sense of {\textquotedblleft}home{\textquotedblright} into the landscape. Being at home during a fire is therefore about protecting values greater than the house. There is however a tension between homeowner responsibility for mitigation before a fire and lack of control during a fire. The ways people order and prioritise their memory of fire is important. Memory may be a forward construct that helps people deal with future risk. Mapping as a method seems to trigger a memory response that helps people connect intuitive and rational ways of knowing about fire; they connect their social and ecological (biophysical) worlds in this process. These findings should assist managers to assess the fire safety message and the findings support and create new ways to engage with local communities. }, author = {Ruth Beilin and Karen Reid} } @proceedings {BF-4346, title = {Firefighting the {\textquoteleft}Paradox of Place{\textquoteright} {\textendash} The Risks and Dilemmas Associated with Knowing the Place of Fire}, year = {2013}, url = {http://www.bushfirecrc.com/resources/research-report/firefighting-\%E2\%80\%98paradox-place\%E2\%80\%99-\%E2\%80\%93-risks-and-dilemmas-associated-knowing-place}, author = {Tarn Kruger and Ruth Beilin} } @proceedings {BF-3758, title = {Ecological and social {\textquotedblleft}place{\textquotedblright} mapping to assist bushfire management and research}, year = {2012}, pages = {127-131}, abstract = {strategy implies that individual assets and threats in the landscape can be identified and that planning can proceed on that basis. The question that arises however is who decides what is an asset and what is a threat when multiple values are being managed within multiple management regimes. We argue that bushfire knowledge encompasses technical constructs based on for example, the science of fire ecology or fire danger indices; and social constructs grounded in assumptions about how different types of landscapes should be managed (e.g. for biodiversity, amenity or production). Fire management agencies prioritize scientific-technical solutions to wildfire prediction and control. Consequently, the {\textquoteleft}social{\textquoteright} revolves around one-way knowledge transfer, communicating the science to people living in fire-prone communities. We apply resilience thinking to bushfire research by focusing on complex and interdependent social and ecological systems as linked domains of understanding. Using the metaphor of {\textquoteleft}landscape{\textquoteright} as the location where social and ecological systems are entwined (e.g. Meinig 1979), we explore bushfire as a physical reality comprised of topographies, and ecological systems; and as a social process involving practices of negotiation and interpretation that shape landscape management. ...}, url = {http://www.iawfonline.org/pdf/3rd\%20Human\%20Dimensions\%20Conference\%20Proceedings\%20-\%20FINAL.pdf}, author = {Karen Reid and Ruth Beilin} }