@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-8039, title = {Value Tool for Natural Hazards: Guidelines}, number = {361.2018}, year = {2018}, month = {06/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

The {\textquotedblleft}Value Tool for Natural Hazards{\textquotedblright} comprises of a Value Tool Database, which provides a collection of non-market value estimates relevant to natural hazards, and these Value Tool Guidelines, which describe how to use the values collated in the Database. The purpose of the Value Tool is to provide an accessible list of non-market value estimates for policy makers to use in decision making about natural hazard management.

The non-market or intangible benefits and costs of natural hazards are large in many cases, and should be accounted for in prioritising investment in natural hazard mitigation. We recommend that non-market values should be considered in natural hazard decision making as follows:

The Guidelines provide an overview of non-market values and benefit transfer for natural hazard decision making as follows:\ 

The Value Tool Database and Guidelines provide guidance on how the non-market value estimates should be used, and the policy contexts under which they are best suited for use. We recognise that the non-market valuation literature is incomplete with respect to providing highly accurate value estimates for all of the value types that might be affected by a natural hazard (see Section 3). However, we advocate that the use of an approximate number is usually better than no number, when it comes to decision making. It is better to have some information about the intangible benefits of a decision, than to ignore them completely: the error, and decision bias, resulting from the latter is likely to be far greater than the error from using an inaccurate number.

Provided the policy maker is aware of the potential for this error, uses a conservative approach for transferring values, and undertakes appropriate sensitivity analysis in analyses that use those values, then the values can provide useful, quantitative information for decision making. As noted above, in some cases, where a value transfer is too unreliable, we don{\textquoteright}t recommend using the values in a quantitative analysis, but suggest using them in a qualitative manner to inform thinking about particular policies.

}, keywords = {guidelines, hazards, natural, tool, Value}, issn = {361}, author = {Abbie Rogers and Fiona L Gibson and Peter Boxall and Michael Burton and Jacob Hawkins and Robert Johnston and Marit Kragt and John Rolfe and David J Pannell} }