Published works

Disaster resilience is a protective characteristic that acts to reduce the effects of, and losses from, natural hazard events. Disaster resilience arises from the capacities of social, economic and government systems to prepare for, respond to and recover from a natural hazard event, and to learn, adapt and transform in anticipation of future natural hazard events. This project developed the Australian Disaster Resilience Index to assess, for the first time, the capacity for disaster resilience in communities across Australia.

Disaster resilience in Australia

The assessment of disaster resilience using the Australian Disaster Resilience Index shows that communities in Australia do not all have the same capacity for disaster resilience. About 52% of the population live in areas with moderate capacity for disaster resilience, about 32% in areas with high capacity for disaster resilience and about 16% in areas with low capacity for disaster resilience. Analysis of the distribution of disaster resilience in Australia revealed:

• Most of the population of Australia live in areas assessed as having moderate capacity for disaster resilience.

• There is a distinct association between capacity for disaster resilience and remoteness (see figure below).
• Most areas of higher capacity for disaster resilience are located in metropolitan and inner regional Australia. Areas of higher capacity for disaster resilience comprise only 0.5% of land surface area.
• Most areas of lower capacity for disaster resilience are located in outer regional, remote and very remote Australia. Areas of lower capacity for disaster resilience comprise over 93% of land surface area.
• There are areas of lower capacity for disaster resilience in metropolitan Australia.
• Inner regional areas have greater capacity for disaster resilience than outer regional areas.
• Patterns of capacity for disaster resilience at the national level are generally, but not always, upheld in each state or territory.

Australian communities are also affected by various factors which enhance or constrain their capacity for disaster resilience. The particular combination of factors that influence capacity for disaster resilience differs from place to place. This generates a heterogeneous and complex picture of the factors associated with disaster resilience in Australia. Analysis of the distribution of the eight theme sub-indexes revealed:

• Social character often constrains the capacity for disaster resilience in Australia. Geographic distribution of the social character sub-index is mixed; however, lower values of the social character sub-index are concentrated in metropolitan and very remote areas.

• Australia has a mix of areas with higher and lower economic capital. All areas can experience constraints on disaster resilience associated with low economic capital. However, lower economic capital is most pronounced in remote and very remote areas, while higher economic capital is most pronounced in metropolitan and inner regional areas.
• Emergency services generally enable the capacity for disaster resilience in Australia. The emergency services sub-index is usually moderate to high, although considerable variation can still be evident within and between regional and metropolitan areas.
• Planning and the built environment is not a significant barrier to the capacity for disaster resilience in Australia. The planning and the built environment sub-index is moderate to high in most areas of Australia, with the exception of some remote and very remote areas.
• Australia has a mix of areas with higher and lower community capital. Higher community capital occurs in regional areas. In cities, areas of higher and lower community capital are often clustered.
• Information access is a significant barrier to the capacity for disaster resilience in Australia, particularly in regional and remote areas.
• Many areas of Australia are associated with moderate social and community engagement. High social and community engagement is concentrated in metropolitan and inner regional areas and low social and community engagement is concentrated in remote and very remote areas.
• Moderate to high governance and leadership is concentrated in metropolitan and inner regional areas. Increasing remoteness decreases governance and leadership capacities.