@article {bnh-7952, title = {Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for building related earthquake risk - final project report}, number = {657}, year = {2021}, month = {04/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This final report contains a summary of the research undertaken by the research team from four partner institutions towards the development of an evidence base to inform decision making on the mitigation of the seismic risk posed by the most vulnerable Australian buildings subject to earthquakes.\  Without this evidence base, it is impossible to make cost-effective and economically justifiable decisions by building owners and government officials on all matters concerning seismic strengthening of existing and design of new buildings.\  While the focus of this project is on buildings, many of the project outputs will also be relevant for other Australian infrastructure such as bridges, roads and ports, while at the same time complementing other {\textquoteleft}Natural Hazards{\textquoteright} CRC project proposals for severe wind and flood.\ 

In order to achieve the overall project aim, work was undertaken on three complementary fronts to:

  1. Understand the seismic vulnerabilities of existing unreinforced masonry (URM) and limited ductile reinforced concrete (LDRC) buildings and methods to address them through seismic retrofit;
  2. Risk assessment of the building stock through development of an economic loss model with trial evaluations for a regional town (York, WA) and a metropolitan area (Melbourne); and
  3. Advance an end-user focused research utilisation project in the area of community risk reduction. This is done through an Earthquake Mitigation Case Study for the historic town of York in Western Australia.

The first of the above components was researched in the Universities of Adelaide, Melbourne, and Swinburne. This work included investigations of existing building seismic capacities and development of building specific retrofit techniques. The second area was studied by Geoscience Australia and the work includes estimating direct and indirect losses associated with building damage and benefits from seismic retrofit.\  The delivery date for the Melbourne CBD trial evaluation was delayed due to Covid-19 impacts but the revised delivery date of March 2021 has been agreed by the CRC. The last component was conducted utilizing the research findings in the two other areas in collaboration with the Western Australia Department of Fire and Emergency Services, York Shire Council and its residents.

Finally, using the new damage loss models and costings for seismically retrofitting buildings, recommendations are made for the development of seismic retrofit guidelines and policy based on the strong evidence base being developed by this CRC project team.

As a consequence, the project has been extremely successful with several end-users implementing the research outputs.\  York Shire Council has embarked on seismic retrofit of up to three buildings in the Shire as demonstrations to other building owners of the cost-effectiveness as well as helping to develop the local expertise amongst the building profession to implement these simple seismic strengthening techniques.\  The project has also resulted in a follow-on project in Western Australia to expand the building typologies from York to include three additional typologies that are common in the rest of WA.\  The retrofit strategies for all nine typologies will be made publically available through web sites.

}, keywords = {buildings, cost-effective, earthquake, mitigation, risk, strategy}, issn = {657}, author = {Michael Griffith} } @article {bnh-6901, title = {Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for building related earthquake risk}, number = {565}, year = {2020}, month = {05/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The CRC project Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for building related earthquake risk\ is seeking to address the need for an evidence base to inform decision making on the mitigation of the earthquake risk posed by vulnerable Australian buildings. It aims to develop information related to more vulnerable Australian building types in the following areas:-

This report describes progress made against the last component which undertook some trial runs to estimate business income loss and rental income loss and provided a complete work plan for estimating direct health care cost.

The economic loss modelling approach aims to encompass the information needs of a range of decision makers. These view benefits through different {\textquotedblleft}lenses{\textquotedblright} and at differing scales. For this research they include:-

This report presents the methodological progress in estimating the proprietary and wage/salary income loss due to business interruption, direct health care costs and the casualty costs to society due to injury and loss of life in the context of the forthcoming Melbourne city case study. The report corresponds with the 30 June 2019 project milestone deliverable {\textquotedblleft}Reporting on Economic Evaluation of Mitigation Strategies and Building Level{\textquotedblright}.

}, keywords = {buildings, cost-effective, earthquake risk, mitigation strategy}, issn = {565}, author = {Itismita Mohanty and Mark Edwards and Hyeuk Ryu and Martin Wehner} } @article {bnh-5480, title = {Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for building related earthquake risk: progress report on economic loss modelling }, number = {472}, year = {2019}, month = {03/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The CRC Project A9 entitled {\textquotedblleft}Cost-Effective Mitigation Strategy Development for Building Related Earthquake Risk{\textquotedblright} is seeking to address the need for an evidence base to inform decision making on the mitigation of the earthquake risk posed by vulnerable Australian buildings.\  It aims to develop information related to more vulnerable Australian building types in the following areas:-

This report describes progress made against the last component which is directed at economic loss modelling.\  The work has been guided by, and is consistent with, the project team consensus achieved at a single day workshop convened at Swinburne University on the 23rd October 2015.

The economic loss modelling approach aims to encompass the information needs of a range of decision makers.\  These view benefits through different {\textquotedblleft}lenses{\textquotedblright} and at differing scales.\  For this research they include:-

In this report a background is provided on the motivations for this project.\  The current findings of an ongoing literature survey are presented, and the economic modelling frameworks proposed by the project team are described.\  This report corresponds with the Geoscience Australia component of the 30 June 2016 project milestone deliverable {\textquotedblleft}Progress Report on Economic and Damage Loss Models{\textquotedblright}.

}, keywords = {cost-effective, Disaster management, earthquake modelling}, author = {Itismita Mohanty and Mark Edwards and Hyeuk Ryu and Martin Wehner} } @article {bnh-5485, title = {Cost-Effective Mitigation Strategy Development For Flood Prone Buildings: Flood Damage Models For Floodplain Management Workshop}, number = {473}, year = {2019}, month = {03/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This document reports on the proceedings and outcomes of a flood vulnerability workshop held at RMIT University in Melbourne on 14 June 2018. The workshop was convened as part of a research utilisation project under the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC) project entitled {\textquoteright}Costeffective mitigation strategy development for flood prone buildings{\textquoteright}. Key workshop aims were to finalise the project scope with key stakeholders, establish a Project Steering and identify case study communities for consideration. The research utilisation project entails working with a variety of stakeholders with the aim of translating detailed flood vulnerability information into practical guidance for flood risk managers. It involves developing and testing a number of resolution options (from asset specific vulnerability assessments to more generalised methods) in a series of case studies. The workshop structure featured presentations and discussion following a logical flow from context setting, scope refinement and consensus through to governance and next steps. The key workshop aims described above were achieved and a series of {\textquoteleft}next steps{\textquoteright} were identified and documented in this report.

}, keywords = {building risk, cost-effective, Flood, flood risk, floodplain}, author = {Dale, K and Maqsood, T and Mark Edwards and Krishna Nadimpalli} } @article {bnh-5743, title = {Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for flood proof buildings - annual report 2018-2019}, number = {496}, year = {2019}, month = {07/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The motivation for this project arises from the experience and observations made during the 2011 and 2013 floods in Australia, which caused widespread devastation in Queensland. Considerable costs were sustained by all levels of government and property owners to effect damage repair and enable community recovery.

A fundamental reason for this damage was inappropriate development in floodplains and a legacy of high risk building stock in flood prone areas. The vulnerability and associated flood risk is being reduced for newer construction by adopting new standards (ABCB, 2012), building controls and land use planning, however, the vulnerability associated with existing building stock remains. This vulnerability contributes disproportionally to overall flood risk in many Australian catchments.

The Bushfire and Natural Hazards Collaborative Research Centre (BNHCRC) project entitled {\textquotedblleft}Cost-effective mitigation strategy development for flood prone buildings{\textquotedblright} aims to address this issue and is targeted at assessing mitigation strategies to reduce the vulnerability of existing residential building stock in Australian floodplains. The project addresses the need for an evidence base to inform decision making on the mitigation of the flood risk posed by the most vulnerable Australian houses and complements parallel BNHCRC projects for earthquake and severe wind.

}, keywords = {building risk, cost-effective, Flood, flood prone}, issn = {496}, author = {Dale, K and Maqsood, T and Martin Wehner} } @article {bnh-5742, title = {Cost-effective mitigation strategy for building related earthquake risk - annual report 2018-2019}, number = {498}, year = {2019}, month = {07/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This annual report contains a summary of 12-month research undertaken by 4 partner institutions towards the development of cost-effective seismic retrofit methods for vulnerable Australian buildings. Progress has been made in 3 complementary fronts to:
1) Understand the seismic vulnerabilities of existing unreinforced masonry (URM) and limited ductile reinforced concrete (LDRC) buildings and methods to address them through seismic retrofit;
2) Risk assessment of the building stock through development of an economic loss model; and
3) Advance an end user focused research utilization project in the area of community risk reduction. This is done through an Earthquake Mitigation Case Study for the historic town of York in Western Australia.

The first of the above components is being researched in the Universities of Adelaide, Melbourne, and Swinburne. This work includes investigation of existing building seismic capacities and development of retrofit techniques. The second area is being studied by Geoscience and the work includes estimating direct and indirect losses associated with building damage and benefits from seismic retrofit. The last component is being conducted utilizing the research findings in the two other areas in collaboration with the Western Australia Department of Fire and Emergency Services, York Shire Council and its residents. Finally, using the new damage loss models and costings for seismically retrofitting buildings, recommendations are made for the development of seismic retrofit guidelines and policy based on the strong evidence base being developed by this CRC project team.

}, keywords = {building risk, cost-effective, cost-mitigation, earthquake, risk}, issn = {498}, author = {Michael Griffith} } @article {bnh-5929, title = {Economics of natural hazards annual report 2018-2019}, number = {512}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Our project aims to provide information on the economic, social and environmental impacts of natural hazards (tangible and intangible), in order to help hazard managers in their decision making. We investigate the impacts of hazard mitigation on intangible (non-market) values, to shed light on the real (total) costs and benefits of natural hazards.

Our main focus is on developing tools and materials that will provide natural hazards managers with information on the value of mitigation and how intangible (non-market) values affect the costs and benefits of mitigation activities.
Our project will have 4 key outcomes:

  1. Provide an online platform for the intangible values database (called the Value Tool for Natural Hazards). The tool will be updated and maintained beyond the project so that managers can easily integrate intangible values in their analyses.
  2. Fill major knowledge gaps identified in the literature on intangible values that are affected by the management of natural hazards and improve the value tool with this new knowledge.
  3. Develop a Quick Economic Analysis Tool for the evaluation of the (tangible and intangible) costs and benefits of mitigation options that enables managers to conduct economic analyses in weeks rather than months.
  4. Create a Free Online Course on the application of economics to the assessment of natural hazard management options.

This year, we have progressed in the 4 outcomes outlined above:

  1. A website has been created for the Value Tool. Both the database and the guidelines can now be downloaded from http://valuetoolnaturalhazards.com. As per the agreement between UWA and BNHCRC, the tool will be freely accessible to end-users and external users. The website also includes the relevant disclaimer information and instructions that users of the tool must agree to comply with.
  2. A survey instrument has been designed and road-tested in a focus group for the original non-market valuation study. The next step in this process will be to test the survey in the Shire of York (WA), where we will estimate non-market values associated with cultural heritage and mental health.
  3. The draft (Beta) version of the Quick Economic Analysis Tool (QEAT) has been completed. QEAT is currently being improved to include an easy-to-use sensitivity analysis, to be able to perform the analysis of several management options concurrently and to include a summary dashboard where all results are summarised in an easy-to-read manner. These additions are key aspects that our end-users have mentioned in the past as important to include in a tool such as this one. The Tool now needs to be validated with case studies.
  4. Equipment for creating the online videos is being purchased (e.g. green screen for background, microphone and tripod for computer). Filming of the videos will commence in July 2019.

The utilisation outputs from our project this year involved the development and distribution of tools that help natural hazard managers integration intangible (non-market) values in their decision making. The Value Tool for Natural Hazards and the accompanying guidelines are now available online and can be easily downloaded by end-users of the BNHCRC or other organisations. The Beta version of the Quick Economic Analysis Tool (QEAT) is in the process of being improved to include key aspects that were highlighted by end-users as important to include in a tool as this one.

This year there were 4 publications from the project: 3 peer-reviewed and one non-peer reviewed (see Project Publications 2018-2019 section below).

}, keywords = {Bushfire, cost-effective, cyclone, earthquake, economics, Emergency management, Flood, Natural hazards, risk management}, issn = {512}, author = {Veronique Florec and Abbie Rogers and Atakelty Hailu and David J Pannell} } @article {bnh-5697, title = {From hectares to tailor-made solutions for risk mitigation: annual project report 2018-19}, number = {487}, year = {2019}, month = {07/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

We are pleased to present the 2018-2019 Annual Report for the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project, {\textquotedblleft}From hectares to tailor-made solutions for risk mitigation: systems to deliver effective prescribed burning across Australian ecosystems{\textquotedblright}. The project aims to provide critical support to agency decision makers across southern Australia by undertaking a systematic investigation of the drivers of prescribed burning effectiveness across the region. This report describes the background, research approach and key milestones since the previous Annual Report in 2017-2018. The report focuses on the research outputs informing the development of the Prescribed Fire Atlas. The project has now delivered a rich, layered dataset capable of addressing nuanced questions about the quantitative risk reduction available through prescribed burning for multiple management values in varying landscapes. The project is now entering its final phase as we complete climate change and cost-effectiveness analyses and launch the Prescribed Burning Atlas in 2019/20. The Prescribed Burning Atlas will provide geographically based summary of risk for decision makers in an accessible, user friendly format. Our project is unique in placing the design and delivery of this utilisation output at the heart of the project. Active involvement of end users throughout 2020 and beyond will be crucial in ensuring uptake and translation into outcomes for end users and the communities they serve.

}, keywords = {cost-effective, ecosystems, fire management, Prescribed burning}, author = {Hamish Clarke and Owen Price and Matthias M. Boer and Brett Cirulis and Trent Penman and Ross Bradstock} } @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} }