@article {bnh-7902, title = {Hazards, culture and Indigenous communities {\textendash} final project report}, number = {654}, year = {2021}, month = {03/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This is the Final Report of the Hazards, Culture and Indigenous Communities (HCIC) project. This project considered the challenges and opportunities arising out of engagements between Indigenous peoples and natural hazard and land management government agencies in southern Australia. The majority of this activity has focused on cultural burning, which has also been our focus.

Significantly, there is very limited existing research about these engagements, and limited public sector experience in engaging with Indigenous peoples. This constrains evidenced-based policy and practice and practitioner decision making. This lack of capacity was clear in the responses to the 2019-20 bushfires. The natural hazard sector is now required to do this retrospective and forward-looking learning, to foster more culturally safe natural hazard mitigation, and better connect the logics of hazards, risk and resilience. Indeed, our research found that when the sector does not account for cultural protocols and permissions as part of its core business, this produces barriers to collaboration because it:

We undertook qualitative research, primarily through forming partnerships with key practitioners working in this space and undertaking research activities that iteratively learnt from these partnerships. In this, researching both Indigenous and non-indigenous values has been important in order to navigate and analyse this intercultural context.\ 

Our research findings are structured in two sections: the first presents the results from our literature review, the second presents a synthesis of the research findings arranged under six headings, as listed below, with recommended first steps for the natural hazard sector under each heading. Given previous sector and research practices, the suggested first steps require significant sector leadership and investment in Indigenous-led research.

Research findings

Unfamiliarity with the context itself

There needs to be a rapid growth in sector capacity in understanding the context itself, especially:

Essentially, the sector needs to understand where it sits in relation to Indigenous peoples.

Trust and partnerships

The shared motivations held by some Indigenous and non-indigenous individuals to form collaborative partnerships are challenged by their operating context, including a lack of trust, bureaucratic constraints, tokenism, racism, and a lack of resources. The sector needs to move beyond statements of support, to develop specific policies and programs that demonstrably grow opportunities for Indigenous engagement and partnership. We suggest these policies should be:

Centring Country and First Peoples

It is clear from our research that if emerging collaborations are to be sustainable, Aboriginal people need to be centred on meaningful terms across a suite of natural hazard practices and policies. We suggest this should involve:

Administration and regulation

There is a clear need for more culturally appropriate and equitable regulatory, training and qualification regimes for bushfire management across Australia. From our research findings this includes:\ 

Expert evidence and erasure

Academic and government research has failed, almost without exception, to consider Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} experiences with natural hazards in southern Australia. To address this imbalance, the public sector needs to create specific funding streams to address this research gap. These funding schemes should be:

Accounting and reporting

Our research showed that there was very little attention given by the sector to accounting and reporting their policy commitments and legal obligations towards Aboriginal peoples, reducing sector transparency, accountability and coordination. In response, we suggest that a;; land and emergency management agencies should include in their annual reports details about:

We emphasise that conducting a cultural burn in of itself is not necessarily a good outcome, as the value of the cultural burn is dependent on the meaningful involvement of First Peoples.

Fundamentally, we argue that the sector and Aboriginal peoples have to build capacity, meet, and be more organised locally and across larger regions. To do so, we suggest:

In summary, we suggest that land and emergency management agencies need to:

Concluding remarks

With the recent catastrophic bushfires, there is an expressed demand for greater engagement with Indigenous peoples iconic burning practices. More generally, it may be that the public sector has reached a tipping point, whereby adversarial approaches to working with Indigenous peoples are being authentically replaced with partnership approaches. In this, the findings are not just of relevance to the natural hazard sector, but across other public sector practice.

Fundamentally, sector leadership has to consider: why and how it wishes to collaborate with Indigenous peoples; allocate the resources and time to understand the status quo that has excluded Indigenous people to date; create processes and structures to support Indigenous leadership, participation and collaboration across the sector; and, address deficiencies in how sector performance is currently measured and reported.

}, keywords = {communities, culture, hazards, indigenous}, issn = {654}, author = {Jessica Weir and Timothy Neale and Will Smith} } @article {bnh-6839, title = {A case study of disaster decision-making in the presence of anomalies and absence of recognition}, journal = {Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management}, year = {2020}, month = {04/2020}, abstract = {

This paper provides an insight into the complexities of decision-making during an unprecedented disaster. We used the critical decision method to explore a series of decision points that were made for a low probability yet high consequence decision that was made by the commander of the Australian Urban Search and Rescue team deployed to Fukushima in 2011. The findings identified that in a situation with no similarities to previous experiences, the commander used a process of anomaly detection to trigger a situational assessment, following this with mental simulation and consultation of his actions. In this unparalleled case study, hazard-specific expertise also supported the decision-making process. The paper offers practitioners and academia an example of high consequence decision-making in a unique situation as well as the opportunity to reflect on the models of decision-making previously identified as useful in these operational environments.

}, keywords = {crisis management, Decision making, Disaster management, hazards}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12290}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-5973.12290}, author = {Steve Curnin and Brooks, B and Owen, Christine} } @article {bnh-7028, title = {Hazards, culture and Indigenous communities {\textendash} annual report 2018-2019}, number = {585}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Over the past decade, there has been an increasing amount of public attention focused on the contributions that Aboriginal people, and their knowledge and practices, make to resilience and sustainability agendas in Australia. Given the emerging commitment of natural hazards agencies in southern Australia to engagement and collaboration with Aboriginal people, the increasing level of legal recognition accorded to Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} land rights, and Aboriginal peoples{\textquoteright} own investment and interest in engaging in forms of natural hazard management, it is important that researchers support this work to understand and document how beneficial and respectful collaborations can be fostered.

The second year of the Hazards, culture and Indigenous communities (HCIC) project has focused on completing fieldwork for the case studies and practitioner survey, continuing to produce scholarly and industry-focused publications and maintaining strong end-user engagement. Our preliminary findings show that:

These findings are arising out of our key activities from the project. In this year, we report on:

Significantly, as part of our end-user engagement, we convened a workshop at AFAC18 that recommended:

These recommendations were passed onto our end-user team to take forward. They are also informing the preparations for the AFAC20 conference in Adelaide.

}, keywords = {culture, hazards, indigenous communities}, issn = {585}, author = {Will Smith and Jessica Weir and Timothy Neale} } @article {bnh-7185, title = {Hazards, culture and indigenous communities: socio-institutional modules for utilisation}, number = {595}, year = {2020}, month = {08/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

These Modules provide background information to support existing and potential collaborations between the natural hazards management sector and Indigenous peoples and their communities.

The modules are specifically written for bushfire risk and its mitigation through land management activities, with the focus being Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} burning practices. This reflects where most of the collaborations are occurring in southern Australia, and also our research activities. The modules nonetheless offer support for other natural hazard contexts and other risk mitigation activities.

We have used the term {\textquoteleft}module{\textquoteright} rather than {\textquoteleft}guide{\textquoteright} to ensure readers understand these are simply presented as tools and are not intended to provide advice about the priorities and values of Indigenous peoples. It is particularly important for non-Indigenous people to learn directly from the Indigenous people they are collaborating with. Further, each collaboration will have specific cultural, social, legal, institutional and other norms, structures and processes.

In each model we have provided links for further information, and/or suggested reading lists.

Module 1: Governance norms

This module provides a general overview of governance arrangements. In it, we highlight differences and interactions between Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} governance and the statutory governance of fire by state agencies across Australia.

Module 2: Natural hazards management sector terminology

Natural hazard terminology is not widely known outside the sector. This is true for both formal terms used in planning and policy documentation, and also colloquial and informal language.

In this module, we define some of the basic concepts used in state fire fighting and mitigation activities.

Module 3: Language and meaning

Misunderstandings surround some of the basic language and meaning of terms and concepts used by different people engaged in the management of natural hazards and Country and this can hinder fair and effective cooperation. Meeting agendas, everyday conversations and well-meaning attempts to build working relationships can be derailed by missed meanings.

This module contains definitions of concepts that are increasingly deployed to foster equitable and just relationships of knowledge and practice within collaborations between Indigenous peoples, state government and other groups interested in land management:

Module 4: Agreement making

Agreement making, including Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), are used by diverse organisations to set out mutual terms for engagement and action. An MoU may be less formal than an agreement, but not necessarily.

The process of entering into an agreement recognises the existence of substantive joint interests, and the will to establish objectives in relation to those interests. Critically, agreements need to include consideration of:

These capacities are not just about the sharing of financial resources to prepare for and attend meetings, and to implement objectives, but also to ensure that parties are able to engage in meaningful communication with each other.

Module 5: Resources

In this module, we provide resources on publications by Indigenous authors about Indigenous governance and culture, as well as weblinks to a range of Indigenous and non-Indigenous sites of relevance.

}, keywords = {culture, hazards, indigenous communities, utilisation models}, issn = {595}, author = {Jessica Weir and Will Smith and Timothy Neale} } @article {bnh-5488, title = {Fire in the south: a cross-continental exchange}, number = {475}, year = {2019}, month = {04/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report documents a trip undertaken across southern Western Australia (WA) to exchange knowledge from south eastern Australia about cultural burning with traditional owners and fire authorities in Norseman, Esperance, Nowanup, Albany, Bunbury and Perth. The journey took place in the anticipatory shadow of catastrophic wildfires that can destroy, and have destroyed, much of value in this part of the world.

The key learnings are summarised under the headings: Fire and life, At-risk values, Healing, Cultural burning as a contemporary practice, Volunteer training and fire skills, Relations and repair, and, East-West engagement across southern Australia. We also summarise the presentations by Dean Freeman about the ACT government cultural burning program. Together, these summaries form the substantive content of the report. They are supplemented by anecdotal accounts of each meeting, as well as background information on native title and other key terminology and concepts.

Fundamentally, the Aboriginal people we met with talked about the importance of understanding fire differently, to reposition it as not just something to fear, but as central to the regeneration of life. At the same time, all were concerned about the growth in catastrophic wildfires, and this intensified the focus on anticipatory land management practices.

Within this broader framing, the knowledge exchanged on this trip reflected that:

As a consequence of significant societal change to recognise and celebrate First Nations peoples in Australia, British derived systems of governance are required to work with Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} political entities, including partnering on fire management issues. Concomitantly, the public sector and political leadership needs to think closely about what is meant by {\textquoteleft}the public good{\textquoteright} in their policies and programs {\textendash} that is, who is the public and what do they consider is good? Whilst northern Australia is an emblematic focus of activity by and for Indigenous Australia, the majority of Australia{\textquoteright}s Indigenous people live in southern Australia, and with the recognition of native title they are now the largest land holders in southern Australia. The ACT government{\textquoteright}s support of cultural burning is one example of how fire management is being refashioned with neither land rights nor native title, but motivated individuals doing the work to make it possible, because it is the right thing to do.

Significantly, fundamental shifts in the nature of land holding in Australia are bringing the public sector into greater exposure with the connected thinking and governing systems that arise out of Indigenous peoples{\textquoteright} relationships with Country. However, throughout Australia there is much more healing that needs to be done for such intercultural engagement to progress and be more meaningful for Indigenous people, including in material terms. The key players are in a good position to invest in the good will and work that is already present and take this forward.

}, keywords = {culture, Fire, hazards, indigenous communities}, issn = {475}, author = {Jessica Weir and Dean Freeman} } @article {bnh-5430, title = {Mapping Bushfire Hazard and Impacts Annual Report 2017-2018}, number = {462}, year = {2019}, month = {03/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {
Understanding and predicting fire behaviour is a priority for fire services, land managers and sometimes individual businesses and residents. This is an\ enormous scientific challenge given bushfires are complex phenomena, with\ their behaviour and resultant severity driven\ by\ complicated interactions\ among living and dead vegetation, topography and weather conditions.\ A good understanding of fire risk across the landscape is critical in preparing\ and responding to bushfire events and managing fire regimes, and remote\ sensing data will enhance this understanding. However, the vast array of spatial\ data sources available is not being used ve\ ry effectively in fire management.\ This project uses remote sensing observations\ to\ produce spatial information on\ fire hazard and impacts needed by planners, land managers and emergency\ services\ to effectively manage fire at landscape scales. The group works\ closely with ACT Parks and Conservation Service and agencies beyond the\ ACT to better understand their procedures and information needs, comparing\ these with the spatial data and mapping methods that are readily available,\ and developing the next generation of mapping technologies to help them\ prepare and respond to bushfires.
}, keywords = {Bushfire, fire impacts, hazards, mapping fire}, author = {Marta Yebra and Albert van Dijk and Geoffrey J. Cary} } @article {bnh-5928, title = {Mapping bushfire hazards and impacts annual report 2018-2019}, number = {511}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This annual report is the output from the Bushfire and National Hazards CRC (BNHCRC), Project A1 {\textquoteleft}Mapping Bushfire Hazard and Impacts{\textquoteright}. It summarises the project objectives, introduces the team members as well as documents the project progress and outcomes during the financial year 2018/2019.

During this financial year we have:

  1. Worked on a comprehensive characterization of fire risk conditions through the integration of fire weather, dead Fuel Moisture Content (FMC) and total biomass into the Australian Flammability Monitoring System (AFMS);
  2. Worked on AFMS website version 3 that incorporated feedback on the trial utilisation of the data service;
  3. Evaluated the feasibility and benefits of the operational use of alternative satellite data in AFMS to ensure long-term data continuity;
  4. Coupled a process-based model that simulates litter fuel moisture and a distributed biophysical model (the Australian Water Resources Assessment system Landscape model) to predict dead fuel moisture content;
  5. Published six journal manuscripts, seventeen conference abstracts and one milestone reports with another one in preparation. We have also had eight appearances in the media;
  6. Hosted two international exchange visits and were approached by more than 30 domestic and international applicants for a PhD scholarship or postdoc position in bushfire research; and
  7. Submitted an application for utilisation funds from the BNHCRC to develop a high-resolution prototype version of AFMS.

Over the next year (2019-2020), this research project will focus on finishing the analysis on the fire risk index as well as using remote sensing data to derive spatial and temporal explicit fuel accumulation curves. In terms of utilization, we will liaise with Geoscience Australia (GA) on transitioning the AFMS as GA has agreed to be in charge of the long term operationalization and maintenance.

}, keywords = {bushfires, fire behavior, fire impacts, hazards, impacts, mapping}, issn = {511}, author = {Marta Yebra and Albert van Dijk and Geoffrey J. Cary and Li Zhao and Honghao Zeng} } @article {bnh-6395, title = {The potential role of the commonwealth in responding to catastrophic disasters}, number = {530}, year = {2019}, month = {05/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

he research question posed, and considered in this paper, is {\textquoteleft}in the absence of legislation, what is the role in, and more importantly what power might the Commonwealth have, when responding and recovering from a catastrophic disaster? Currently the Commonwealth has no overarching or specific counter-disaster legislation.\  This paper argues that even in the absence of legislation there is Commonwealth power to respond to emergencies within the areas of Commonwealth responsibility.\  Further there is an inherent power to deal with catastrophic disasters vested in the Crown as part of the prerogative power of the Crown and now incorporated into the Executive Power of the Commonwealth.\  Exactly what constitutes a {\textquoteleft}catastrophic disaster{\textquoteright} would be open to debate and, in the absence of legislation, may be the subject of judicial challenge. It is argued that a disaster where a state government is overwhelmed so that the state itself is at risk of collapse and there is no effective state government would be a national catastrophic disaster that would justify Commonwealth intervention in the affairs of the state in order to restore effective state government.\  What disaster, short of the collapse of state government, would be sufficient for direct Commonwealth action cannot be conclusively defined.\  \ 
In the absence of legislation and a truly catastrophic event, the Commonwealth{\textquoteright}s authority to exercise national leadership and coordinate Commonwealth, state and private assets will depend on good will and cooperation.\  The extent of the Commonwealth{\textquoteright}s executive power cannot be identified until the circumstances of the particular disaster have been identified.
Failing to define, in legislation, the role and power of the Commonwealth will leave the Commonwealth to {\textquoteleft}cope ugly{\textquoteright} with any particular catastrophe.\  That may be acceptable as it will leave the Commonwealth with adaptive flexibility. It has however been a consistent recommendation of commentators that the Commonwealth should legislate to ensure that the Commonwealth is able to cope with an inevitable catastrophe.\  \ 
The absence of legislation makes it impossible to define, except in the most generic terms, what the Commonwealth{\textquoteright}s powers are.

}, keywords = {Cascading Events, Collapse, Disaster management, Emergency management, Fire, hazards}, issn = {530}, author = {Michael Eburn and Cameron Moore and Andrew Gissing} } @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} } @conference {bnh-6026, title = {Analytical Model for Seismic Retrofit of Concrete Beam-Column Joint using Diagonal Metallic Haunch}, booktitle = {World Congress on Advances in Structural Engineering and Mechanics}, year = {2017}, month = {01/09/2017}, publisher = {Swinburne University of Technology}, organization = {Swinburne University of Technology}, address = {Korea}, abstract = {

Exterior beam-column joint is typically the weakest link in a limited-ductile concrete frame structure. The use of diagonal haunch element has been considered as a desirable seismic retrofit option for reducing the seismic demand at the joint. Previous research globally has focused on implementing double haunches, whilst the performance of using single haunch element as a less-invasive and more architecturally favourable retrofit option has not been investigated. In this study, the feasibility of using a single haunch system for retrofitting RC exterior beam-column joint is explored. This paper presents the key formulations and illustrates its effectiveness by investigating the changes in the shear demand at the joint through a case study.

}, keywords = {building, building disaster proof, construction, Emergency management, engineering, hazards, risk management}, author = {Hing-Ho Tsang and Zabihi, Alireza and Emad F Gad and John Wilson} }