@conference {bnh-6027, title = {Mitigating earthquake risk in Australia}, booktitle = {2019 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Annual NZSEE Conference}, year = {2019}, month = {09/2019}, abstract = {

Earthquake risk is not limited to tectonic plate boundary countries. While less frequent, significant earthquakes can occur in intraplate countries like Australia which can have severe consequences. For Australia this is particularly the case as earthquake hazard has not been recognised in the design of buildings and community infrastructure for most of the country{\textquoteright}s settled history. Significant risks exist where community assets are by their nature inherently vulnerable to strong ground shaking. This paper describes three initiatives that are assisting Australian emergency management, infrastructure managers and local government to prepare for and mitigate these risks.

The first of these highlights how the characteristics of geological hazards differ from severe meteorological hazards. The very non-linear nature of impact severity with longer average recurrence interval earthquakes is demonstrated and how this information is supporting emergency management planning including capacity sharing between Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries in the region is described. Secondly, the paper describes how this research is developing knowledge of the factors behind the vulnerability of critical infrastructure facilities and the options to mitigate these. The software tool System for Infrastructure Facility Resilience Analysis (SIFRA) is described which enables infrastructure facility components to be examined in the context of physical vulnerability, system criticality, repair cost and restoration time. Finally, a utilisation project of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC working with the local government of York Shire in Western Australia (WA) is described. The project is providing information on the effectiveness of targeted retrofit of the heritage town of York to rare earthquakes and how this action by property owners can be incentivised.

}, keywords = {earthquake, mitigation, Vulnerability}, url = {http://db.nzsee.org.nz/2019/Oral/8C.05\%20Edwards.pdf}, author = {Mark Edwards and Muhamman Rahman and Hyeuk Ryu and Martin Wehner and Neil Corby and Michael Griffith and Jaroslav Vaculik} } @article {bnh-6056, title = {Floods, bushfires and sectoral economic output in Australia, 1978-2014}, journal = {Economic Record}, volume = {95}, year = {2018}, month = {11/2018}, pages = {58-80}, abstract = {

Using state-level annual variation in natural disasters and economic output in Australia, we estimate the direct effects of floods and bushfires on sectoral gross value added during the period 1978{\textendash}2014. We find that floods exert an adverse and persistent effect on the outputs of agriculture, mining, construction and financial services sectors. For example, our estimates indicate that a state that experienced a flood in a given year encountered, on average, 5{\textendash}6 per cent lower agricultural output in both that year and the following year, compared to another state with no such flood experience. Sectoral responses to bushfires are more nuanced.

}, keywords = {economic, Floods, Natural hazards}, doi = { https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4932.12446}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1475-4932.12446}, author = {Mehmet Ulubasoglu and Muhamman Rahman and Yasin Onder and Chen, Yang and Abbas Rajabifard} } @conference {bnh-3911, title = {Unpacking the sectoral income effects of natural disasters: evidence from the 2010-11 Queensland floods}, booktitle = {AFAC17}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

The past few decades witnessed a rapid increase of researches that rigorously investigated the nexus between economic performances and natural disasters. However, the rise of the interest in studying this nexus is not surprising provided that natural disasters trigger severe destruction in capital stocks and incur disruption in income flows. As such, the focus of many the studies is on demonstrating disaster shock impacts on outcomes such as agricultural output, industrial output, labor productivity, energy demand, health, conflict, and economic growth, among others (Dell M. et al, 2014). This paper estimates the impact of the 2010-11 Queensland Floods on sectoral income level using the Australian Census Longitudinal Dataset (ACLD), which brings together a nationally representative 5\% sample from the 2006 Census with records from the 2011 Census of Australia. In our empirical setting, we treat the 2010-11 Queensland floods as a natural experiment by treating the flood-affected group of individuals as the treatment group, while treating the rest of the Queenslanders remains as the control group. This approach enables us to compare the economic differences in before (2006 Census) and after (2011 Census) the event between the group of flood-affected individuals and their counterfactuals. Our estimates indicate that the 2010-11 Queensland floods incident has no bearing on overall gross state product (GSP), but it adversely affects individuals working in construction, and accommodation and food services. However, Queenslanders working in retail trade, transport, postal and warehousing, and rental, hiring and real estate services cashed in opportunities brought by this catastrophic event. In addition, we find that the 2010-11 Queensland floods hit the lower income-group the hardest in terms of their loss in annual income. Our findings have several policy implications in that government{\textquoteright}s budgetary allocations related to disaster risk reduction programs should vary across sectors and group of individuals in accordance with their potential disaster effects.

}, author = {Mehmet Ulubasoglu and Muhamman Rahman} } @conference {bnh-2079, title = {Bringing hazard and economic modellers together: a spatial platform for damage and losses visualisation - peer viewed}, booktitle = {Adelaide Conference 2015}, year = {2015}, address = {Adelaide, Australia}, abstract = {

Research proceedings from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC \& AFAC Conference in Adelaide, 1-3 September 2015.\ 

}, author = {Muhamman Rahman and Yiqun Chen and Katie Potts and Prasad Bhattacharya and Abbas Rajabifard and Mehmet Ulubasoglu and Mohsen Kalantari} } @conference {bnh-1561, title = {A Pre-Disaster Multi-Hazard Damage and Economic Loss Estimation Model Conference Paper 2014}, booktitle = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC and AFAC Wellington Conference 2014}, year = {2015}, abstract = {

Australia has witnessed a series of natural disasters throughout history that significantly affects its development trajectory. Examples include: cyclones Mahina (1899) in northern Queensland and Tracy (1974) in Darwin; floods in New South Wales (1955) and South-east Queensland (1974; 2011; 2012); earthquake in Newcastle (1989); landslide in Thredbo (1997); and bushfires in Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Australia Capital Territory (Black Saturday 2009; Canberra Fires 2003; Ash Wednesday 1983; Black Tuesday 1967; and Black Friday 1939). The resulting economic impact of these natural disasters is estimated to cost an average of AU$1.14 billion annually (BTE, 2001). This alarming statistic alone, along with its ever growing vulnerability due to rapid economic expansion in Australia, makes natural disasters a high priority issue for policy makers. In recent catastrophic natural disaster events, the emergency response of Australia has proven to be very effective at saving human lives. However the mitigation and preparedness of disaster risk reduction (DRR) appear to be less successful in avoiding the adverse economic impacts of natural disasters. One of the significant problems observed in this connection is the lack of effort to estimate the full economic impact of natural hazards, taking into account all the affected sections of the economy. This effort should consider not only the primary effects of the natural disasters, but also its secondary effects due to losses propagated through the economy arising out of possible inter-sectoral linkages. In order to achieve a paradigm shift from reactive response to a proactive risk reduction culture, disaster risk reduction measures need to be integrated into the economic development process. With this in mind, this paper discusses the shortcomings of current approaches and identifies the steps required for developing a system for increasing the disaster risk resilience of Australia.

}, author = {Abbas Rajabifard and Mehmet Ulubasoglu and Katie Potts and Muhamman Rahman and Mohsen Kalantari and Prasad Bhattacharya} }