@article {bnh-7898, title = {Building inclusive partnerships with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities}, number = {652}, year = {2021}, month = {03/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

The purpose of this document is to provide basic guidance for emergency services practitioners to support the building of respectful and inclusive partnerships with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. This document focuses on general guidance that applies when working with all CALD communities. However, as each community has its own context and character, it is important to be mindful of the need to adapt practice to work with each community{\textquoteright}s specific needs.

This document draws from the general literature, and the following reports from the BNHCRC project {\textquoteleft}Diversity and inclusion building strength and capability{\textquoteright}:

}, keywords = {CALD, communities, culture, diversity, inclusive, linguistics, partnerships}, issn = {652}, author = {Daniel Ooi and Celeste Young} } @article {bnh-7903, title = {Diversity and inclusion: building strength and capability {\textendash} final project report}, number = {655}, year = {2021}, month = {03/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In 2016, the emergency management sector (EMS) acknowledged that action was needed to address the low representation of diversity in its workforce. This was being driven by a moral imperative to better represent the communities they serve (AFAC, 2016). The role of the EMS was also changing in response to ongoing unprecedented natural hazard events and the need for more strategic approaches to building resilience. This meant renegotiating the relationship between emergency management organisations (EMOs) and their communities, reinforcing the importance of D\&I. This brought to the fore the need to understand how to improve the effectiveness and value of D\&I in EMOs.

The main goal of the three-year project was to work with those in the sector engaged in D\&I practice and develop an evidence-based framework capable of supporting more effective management and measurement of D\&I. This was carried out in three phases: (1) understanding the context, (2) development of the framework, and (3) testing. Each phase was subject to annual review and the program was adjusted in response to the outcomes of those reviews.

The project used the {\textquoteleft}working from the inside out{\textquoteright} methodology to provide the framework for its activities (see p17 for details). This is a transdisciplinary approach that aims to develop workable solutions to seemingly intractable problems through collaborative research codesigned with end-users. The transdisciplinary aspect integrates different knowledge systems. It starts with understanding user needs and context, surveys available knowledge from a wide range of sources, puts this knowledge into a format that can be used in practice, and lastly tests the research outputs and refines this with end-users. The process is iterative with the key features of systemic assessments, integration into decision-making systems, translation, learning, adjustment and communication with end-users. Its key purpose is to ensure that research is fit-for-purpose and useable.


Following the scoping phase of the research project, three lines of inquiry were established to analyse the key systems that most directly influence D\&I for EMOs {\textendash} organisational, economic and community. A mixed methods approach was undertaken that incorporated case studies, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, decision-making assessments, desktop reviews of organisational documents, informal and formal literature, and ongoing review and feedback with end-users.

The initial literature review (Young et al, 2018a) assessed where D\&I practice was considered effective, the contributing factors to effectiveness and its benefits throughout the emergency services. It also reviewed the organisational change and innovation literature. In more recent years, the literature has changed focus from addressing diversity towards understanding the role of inclusion. It highlights the role of systemic approaches and the importance of understanding context in relation to achieving effective outcomes. The literature had stagnated in some areas, with few examples of successful implementation. The emergency services were not well-represented.

The final conclusion was that there were no suitable frameworks available and that information about the specific contexts for D\&I in the emergency services was limited. To provide a focus for the project and to inform practice, a definition of effective diversity (see p16) was developed.

We undertook case studies in three EMOs to inform the sectoral context. D\&I was present in all organisations, but not well-integrated into systems and processes, or connected to day-to-day decision making and tasks. The largest barrier was culture, and the largest need was in the area of management. Strategic vision and supportive organisational frameworks and processes were limited, resulting in shorter term, reactive approaches dominating the implementation of D\&I.

Predominantly response-based and hierarchical cultures and tactical decision making were often at odds with the more strategic-based softer skills required for D\&I. Many activities had not been effectively socialised or communicated, resulting in confusion, fear, resistance and difficult behaviours. There were also cultural gaps between upper and lower tiers in organisations. Implementation often focused on {\textquoteleft}obtaining (gender-based) diversity quotas{\textquoteright}, and rather than creating an inclusive culture, was felt to have polarised gender-based issues. There was a lack of awareness of what constituted appropriate language use and behaviours in relation to diverse communities and individuals. There was also no compelling narrative as to why it would be a business imperative or even perceived as such.

At the end of phase one, key components for the framework were identified. These were organised across the following areas: a strategic process of change, a programmatic continuous-improvement process and organic bottom-up growth. To develop these, further mapping and investigation of skills and capabilities in organisations and communities, and greater understanding of the economic value generated by programs were needed.

A turning point for the project was during phase two, following the {\textquoteleft}Into the future: building skills and capabilities for a diverse and inclusive workforce{\textquoteright} workshop in December 2018. Exploration of three scenarios revealed the extent of D\&I-related risk to EMOs. These related to the mitigation and management of social, human and innovation risk. These were not being formally managed or, in some cases, even recognised. It also highlighted the need to manage innovation risk during implementation activities. A better understanding of these risks provided the connection between day-to-day tasks and the business imperative for EMOs.

The participants in the workshop displayed a high level of skill and capability in these areas. Other work undertaken with Women and Firefighting Australasia (WAFA) indicated that the sector was becoming more aware of these risks, but needed further development of systems, skills and capabilities to manage them.

The risks associated with D\&I are not new, but are still largely unrecognised as part of formal risk management within organisations. Skills and capabilities associated with D\&I practice were, for the most part, being given a lower priority than those required to manage more established and accepted risks. If left unmanaged, D\&I risks are likely to {\textquoteleft}impair the ability of EMOs to perform their functions effectively{\textquoteright} (Young et al, 2019). \ 

Two economic case studies highlighted the benefits that could be achieved by successful programs. The Indigenous Fire and Rescue Employment Strategy (IFARES) program produced $20.00 of benefits for every dollar invested (Rasmussen and Maharaj, 2019). However, existing economic models need further development before programs for different cultural cohorts can be comprehensively assessed. Appropriate data also needs to be collected from the beginning of programs to support this.

The community case studies (Pyke, 2018b; Macdonald, 2020a, 2020b) illustrated some of the complexities in relation to the capabilities of diverse cohorts and young people, but each has its own context that needs further exploration. Although culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities have many capabilities, these have not been examined with respect to various needs, so are unlikely to be harnessed effectively in an inclusive manner (Pyke, 2018b; MacDonald, 2020a).

The final D\&I framework \ (Young and Jones, 2020) is constructed around four components:

This is developed to be flexible and adaptable, to aid decision making in a range of different contexts, and to be useful in full or in parts, depending on the situation an organisation may encounter and the context is which this is occurring. The strategic and programmatic processes are supported by guidance that outlines the key phases and question-focused considerations for practitioners (Young and Jones, 2020) and three practitioner manuals (Macdonald, 2020a; Ooi, 2020; Young et al, 2020). Progress over the three years of the project has culminated in the following conclusive statements (Young and Jones, 2020):

Common aspects found to support effective programs include:

This project has experienced a high level of uptake and use during its three-year term. This has been aided by the sector{\textquoteright}s focus on progressing the D\&I agenda, and the work of peak agencies and end-user organisations to develop programs and leadership. It has also contributed to the repositioning of the D\&I agenda as a risk-based business imperative, and has developed and provided materials to support the integration of D\&I into resilience, risk and workforce planning frameworks. Its effectiveness and impact are due to the collaboration and commitment of the end-user group who have actively participated, supported and promoted the work over the life of the project.

Considerable work is still needed in developing measurement protocols, particularly those related to economic evaluation and the effectiveness of inclusion. Further work is also needed to identify and document the specific capabilities and skills needed to support this. As D\&I is a long-term and dynamic issue, longitudinal evaluation is needed to assess returns on investment, ensure that visibility is maintained, and deeper understandings continue to develop.\ 

The final framework, which has been developed in close collaboration with practitioners in EMOs, provides a basis on which to build. The collateral from this study also captures and consolidates some of the considerable knowledge that already exists within these organisations to be used as reference material. This project has shown that achieving truly diverse and inclusive organisations is a long road, but it is one that EMOs are already travelling.

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, inclusion, strength}, issn = {655}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and McDonald, F and Bruce Rasmussen} } @article {bnh-8000, title = {Growing the seeds: recovery, strength and capability in Gippsland communities}, year = {2021}, month = {04/2021}, institution = {Victoria University}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

{\textquoteleft}Adversity is a cloak that shrouds great gifts. It is up to us to cast away the cloak and reveal all that lies within. This is the journey.{\textquoteright} {\textemdash} Milena Cifali, Mallacoota Time: The Lost Summer 2020

The 2019{\textendash}20 East Gippsland fires occurred during the most severe fire season ever recorded on the east coast of Australia. They burned from November 2019 to February 2020, damaging over half of the East Gippsland Shire, an area of over 1.16 million hectares. Over 400 dwellings and businesses were lost and four people lost their lives. Recovery had just begun when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. In the same way that the Black Saturday Bushfires have fundamentally changed how bushfires are seen, these events have changed how recovery will be thought about. Writing this report has been a confronting and humbling experience.

In initial conversations, it became clear that the community members who participated wanted a different conversation to the one they had been having. They were seeking to be heard and understood {\textendash} not as victims of the bushfires, but as people who needed support because of the bushfires. To accommodate this, the research has been shaped around the conversation they wanted to have, which is focused on community strengths and capabilities.

This study was undertaken when COVID-19 restrictions were in place, extending for two weeks after Melbourne{\textquoteright}s lockdown ended. As a result, this report represents a snapshot of the recovery process at that time, and contains material that may distress individuals who have been affected the bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic.

This report does not aim to represent all community issues or speak for the whole community, but rather to identify overarching themes around capabilities raised by those who wished to participate in the study. Participants have spoken about their experiences; those observed in their home communities and other communities they are working with. We also acknowledge that since the end of Melbourne{\textquoteright}s lockdown and the easing of COVID-19-related restrictions, circumstances may have changed, affecting communities{\textquoteright} contexts; and government and non-government agencies may be acting on issues contained in this report.

The purpose of this report

The purpose of this report is to provide a starting point for assessing and understanding community capability practically, and to provide an indicative status of these in East Gippsland and Wellington Shires following the bushfires. It uses a systemic assessment of social, economic and risk contexts to examine community strengths and capabilities, and identify potential future pathways.

The first section of this report has a specific focus on the capabilities involved in community recovery and how they have been experienced by diverse groups within the East Gippsland and Wellington community. This is viewed through a strengths-focused lens. It also provides an initial assessment of the status of the capabilities identified, and the challenges, needs and opportunities that have arisen as part of the recovery experience.

The second section provides a broader picture of the comparative strengths, capabilities and needs identified in an online survey of those impacted by the bushfires in New South Wales and Gippsland through established community panels. The results show which aspects are shared more broadly, those partitioned by direct and indirect experience, and those specific to the East Gippsland community.

The third section provides an economic assessment of two local government areas {\textendash} East Gippsland and Wellington Shires {\textendash} to provide a high-level assessment of the economic influences and impacts on the intersection of the COVID-19 pandemic and bushfire recovery.

}, keywords = {black summer, Capability, communities, gippsland, recovery, strength}, isbn = {978-1-86272-829-5}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and Craig Cormick} } @article {bnh-6810, title = {Diversity and inclusion: Building strength and capability - Annual Report 2019}, number = {558}, year = {2020}, month = {03/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Emergency Management Sector (EMS) is a diverse and complex sector whose key purpose is the protection of life and property by implementing {\textquoteleft}a range of measures to manage risks to communities and environments{\textquoteright} (Emergency Management Australia, 1998, p39). Their scope of activities spans the prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR) spectrum and requires a range of activities that contribute to the wellbeing of communities.

The context in which many of these organisations operate is changing due to:

As these drivers are dynamic and systemic, they are changing the focus of EMS activities from shorter-term tactical approaches across the PPRR spectrum, to longer-term strategic approaches that focus on future outcomes. These drivers are also driving the need to innovate across the EMS and develop new services that aim to increase resilience of both the organisations themselves and the community. This is fundamentally changing the nature of the relationship EMS has with the community from delivering a service to them to working with them. (Young et al. 2018). There is also a recognition that emergency services need to better reflect the communities they work to serve (NEMC 2011) to achieve this outcome. Effective diversity and inclusion are central to this agenda.

Currently, there are {\textquoteleft}unacceptably low levels of diversity{\textquoteright} in the EMS (AFAC 2016). There is however, a growing awareness that there are a number of benefits that can result from increasing diversity in organisations. However, effective implementation is complex due to:

If EMS organisations are to capitalise on the emerging opportunities and fulfil their future potential in this area, they will need to develop new ways of thinking and working. Diversity is not new to EMS organisations and there are existing strengths and knowledge that can be built upon. Understanding what is effective, and why and how this agenda can be progressed, is critical to achieving future outcomes.

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, inclusion, strength}, issn = {558}, author = {Celeste Young} } @article {bnh-7468, title = {Diversity and inclusion: building strength and capability {\textendash} annual report 2019{\textendash}2020}, number = {623}, year = {2020}, month = {10/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

{\textquoteleft}Diversity and inclusion: building strength and capability{\textquoteright} is a three-year project commissioned by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, which commenced in July 2017 and has just completed its third year of exploration. It has been a challenging year in terms of delivery, and the project has had to adjust its research plan to accommodate the unprecedented bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic, which have impacted the university and the stakeholder organisations. As a result, the project will now deliver the final outputs for the project in the second half of 2020.

During the third phase, we have focused our activities around consolidating key findings in the organisational stream and testing these in another industry to look for commonalities and points of divergence. New needs that emerged from the second year review highlight the necessity for further indepth review in relation to the economic and community areas. Activities have continued with a case study approach and three reports have been completed.

Key areas of focus for this phase have been as follows:

Key findings from this phase of the research are as follows:

Stakeholder engagement has been limited during this phase, as it was put on hold between November 2019 and April 2020. Where possible, we have maintained contact through individual interactions. We have also had a reduced level of outreach such as presentations due to the cancellation of a number of conferences, however the project team was involved in three presentations at the 2019 AFAC conference.

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, inclusion, strength}, issn = {623}, author = {Celeste Young} } @article {bnh-7227, title = {Diversity and inclusion framework for emergency management policy and practice}, number = {602}, year = {2020}, month = {08/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Emergency Management Sector (EMS) is made up of diverse organisations, and its scope of activity spans the prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (PPRR) spectrum for a wide variety of hazards. This requires an array of activities that contribute to the safety and wellbeing of communities and those within their organisations. The EMS is also undergoing dynamic change, of which human diversity is one key element. The sector has recognised that it needs to better reflect the communities it works with, and that it has {\textquoteleft}unacceptably low levels of diversity{\textquoteright} (National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, COAG, 2011). Inclusion is seen as an essential part of this process, but policy, management and practice need further development if the sector is to achieve functioning inclusive organisations who reflect the diverse communities they serve.

Diversity and inclusion (D\&I) are different but deeply entwined. Diversity can be seen as a variety of people who have different and unique characteristics. This difference can be determined by aspects such as their cultural or social background, their age, the way they think, their physical attributes or their gender or a combination of these. Increasing diversity creates a different dynamic, and inclusion is the action that is undertaken to manage this change. It is also the tool that ensures that the increased diversity is effective in serving the organisational or community needs, and does not create a risk for the community or the organisation.\ 

Although the nature and measurement of diversity is being better recognised and understood, the management and measurement of inclusion is still evolving. This is an area of innovation where not everything will work. New approaches need to be developed and adapted to suit the myriad of different contexts throughout the sector. This has resulted in numerous D\&I programs at sectoral and organisational levels. However, the effectiveness of past and present programs, and what constitutes good management and measurement, is still emerging (Young et al., 2018).\ \ 

There is often tension between the core work of EMS organisations, as the development of D\&I is often seen as a secondary activity that is a cost to the workforce rather than an investment in the future workforce. This tension has been exacerbated by deeply entrenched cultural and institutional factors. This framework aims to provide a basis for practitioners to address these issues through a strength-based approach, which builds upon current practice and expertise in the sector.\ 

The framework has been developed in response to needs that were identified in collaboration with practitioners across the sector, which included:

The framework has been developed, tested and refined in collaboration with emergency management experts, and draws on the following reports from the project:

Diversity and inclusion is not a simple problem with easy solutions. It is a dynamic situation that requires ongoing management. This means that standard notions of success and failure can be problematic, which is why this framework focuses on what has been found to be effective.\ 

As the EMS is diverse in terms of organisational composition, capability and context, what is possible and {\textquoteleft}doable{\textquoteright} will be different for each organisation. To account for this, this framework is deliberately not prescriptive. Its aim is to support and guide practitioners to develop and integrate D\&I practice, so that it becomes accepted as part of the day-to-day activities and {\textquoteleft}how things are done{\textquoteright}.\ 

This framework will be supported by two further documents that will focus on management and measurement practices.

}, keywords = {diversity and inclusion, Emergency management, framework, Policy, practice}, issn = {602}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-8140, title = {Diversity and inclusion: towards a better understanding of management and measurement - policy paper}, number = {696}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

Having effective diversity and inclusion (D\&I) in emergency management organisations (EMOs) can improve their internal\ performance, and contribute to organisational and community capacities to manage disaster risk and resilience building. A\ diverse workforce provides a broad range of perspectives, experiences and skills. An inclusively-managed diverse workforce\ can support better decision making. It can also support better management of the increasingly unfamiliar risks that\ society is experiencing. Inclusion is also central to building productive working relationships and trust with the community. However, the benefits of D\&I are poorly understood, and are often overlooked because they are hard to measure and\ account for.

This paper summarises the main concepts, findings and the framework that has been developed to support more effective\ management and measurement of D\&I in EMOs.

Key findings in relation to D\&I in the emergency management sector (EMS) are:

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, Emergency management, inclusion, management, measurement, strength}, issn = {696}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-7664, title = {Learning as we go: developing effective inclusive management {\textendash} case studies and guidance}, number = {632}, year = {2020}, month = {12/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

{\textquoteleft}Commitment is important because sometimes that is all you have.{\textquoteright}

Diversity and inclusion (D\&I) is now an imperative for all emergency management organisations (EMOs) if they are to mitigate and manage the human and social risk associated with the changing risk landscape communities now occupy. The increasingly unprecedented natural hazards events, systemic nature of the impacts and the intersection with other events (such as COVID-19), are changing what is being experienced, and what is needed to respond and recover from these events. It has brought into focus the need to build robust and resilient social infrastructure in communities and organisations prior to events or implementation of activities. The area of social and human risk that is associated with D\&I, has for the most part, been seen as secondary to more technical and tangible risks, and its value is not well understood.

Management of D\&I happens at all levels of the organisations {\textendash} from upper level leadership to frontline workers {\textendash} and is strategic and short-term. It has two aspects:

Due to the new needs arising, management of D\&I is emergent and inherently risky as there is a high level of innovation involved in many activities. Obtaining an inclusive and diverse workforce is a long-term proposition requiring stamina and flexibility. It requires changing not only social and organisational structures and culture, but how people think and act within them. This not a straightforward task; it requires not only progressing the agenda, but also {\textquoteleft}holding the line{\textquoteright} and thinking creatively when there are adverse responses, which are a natural part of the change process. It is also an agenda that requires deep collaboration within organisations and all those within the emergency management sector (EMS) for the foreseeable future.

The case studies in this document illustrate that although there may be common principles that underpin practice, there is no one management prototype or model. It is a process of conscious decision making where what is managed and how it is managed is determined by who is being managed, their context, and the specific needs that arise from this. These factors are also influenced across time by changing social, environmental, political and economic circumstances, and ongoing learning and being able to adapt in response to this are central to effective management. What works one year may not work in the next (Young and Parry, 2020), and what works in one context will not necessarily work in another. There is no fixed-point destination to arrive at, rather a series of destinations that organisations and communities transition through as they work towards the desired inclusive outcome.

As a result, management of this area is highly dynamic and more reliant on process to manage the multiple uncertainties associated with achieving outcomes. It also requires leading from behind and guiding, rather than dictating, so that people achieve awareness and feel enabled to act.

The case studies also highlight the importance of having a social mandate to operate. This is particularly important for maintaining longer term activities, as it is built upon trusted relationships and the connections that support this. Trust-based relationships are not something that can be manufactured. They are earned through authentic and respectful interactions that are maintained, and where actions match the words that are spoken. It is critical for leaders at all levels to appreciate that people will not follow, engage with, or take instruction from someone they do not trust or they feel is being tokenistic. It is also important to note that management starts at the top of organisations, but its effectiveness is ultimately determined by how it is grown and maintained at the bottom and middle of organisations.

The other common aspects found to support effective D\&I programs include:

Inclusion is not about being permissive. It is about understanding the formation of new boundaries and who should decide those boundaries. The diversity conversation is also not one conversation. It is the coming together, and inclusion, of many different voices so a collaborative outcome can be negotiated.

This document presents case studies and examples of best practice and knowledge that have been collated with experts within EMOs who were part of this study. As practice is evolving rapidly, its purpose is to provide reference points for practitioners to support broader development of the D\&I agenda. They show that organisations are learning and building as they go, and that some of the best resources the EMS have are their practitioners. It also provides resource materials that have been developed to support D\&I practitioners by the EMS and other industries.

This document is a support document for the Diversity and inclusion framework for emergency management policy and practice (Young and Jones, 2020), which provides overarching concepts, principles and processes that guide management activities. As a result, it should be read in conjunction with the framework.

}, keywords = {case studies, diversity, guidance, inclusion management}, issn = {632}, author = {Celeste Young and Craig Cormick and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-5414, title = {Diversity and Inclusion: Building Strength and Capability- Annual Report 2018}, number = {453}, year = {2019}, month = {02/2019}, pages = {16}, type = {Report}, keywords = {diversity, Emergency management, inclusion}, author = {Celeste Young} } @article {bnh-5570, title = {Effective diversity in emergency management organisations: the long road}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency management}, volume = {32}, year = {2019}, month = {05/2019}, abstract = {

Traditionally, the human face of emergency services organisations has lacked diversity. However, escalating natural hazard risks due to social, environmental and economic drivers requires a transformation in how these risks are managed and who needs to manage them. With communities becoming more diverse, building community and organisational resilience to more frequent and intense emergency events needs organisations to change from working for communities to working with them.

This requires greater diversity in skills and capabilities in the people who apply them, making diversity and inclusion a moral and business imperative. This paper summarises findings from an assessment of the diversity and inclusion literature relevant to the emergency management sector. Three case studies that are elements of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project, {\textquoteleft}Diversity and Inclusion: Building strength and capability{\textquoteright} are examined.

The research assessed the current context in which diversity and inclusion exist in each organisation and identified barriers, needs, challenges and opportunities. The major findings provide a basis to develop a support framework for effective management and measurement of diversity and inclusion.

}, keywords = {diversity, emergency services, inclusion in the emergency services/emergency management sector}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-april-2019-effective-diversity-in-emergency-management-organisations-the-long-road/}, author = {Celeste Young} } @article {bnh-5772, title = {Risky business: Why diversity and inclusion matter}, number = {499}, year = {2019}, month = {08/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Effective diversity and inclusion (D\&I) is at the heart of what emergency management organisations (EMOs) are and do. It is now clear that if they are not inclusive of the difference that diversity brings, they are placing at risk their organisations and the communities they work with.

Australian communities and the risks they face are changing. For the Emergency Management Sector (EMS), this emphasises the importance of building resilience and developing community partnerships. EMOs need to see themselves represented within the community and communities need to see themselves represented within EMOs. As a result, effective D\&I, which can support these activities, is starting to be seen as a core capability. There is also a growing recognition that if EMOs are to become agile, learning organisations who can effectively manage diversity and change, D\&I will need to move from a peripheral activity to a central focus. A clear message from this project is that the key to this is for EMOs to focus on developing an inclusive culture.

A key barrier to achieving effective D\&I is a limited understanding of how to join conceptual aspects of D\&I to practical application and tasks, and to use that to develop a set of focused activities capable of achieving their goals. Specifically, understanding why D\&I is important for core business and how it enhances service delivery {\textendash} particularly in lower levels of organisations. Without answers to these questions, it can be difficult to develop the strategies needed to support and guide the multiple areas of activity required to achieve a diverse and inclusive workforce.

The workshop {\textquoteleft}Into the future: building capabilities and skills for inclusive and diverse organisations{\textquoteright} held in December 2018 at Victoria University, aimed to explore these issues. In particular, it aimed to understand:

}, keywords = {Capability, diversity, inclusion}, isbn = {978-1-86272-807-3}, issn = {499}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @conference {bnh-6509, title = {Transforming through diversity and inclusion capability {\textendash} the pathway to achieving diversity benefits}, booktitle = {AFAC19 powered by INTERSCHUTZ - Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC Research Forum}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, publisher = {Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience}, organization = {Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

A key driver for building diversity and inclusion (D\&I) in emergency management organisations (EMOs) is to better represent diverse cohorts and ensure EMOs and their communities become more resilient to natural hazards. While EMOs have made some progress, dynamic transformation is required to effectively manage the rapidly changing contexts they and their communities face. Central to this is the need to expand the current service{\textendash}client relationship to become a more inclusive partnership model that builds resilience.
This paper reports on Phase 2 of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre project Diversity and inclusion: Building strength and capability, which aimed to develop a D\&I framework for the emergency management sector (EMS). Key aspects are: A process framework to guide organisations by linking strategic objectives to day-today decision making and integrates D\&I practice into organisational systems; Identification and development of specific strategic and people-based capabilities and skills; Management of risks arising as a result of D\&I shocks; and A process to measure and manage progress and assess the benefits derived from investment.

Download the full non-peer reviewed research proceedings\ from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC Research Forumhere.

}, keywords = {diversity and inclusion, Natural hazards, organisations, resilience, risk management}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/australian-journal-of-emergency-management-monograph-series/}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and Neelam Maharaj and Bruce Rasmussen} } @conference {bnh-4781, title = {Diversity and inclusion: Building strength and capability}, booktitle = {AFAC18}, year = {2018}, month = {09/2018}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Perth}, abstract = {

Although diversity and inclusion (D\&I) is not a new concept or area of practice, for the Emergency Management sector there has been little clarity of what effective D\&I looks like for the sector. This includes how it is implemented within the emergency management (EM) context, how that context itself is changing due to increasingly dynamic social, environmental and economic drivers and how D\&I is best measured and implemented. In its first year, the project Diversity and inclusion: Building strength and capability, has undertaken a number of activities with end users, involving developing a detailed project plan, undertaking a literature review, and conducting three case studies and a community survey. The case studies involved desktop studies of organisational capabilities and histories, and interviewing people within each organisation and in three different communities. This presentation covers the case studies, community interviews and community survey.

Using a systemic analysis that focuses on decision making, it examines the key synergies and differences found in each organisation in relation to past and present practice. Barriers, needs, opportunities and benefits for D\&I in each organisation as seen by their employees have been collated. It also examines how each organisation has evolved. Their capacity to serve the changing agenda that D\&I needs to operate within, and how D\&I can help develop that capacity is also examined. Views from the community of the EM sector are also canvassed. These findings have been used to develop a draft diversity and inclusion framework to guide the next stage of this research.

}, author = {Celeste Young and Joanne Pyke and Neelam Maharaj and Craig Cormick and Bruce Rasmussen and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-4498, title = {Diversity And Inclusion: Building Strength And Capability Literature Review}, number = {360}, year = {2018}, month = {03/2018}, abstract = {

The recent Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) National Council stance {\textendash} that there are {\textquoteleft}unacceptably low levels of diversity{\textquoteright} in emergency services, and the recognition that emergency services need to better reflect the communities they work to serve (National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, National Emergency Management Committee, 2011) {\textendash} is driving new programs and policies in this area. There is also a growing awareness that there are a number of benefits that can result from diversity, particularly to the community. The strategy also recognises that being able to interact and communicate effectively with diverse communities is critical to the building of resilience and reduction of risk associated with natural hazard events.

The context for the EMS is changing as a result of dynamic social (changing demographics), environmental (the changing nature of natural hazard risk) and economic drivers (the increasing cost of responding to natural hazard events, resource constraints and changing technologies). These are driving the need for change and innovation across organisations in the EMS if they are to remain sustainable into the future. It is important to understand how these different factors influence and shape decision making, and the opportunities and barriers that organisations face when implementing policies relating to diversity and inclusion.

When looked at holistically, human diversity is broad, and its study bridges both the grey and refereed literature. This is because its nature is systemic, cultural and institutional {\textendash} touching every aspect of society. For an organisation to be successful in this area, it needs to define the system in which diversity exists, the specific context that diversity is being implemented in, and the different stages of the process of implementing diversity. A critical part of implementing diversity is the creation of inclusive workplaces that embrace and effectively manage difference. This needs to be combined with organisational change and innovation across all levels, within and beyond their organisations. You have existing organisations, so what is being created {\textendash} the organisation or a strategic approach? To do this requires an understanding of where these differences lie in the diversity system of the organisations and the communities that surround them, and where organisations have agency and the ability to act. It also requires an understanding of the interactions within specific contexts between different actors, and the personal and organisational attributes, characteristics and values that support effective diversity actions.

This review provides a preliminary overview of the literature related to systemic and implementation process-focused aspects of human diversity and their relevance to EMS organisations. It examines the diversity and inclusion literature to assess how it can support the practice of implementing effective diversity and inclusion within organisations, with a specific focus on Australian EMS organisations that work with bushfire and natural hazards. It also summarises the current context and factors that shape the Australian EMS, and provides a working definition of effective diversity and inclusion for further development. Finally, it discusses the different components that make up the process of implementing diversity policy and plans within EMS organisations, and some of the challenges for both research and practice. Its key purpose is to identify areas of literature that are potentially useful for the development of a framework to support implementation of diversity throughout the Australian EMS.

}, keywords = {change management and innovation., diversity in emergency services/emergency management sector, diversity systems and diversity process, effective diversity and inclusion, inclusion in the emergency services/emergency management sector, measurement of effective diversity and inclusion, systemic diversity}, isbn = {978-1-86272-780-9}, issn = {360}, author = {Celeste Young and Joanne Pyke and Neelam Maharaj and Bruce Rasmussen and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-4664, title = {The long road: building effective diversity and inclusion in emergency management}, number = {363}, year = {2018}, month = {07/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Although diversity and inclusion (D\&I) is not a new concept or area of practice for the Emergency Management Sector (EMS), there has been little clarity of what effective D\&I practice is, particularly in relation to its management and measurement. EMS organisations are complex, and increasingly, dynamic social, environmental and economic factors are driving the need for transformation in the sector.

This report presents a synthesis of key findings from the organisational assessments and relevant research from the literature review (Young et al., 2018) undertaken for the project Diversity and Inclusion: Building strength and capability. Case study assessments were undertaken with three EMS organisations {\textendash} Queensland Fire and Rescue, Fire and Rescue New South Wales) and South Australian State Emergency Services. These comprised a desktop study of public documents to assess their recent history, current activities and the policy context, website audits to ascertain the visual narrative in relation to D\&I, and a series of interviews to capture the {\textquoteleft}lived experience{\textquoteright} of D\&I from their employees. The aim of the research was to develop an understanding of the key factors influencing effective implementation, and key components needed for a draft D\&I framework, which is presented in this report.

Using a systemic analysis focused on decision making, this research provides insights into how past and present practice and the evolution of these organisations influences their current approaches to D\&I. It also provides an analysis of the barriers, needs, opportunities and benefits collated during the interviews and key themes that arose. D\&I is now a key business imperative for all EMS organisations but much work still needs to be done before effective practice in D\&I can be achieved. However, these organisations also contain pre-existing strengths and knowledge that present considerable opportunities. Achieving effective D\&I is a long-term proposition with many challenges, and for organisations who have the courage to persist through this process, the benefits of a more diverse and inclusive organisation are there to be realised.

}, isbn = {978-1-86272-784-7}, issn = {363}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and Margarita Kumnick} } @article {bnh-4433, title = {Valuing recovery through risk ownership}, journal = { Australian Journal of Emergency Management }, volume = {33}, year = {2018}, month = {01/2018}, abstract = {

As the risks encountered by natural hazards change and become more dynamic, so too, does the task of recovering from them. To manage natural hazards, planners must plan for the unexpected; building resilience before, during and after events. Currently, recovery funding is limited to a two-year window. Devastated communities that do not recover during this time rely on ad hoc funding to support patchy recovery beyond this. Planning for long-term recovery needs to be embedded throughout the risk assessment process to be effective. This presents a number of challenges. By identifying the longer-term risks and their consequences in advance, sustained recovery can be planned for all social, environmental and economic values (assets). This will determine what recovery interventions may be needed and when they are likely be most effective.

}, keywords = {emergnecy mangement., recovery, resiliance, risk ownership}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/5025/ajem-33-01-17.pdf}, author = {Celeste Young} } @conference {bnh-4799, title = {Working from the inside out to improve utilisation of research in decision making}, booktitle = {AFAC18}, year = {2018}, month = {09/2018}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Perth}, abstract = {

The most common model for research is still often one where research is produced largely by researchers and delivered to users in the form of data, reports and papers. However if research is to be used it requires the blending of two very different knowledge systems: those of research and practice. Their integration in a transdisciplinary research environment is absolutely necessary if research is to be usable and serve the implementation needs of practitioners and policy makers. Implementation of research in the field of natural hazards is complex because it is a systemic issue and requires a highly collaborative model; one where diverse parties work together to achieve common goals. This can be an uncomfortable space particularly for researchers because this process starts in a fundamentally different place. It requires researchers to develop understanding from inside end user contexts rather than develop knowledge from outside it. It is a process of matching the knowledge to the need and tailoring information so end users can use it. Communication is a key part of this and active listening and negotiation are crucial.\  The inside out methodology was developed in 2006 and has since been used to develop a number of practitioner frameworks including the Risk Ownership Framework for Policy and Practice. These frameworks integrate research into decision making systems through co-designing solutions that evaluate end users context, their decision making systems and the drivers that inform them. It is however not without its challenges. This paper outlines some of the key components that are part of this research model.\ 

}, author = {Celeste Young} } @article {bnh-3860, title = {Mapping values and risks from natural hazards at geographic and institutional scales: framework development}, number = {338}, year = {2017}, month = {08/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This paper describes the framework development for the project {\textquotedblleft}Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard vulnerability and risks at the institutional scale{\textquotedblright} being undertaken for the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Co-operative Research Centre (BNHCRC). The project is taking a values at risk approach to natural hazard vulnerability by mapping a wide variety of values within an economic geography. Risk ownership of assets at risk and delegated strategic risk management will then be allocated at the institutional scale, providing an insight into existing levels of risk governance for the broad range of values at risk. Aspects of strategic risk management within the project scope concerns natural hazard risk reduction before and after events, taking into account resilience, preparedness, mitigation and recovery.

The systemic nature of natural hazard risk requires building the standard risk assessment process into a broader framework that assess interactions at the institutional scale. This role is filled by the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD). The framework operates at a polycentric (multiple scale) and heterodox (multiple economic methodology) scale, and is suited to the analysis of common pool resources, which are subtractable, and where limiting access is non-trivial. The capacity to manage natural disaster risk arguably qualifies as a common pool resource, notwithstanding the open-ended nature of current government financing arrangement for disaster recovery.

Key features of the framework include:

}, issn = {338}, author = {Roger Jones and Celeste Young and Symons, J} } @article {bnh-3802, title = {Risk ownership for natural hazards: summary of key research findings}, number = {250}, year = {2017}, month = {07/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report provides a summary of the risk ownership research from the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC) project {\textquotedblleft}Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard vulnerability at the institutional scale{\textquotedblright} and draws upon the following reports and papers:

}, issn = {250}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-3801, title = {Risk ownership framework for emergency management policy and practice}, number = {252}, year = {2017}, month = {07/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The purpose of this framework is to assist this process with guidance that supports practitioners by providing a starting point for understanding and clarifying risk ownership as part of strategic risk planning. It does this through a framework that outlines:

The framework process uses a flexible, values-based approach that shows how to identify the most important values in a variety of settings, to assess how those values are at risk from natural hazards, and to identify and evaluate actions to preserve and recover those values in the face of natural hazard risk. A list of diverse evaluation tools and methods to do this are also summarised. The process is designed to add to, and be integrated into, current risk planning assessments. Although this framework uses natural hazards as the focus, it can be applied in other areas of emergency management where strategic approaches to systemic risk are needed.

Aspects of this framework may be uncomfortable because they challenge established forms of thinking and acting, so it is important for those using this framework to approach it through a change management/transformation lens. What is possible and when will be dictated by situational contexts and available resources. As with all innovation, developing the new skills and knowledge needed will help people understand and accept the changes they may need to make to undertake new and unfamiliar activities.

This type of planning goes beyond surviving an event and rebuilding back to focusing on sustaining the values we treasure most. It is about planning for the future we want to have in the face of change.

}, issn = {252}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and Margarita Kumnick and Greg Christopher and Nicholas Casey} } @conference {bnh-3915, title = {The uncomfortable conversation: understanding value through risk ownership}, booktitle = {AFAC17}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

Being able to effectively determine risk ownership is critical for effectively managing natural hazards. This, however, is not a simple task: the risks are systemic, the impacts can resonate across multiple time lines and geographical scales and, in many cases, ownership is shared. As risk ownership is frequently not formally allocated to particular activities, allocation is often a negotiated process. This requires being able to combine expert and local knowledge with economic understandings to support decision making in this area. This type of planning extends beyond surviving an event and rebuilding, to focusing on sustaining the values we treasure most, by planning for the future we want, in the face of changes that go beyond our previous experience. This presentation will explore these different aspects and show how they have been brought together in a risk ownership framework. This framework has been co-designed with end users and provides a companion process that integrates strategic risk into current risk assessment and planning processes. This process uses the identification of values (what is most important), and who owns these, as a premise for assessing risk. Risk ownership provides not only a focus for specific activities, but also acts as a connecting thread that runs through the strategic risk assessment process {\textendash} binding ownership of values and ownership of assets in a way that supports actions rather than disabling them. Our presentation will explore how the different phases of this process can be used to help communities identify what is most important and to explore risk reduction strategies to protect these. It will also show how valuation methods can provide a pathway for building a more comprehensive understanding of how to make long-term investments aiming to avoid damage and loss. It will show how drawing together the threads of this difficult conversation to a point of consensus, actively supports resilience activities and strategic thinking.

}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-4570, title = {Valuing recovery through risk ownership}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {33}, year = {2017}, month = {11/2017}, abstract = {
As the risks encountered by natural hazards change and become more dynamic, so too, does the task of recovering from them. To manage natural hazards, planners must plan for the unexpected; building resilience before, during and after events. Currently, recovery funding is limited to a two-year window. Devastated communities that do not recover during this time rely on ad hoc funding to support patchy recovery beyond this. Planning for long-term recovery needs to be embedded throughout the risk assessment process to be effective. This presents a number of challenges. By identifying the longer-term risks and their consequences in advance, sustained recovery can be planned for all social, environmental and economic values (assets). This will determine what recovery interventions may be needed and when they are likely be most effective.

}, keywords = {lessons management., mitigation, Natural hazards, prevention, risk ownership, risks}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-jan-2018-valuing-recovery-through-risk-ownership/}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-3100, title = {Institutional maps of risk ownership for strategic decision making}, number = {233}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The purpose of this report is to develop institutional maps of risk ownership in the Australian context that will provide an insight into the current balance of ownership delegations. These maps address risk ownership relating to the strategic management of natural hazard risk for planning, preparedness and recovery (PPR). They do not cover the response component of natural hazard risk management (see Figure 1), which is largely tactical and command and control-based, rather than strategic.

Strategic management includes mitigation incorporated into planning and preparation designed to reduce the impacts of natural hazard risks. Resilience is also included as a key contributor to recovery and is seen as any set of actions that do not alter the risk itself, instead influencing exposure, sensitivity and vulnerability.\ 

}, issn = {233}, author = {Celeste Young and Symons, J and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-3048, title = {Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard vulnerability and risks at the institutional scale: Annual project report 2015-2016}, number = {216}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Natural hazard disasters are systemic, potentially resulting in catastrophic impacts capable of breaching geographic, institutional, functional and operational thresholds. Such impacts often interact with other risks, causing knock-on effects, or risk contagion.

While some locations can successfully implement strategic planning for a limited number of natural hazard risks, at regional and government scales, a multi-hazard, multi-value approach needs to be taken. This requires a significant advance in how systemic risk is understood at the institutional level by governments, industry and the community. This is quite different to conventional understandings based on the cause-and-effect nature of individual hazards. Without such advances, affected systems will remain vulnerable to unpredictable combinations of events, and unowned and shared risks are likely to be poorly defined.

The focus of the project in the past twelve months has been in:

The workshops{\textquoteright} purpose was to explore, through a series of structured scenario exercises, how values and risk ownership are currently understood. Feedback was also sought for the newly-developed draft Values at Risk Maps to gauge the appetite for further development.

}, issn = {216}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and Symons, J} } @article {bnh-5080, title = {Owning the future: risk ownership and strategic decision-making for natural hazards}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {31}, year = {2016}, month = {07/2016}, abstract = {
The introduction of resilience as a key policy direction for natural disaster, and the growing recognition by governments that they cannot sustain community expectations by {\textquoteright}owning{\textquoteright} the bulk of natural hazard risk, is driving change. Making natural disasters everyone{\textquoteright}s business is not a short-term proposition. It requires repositioning how we as a society view, interact with, and understand risk in both current and future contexts. Longer-term strategic thinking and clarity of risk ownership are crucial if this is to be achieved. This task is difficult because the risks associated with natural hazards are systemic, resulting in interactions between seemingly unrelated risks. This requires a shared understanding as to how these different areas of risk interact with a wide range of values over multiple time scales. How this understanding can be integrated into decision-making requires extensive collaboration. In many cases, risk ownership will be shared, which can make it a confusing and frustrating space for policy makers and practitioners alike.
}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-31-04-11}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-3092, title = {Understanding values at risk and risk ownership workshop synthesis report}, number = {225}, year = {2016}, month = {09/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

When natural disasters are large and combine in unpredictable ways, they also cross domains; moving from the private to the public realm, and shifting from a local, to a state or national concern. Most climate-related natural hazards, and the number of people living in hazard-prone areas, are increasing {\textendash} raising the potential of future, unmanaged risks. Deficits in important social and environmental values could arise if they are not adequately accounted or compensated for in decision-making processes. Communities and the environment are vital components of liveability and sustainability, but their underlying values are not well understood. If a risk is owned {\textendash} in that who is responsible for managing the values under threat can be clearly identified {\textendash} then we can assess this imbalance. If a risk is unowned, these values may be more likely to be damaged and degraded, or lost.

Values underpin the foundations of decision-making and shape the choices we make, yet often they only become visible when they are lost. Values can be social, environmental or economic and can be measured as tangible (monetary) or intangible (non-monetary). To date, there has been little clarity as to the worth of different types of values and the role that they play in decision-making within and across institutions. Preventing future loss of values and the associated costs from uncertain but potentially severe natural hazard events can be difficult but necessary in order to make the case for investment. It is also important for understanding more fully the implications of the trade-offs associated with different mitigation options to improve strategic decision-making.

The increasing intensity of some natural hazards, changing demographics and environmental conditions, are placing many of these values at greater risk. This is driving the need to ensure effective management by better understanding which values are most vulnerable, their worth and the risks that threaten them, and identifying who has ownership of these values at an institutional level.

This report provides an analysis of four workshops and supporting research for the project Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard vulnerability and risks at the institutional scale, undertaken for the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre (BNHCRC). These workshops were designed to provide a basis for testing work to date and for identifying key components needed for the development of the final outputs for this project.

The workshops were undertaken in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales and developed in collaboration with our end users. They were designed to explore preferences in decision-making that relate to values at risk and current understandings of risk ownership. We also wanted to test the Draft Values at Risk Map developed by the project as a research tool, to determine the best future use for this output.\ 

}, issn = {225}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and Symons, J} } @article {bnh-1545, title = {Mapping and Understanding Bushfire and Natural Hazard Vulnerability and Risks at the Institutional Scale Annual Report 2014}, year = {2015}, month = {01/2015}, abstract = {

This is an annual report for the year 2013/14 for the Mapping and Understanding Bushfire and Natural Hazard Vulenrability and Risks porject. This project aims to address issues by investigating vulnerability and risks to natural hazards on a range of scales. It will look at institutions involved in natural disasters, such as local government, state government, federal government and the community and private sector; and assess how their specific values and rules interact with the broader values affected by natural disasters.

}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-2348, title = {Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard vulnerability and risks at the institutional scale: Annual project report 2014-2015}, number = {140}, year = {2015}, month = {11/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The Annual Project Report 2014{\textendash}2015, marks the halfway point of the project Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard vulnerability and risks at the institutional scale. In recent months, the project has gathered significant momentum and we look forward to a very busy year ahead.

A major decision for the project and a key deliverable was to decide on the most suitable platform to host the economic geography and values at risk maps. This was achieved through a collaboration with the Centre for eResearch Data and Innovation (CeRDI) at Federation University, Ballarat. This collaboration will continue to develop the map

Two key reports for the project were produced:

  1. A report on the current state of risk ownership of strategic risk management of natural hazards in Australia, led by Celeste Young. This report was originally intended to be a brief desktop study but became a major report presenting a framework for assessing risk ownership and an analysis of publicly available documents.
  2. A report developing a framework for the whole project that combines risk management and the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework building on earlier work[1]. This will be released through the BNHCRC as a working paper and later converted into journal papers.

Regular meetings have been held and assisted through ongoing contact with individual end users, has informed our research enormously. Discussions and exchange of materials within the economic research cluster has led to plans to undertake common case studies, exchange ideas and work towards building compatible frameworks.

Additionally, we have undertaken a number of outreach activities including presentations to meetings and conferences, detailed in this report.

Planning is now underway for a series of four stakeholder workshops to take place in August. These will apply a small number of scenarios to the draft values at risk maps to further explore issues around values and risk ownership. The results will influence the further development of the economy geography and contribute to the assessment of risk ownership and governance at the institutional scale.

}, issn = {140}, author = {Celeste Young and Roger Jones and Symons, J} } @conference {bnh-2076, title = {Risk ownership and natural hazards: across systems and across values - peer viewed}, booktitle = {Adelaide Conference 2015}, year = {2015}, month = {08/2015}, address = {Adelaide, Australia}, abstract = {

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

}, author = {Roger Jones and Celeste Young and Symons, J} } @article {bnh-1871, title = {Whose risk is it anyway?}, number = {074}, year = {2015}, month = {06/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This desktop review presents a summary of risk ownership allocation for the strategic management of natural hazard risks in Australia. It forms part of the project Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard vulnerability and risks at the institutional scale undertaken for the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC.

Risk ownership here is restricted to strategic pre- and post-events for natural hazard disaster management. Other aspects of ownership, such as the undertaking of emergency response, where Australia has a significant and well-recognised capacity, are not addressed.

Risk ownership is explored through three questions:

These questions take in the two main definitions of risk ownership that cover the asset owner and the risk manager: the person or entity with the accountability or responsibility of managing a risk.

The key findings are described according to the strategic aspects of managing the risk of natural hazards:

Ownership was examined within a matrix of broad institutions (federal, state/territory and local government, business and industry, and civil society) and values (built, social and environment assets, and infrastructure). Risk ownership across this matrix was found to be allocated according to individual hazards, ownership of assets, tasks associated with the risk management process and policy/legislative instruments.

Risk ownership is highly dynamic. The systemic nature of natural hazard disasters is characterised by their potential to cross domains and move from one risk owner to another, affecting a wide range of ownership. Risk ownership is also changing as new operational structures and processes are emerging, and growing within and across institutions. Also found was variable interpretation of risk, risk ownership and lack of clarity of appropriate governance, particularly across areas of multiple ownership.

Review of pre- and post-event policies and strategies revealed ownership strengths in the following areas:

Ownership gaps were observed in the following areas:

Areas of interest regarding ownership that will be explored further in the next phase of this project include:

This review has highlighted some of the challenges for ascertaining the allocation of risk ownership for natural hazards and disasters. It has also revealed areas where ownership is less well allocated and potential pathways for this to be developed. \ The breadth and complexity of integration and coordination across institutions to enable effective management of natural hazard risk effectively needs the comprehensive allocation of risk ownership to evolve over time. This will require new structures and adaptive ways of thinking that can incorporate new knowledge as it emerges. It will also require institutions to think systemically, not only within and across their own domains, but also across the broad system of values that are the foundation of our economy.

}, issn = {074}, author = {Celeste Young and Symons, J and Roger Jones} } @article {bnh-1570, title = {The Problem Solution Framework}, year = {2014}, month = {01/2015}, author = {Celeste Young} }