@article {bnh-8302, title = {Struggling to make sense of it all: the emotional process of sensemaking following an extreme incident}, journal = {Human Relations}, year = {2021}, month = {12/2021}, abstract = {

Organizations operating in extreme contexts regularly face dangerous incidents they can neither prevent nor easily control. In such circumstances, successful sensemaking can mean the difference between life and death. But what happens afterwards? Our study of emergency management practitioners following a major bushfire reveals a process of post-incident sensemaking during which practitioners continue to make sense of the incident after it ends, during the subsequent public inquiry, and as they try to implement the inquiry{\textquoteright}s recommendations. Different varieties of sensemaking arise during this process as practitioners rely on different forms of coping to develop and share new understandings, which not only make sense of the original incident, but also enable changes to help the organization deal with future incidents. Our study also shows that practitioners experience a range of emotions during this process, some of which inhibit sensemaking while others {\textendash} particularly different forms of anxiety {\textendash} can facilitate it. Our study makes an important empirical contribution to recent theoretical work on varieties of sensemaking and provides new insights into the complex role of emotions in sensemaking in extreme contexts.

}, keywords = {Coping, crises and disasters, emotions, inquiries, organisational change, sensemaking}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177\%2F00187267211059464}, url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00187267211059464}, author = {Graham Dwyer and Cynthia Hardy and Haridimos Tsoukas} } @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-5745, title = {Restorative inquiries and natural disasters - symposium report}, number = {495}, year = {2019}, month = {07/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In October 2016, the Policies Institutions and Governance of Natural Hazards research project released a discussion paper on {\textquoteleft}Learning for emergency services, looking for a new approach{\textquoteright}. As a result of feedback on that paper a forum was held to discuss the use of restorative practices in post event inquiries.
This forum, held at the Universtiy of Newcastle, identified that:

Communities and people need to be at the centre of the process. Those affected need to be involved in designing the process and taking responsibilities for implementing the learning. In traditional inquiries the inquiry decides what is important, makes meaning from the evidence and hands down its recommendations to others. It does not have responsibility to implement the recommendations and the findings may not be about what matters to those involved.

This report summarises the presentations and their findings to stimulate agencies and governments to think about alternative ways to conduct post event inquiries.

}, keywords = {communities, inquiries, Research utilisation}, issn = {495}, author = {Michael Eburn} } @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-1640, title = {Learning Lessons from Disasters: Alternatives to Royal Commissions and Other Quasi-Judicial Inquiries}, journal = {Australian Journal of Public Administration}, volume = {74}, year = {2015}, month = {20/01/2015}, pages = {495-508}, chapter = {495}, abstract = {

With over 50 inquiries in 75 years, Australian communities continue to suffer from the impact of extreme events whether fires, floods, cyclones, or other emergencies. Einstein is reported to have said {\textquoteleft}Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results{\textquoteright}. The insanity may not lie in responding to fires and emergencies the same way, and facing another tragedy, but in reviewing these events in the same way and expecting the quasi-judicial process to identify how to prevent the next one. This paper argues that it is time to do the post-event review in a different way and suggests some possible options for new approaches to learning lessons from tragedy.

}, keywords = {disasters, inquiries, royal commission}, doi = {10.1111/1467-8500.12115}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12115/full}, author = {Michael Eburn and Dovers, Steve} }