@article {bnh-8012, title = {Heatwave and building codes in New South Wales: issues and prospects}, number = {611}, year = {2021}, month = {05/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report reviews key literature and considers the overall comprehensiveness of the NSW building codes in terms of their contributions to selected elements of heatwave resilience. It identifies success, opportunities and issues relating to the contribution of building codes to natural hazard resilience. Overall, this report suggests that there is no effective acknowledgement of heatwave in the National Construction Code, and that there is limited integration between building and other key systems such as land use planning, health services and emergency preparedness and response. A range of areas are proposed for attention.

}, keywords = {building, codes, heatwave, issues, nsw, prospects}, issn = {611}, author = {Alan March and Crystal Legacy and Georgia Warren-Myers and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes} } @article {bnh-7836, title = {Integrating wildfire risk management and spatial planning {\textendash} A historical review of two Australian planning systems}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, volume = {53}, year = {2021}, month = {02/2021}, abstract = {

Recent wildfires burning throughout Australia highlight the vulnerability of settlements located in wildland urban interface (WUI) areas. Spatial planning has a critical role in operationalising wildfire risk reduction considerations in a territorial manner across the WUI. Accordingly, more integrated approaches to wildfire management and spatial planning are necessary. However, there is limited literature examining the historical interactions between wildfire and spatial planning policy sectors and how institutions and policy instruments adapt over time to integrate mutually dependent considerations. To address this gap, this research examines how Australian spatial planning institutions and instruments evolved since European settlement to incorporate wildfire considerations, through a qualitative comparative case study approach of two Australian states. Based on the findings of the case study comparison, this paper presents a conceptual framework of the pathways towards increased policy integration of spatial planning and wildfire risk reduction that consists of six phases. It is argued that the path to greater policy integration is grounded on the development of common knowledge, a cross-disciplinary understanding, and agreed policy goals between different policy sectors, that, with time, translate into new institutional arrangements and instruments that integrate the work and decision-making processes of different sectors.

}, keywords = {Disaster risk management, governance, Integration, Spatial planningm Urban planning, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101984}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420920314862?dgcid=coauthor}, author = {Constanza Gonzalez-Mathiesen and Simone Ruane and Alan March} } @article {bnh-8013, title = {A method for assessing building codes for natural hazard resilience}, number = {612}, year = {2021}, month = {05/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Building codes regulate the design and materials of structures in the built environment, often in parallel with related processes such as land use planning. Building codes establish a standard of certainty that structures achieve pre-established levels of safety and health. In parallel, building codes are potentially able to contribute to natural hazard resilience, although ongoing improvements are needed to account for a variety of emerging challenges and insights from new research.

This summary outlines a generalised method to assess building codes, their application in New South Wales, and related mechanisms in terms of their contribution to natural hazard resilience, identifying areas for improvement and further research. It ensures that methods used and findings are reported in language and formats easily accessible by a wider audience of emergency management, land use planning and design practitioners.

}, keywords = {assessing, building, codes, method, natural hazard, nsw, resilience}, issn = {612}, author = {Alan March and Crystal Legacy and Georgia Warren-Myers and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes} } @article {bnh-8203, title = {Multi-hazard review of the comprehensiveness of Victorian urban planning for disaster risk reduction}, number = {700}, year = {2021}, month = {09/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

The research undertook a multi-hazard review of the comprehensiveness of Victorian urban planning for natural hazard disaster risk reduction.\  It compared ideal approaches and outcomes with current processes, treatments, and systems.

The project focussed on the Planning and Environment Act (1987) (The Act) and the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs), in parallel with key supporting documents and processes.

At a high level, the VPPs set out some strong underpinnings for action to address natural hazard risks.\  Certain hazards, notably Bushfire and Flood are dealt with quite comprehensively. However comprehensive integration into the VPPs across various hazards and treatments is incomplete. Key findings are as follows.

}, keywords = {comprehensiveness, Disaster risk reduction, Multi-hazard, review, urban planning, Victoria}, issn = {700}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes} } @article {bnh-6977, title = {Australian inquiries into natural hazard events: Recommendations relating to urban planning for natural hazard mitigation (2009-2017)}, number = {571}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This document reports on an assessment of major Australian post disaster and emergency event inquiries and reviews from the past 10 years in terms of recommendations relating to the integration of urban planning and natural hazard mitigation.

Findings from this review must be understood in the context of inquiries {\textendash}examinations of events seeking mainly to identify problems and areas for improvement.\  Accordingly, the recommendations do not typically highlight successes or existing strengths, even while these may be well understood and recognised by those involved. Additionally, this report has avoided making detailed assessments of the numbers of various recommendation types, given the uneven distribution of a relatively low number of events. Nonetheless, the emphases upon certain areas and omission of others suggest areas for future improvement.

}, keywords = {events, inquiries, mitigation, Natural hazards, urban planning}, issn = {571}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @inbook {bnh-7381, title = {Developing guidelines for increasing the resilience of informal settlements exposed to wildfire risk using a risk-based planning approach}, booktitle = {Understanding Disaster Risk: A Multidimensional Approach}, year = {2020}, pages = {159-178}, publisher = { Elsevier}, organization = { Elsevier}, chapter = {2.1}, abstract = {

Internationally, there is an increasing concern with the development of improved ways of dealing with disasters (UNISDR, 2015). Wildfires bring about greater disaster risks at the urban-rural interface of wildfire-prone areas, where lives and properties are more exposed. These risks are often greater in contexts of informality, where settlements have been built with limited consideration of risks. This chapter reports on the production of guidelines to develop resilience to wildfires for communities living in informal settlements exposed to wildfire risk. It responds to Sendai Framework for Action{\textquoteright}s priority one {\textquotedblleft}understanding disaster risk{\textquotedblright} (UNISDR, 2015, p. 15). The investigation is approached through participatory action research. It is the result of a collaboration between diverse stakeholders during the seminar {\textquotedblleft}Prevention of Forest Fire Risks in Urban Settlements and Buildings: A Planning and Design Approach.{\textquotedblright} The study case is Ag{\"u}ita de la Perdiz, in Concepcion, Chile, an informal settlement with ongoing wildfire risk. The seminar{\textquoteright}s product is condensed in a set of guidelines. These guidelines{\textemdash}and the process of producing them{\textemdash}are expected to contribute to disseminating knowledge about general design and planning strategies to mitigate wildfire risk as well as to strengthen local capacities. It is argued that the collaborative process undertaken to develop the guidelines is replicable in other places to address context-specific issues.

}, keywords = {community engagement, Informal settlements, Local communities, spatial planning, urban planning, wildfires}, issn = {978-0-12-819047-0}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819047-0.00002-0}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128190470000020}, author = {Constanza Gonzalez-Mathiesen and Alan March} } @inbook {bnh-6647, title = {Dimensions of Risk Justice and Resilience: Mapping Urban Planning{\textquoteright}s Role Between Individual Versus Collective Rights}, booktitle = {Natural Hazards and Disaster Justice: Challenges for Australia and Its Neighbours}, year = {2020}, pages = {93-115}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, organization = {Palgrave Macmillan}, edition = {1st}, chapter = {5}, address = {Singapore}, abstract = {

This chapter applies a justice framework to the complex of dilemmas between individual rights and the public good. It uses the case of the Wye River and Separation Creek Christmas Day 2015 bushfire in Victoria, Australia. Analysis of this event reveals the complex interactions of assumed, asserted and contested rights that play out before, during and after major destructive bushfire events, and their justice implications. The chapter suggests that there is a need to acknowledge and treat risks as complex manifestations of ongoing decisions over time; that existing emphases on individual property rights often erode the public good; that there is a need to set minimum standards in settlements; and that there is need to actively integrate individual and collective action to achieve risk justice.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, Human settlements, Justice, Public good, risk, urban planning, Wildfire}, isbn = {978-981-15-0465-5}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0466-2_5}, url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-0466-2_5}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Janet Stanley} } @book {bnh-6841, title = {Feeling the heat: International perspectives on the prevention of wildfire ignition}, series = {Series on Climate Change and Society}, year = {2020}, pages = {319}, publisher = {Vernon Press}, organization = {Vernon Press}, edition = {1st}, address = {Wilmington}, abstract = {

In the context of climate change, world population growth and crashing ecological systems, wildfire is often a catastrophic and traumatic event. Its impact can include loss of life, life-changing injuries, long-term psychological stress; increases in domestic violence; destruction of properties, business and livestock; long-term housing insecurity; increased insurance premiums, fire-fighting, legal and health costs; as well as significant changes and species losses in the natural environment.

}, keywords = {ignition, Planning, prevention, response, risk, Wildfire}, issn = {978-1-64889-010-9}, url = {https://vernonpress.com/book/890}, author = {Janet Stanley and Alan March and James Ogloff and James Thompson} } @article {bnh-6576, title = {Integrated urban planning for natural hazard mitigation}, number = {535}, year = {2020}, month = {01/2020}, institution = {Bushfire \& Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report is the third in a series produced for the BNHCRC-funded project Integrating Urban Planning and Natural Hazard Mitigation. The first report constituted a theoretical exploration of integration between urban planning and emergency management supported by an overarching understanding of national and state contexts for these two fields of inquiry and practice, with a focus on the states of Victoria and South Australia. This report generated a preliminary framework used to subsequently interrogate a series of urbanplanning-related recommendations from royal commissions of inquiry and reviews targeting natural-hazard-related events in the past ten years, summarised in the second report.

Building on the preliminary framework of integration previously developed, this current report presents the development of an analytical framework for assessing integration between urban planning and emergency management arrangements and practice and its application in a real case in the state of Victoria. Findings presented in this report serves as the basis for the analysis of the South Australian case of integration in a moment when its planning system is under considerate reforms. A separate report containing findings from this subsequent analysis is to be submitted next.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, mitigation, Natural hazards, Risk assessment, urban planning}, issn = {535}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-7738, title = {Integrated urban planning for natural hazard mitigation {\textendash} final project report}, number = {635}, year = {2020}, month = {12/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Context

Urban planning systems have considerable potential to modify the impacts of natural hazards upon the built environment, humans and associated systems. With the increased frequency of natural hazards due to climate change and increased exposure to hazards due to population growth pressures, especially in the urban-rural interface, there are also increased consequences for human settlements and likely exacerbation of the challenges associated with natural hazard impact.

In this context, this project sought to understand the limits and potentials of integrated urban planning for natural hazard mitigation in Australia, and the ways in which key planning processes for risk-based decision-making in the built environment can be improved. By doing so, it identified many gaps in the ways we currently seek to integrate urban planning and natural hazard risk management.

The primary questions posed by this research project were:

PQ1 {\textendash} What are the limits and potentials of integrated urban planning for natural hazard mitigation in Australia?

PQ2 {\textendash} How can key planning processes for risk-based decision making in the built environment be improved at local and state level, including generalizable and adaptable model processes and codes with practical illustrative cases?

Method

The project comprised 3 sequential stages that resulted in the development of diagnostic tools to assess and improve the integration of urban planning and natural hazard mitigation in Australia.

The first stage{\textendash}Mapping Current Knowledge, Best Practice and Challenges{\textendash}established an analytical framework to assess integration based on current knowledge, best practice and challenges. Using desktop research and end-user workshops, core integration principles were identified.

In the second stage{\textendash}Assessing Australian Planning and Ways Forward{\textendash}the set of integration principles was refined through its application to past Australian inquiries into natural hazard events. An analytical framework for assessing integration was also developed and diagrammatically represented to illustrate and map critical variables for the integration of Urban Planning and Natural Hazard Mitigation.

The third stage{\textendash}Applying and Generating Knowledge in New Ways{\textendash}applied and generated knowledge by undertaking an assessment of urban planning and natural hazard mitigation in two Australian case studies. In consultation with end-users, this assessment targeted proposed land use planning reforms in South Australia and a historical case of edge development in Metropolitan Melbourne in Victoria. Findings from these case studies informed the development of critical frameworks for best practice comprising three sets of diagnostic tools.

Learnings and findings

Learnings were captured in a set of scalable and adaptable diagnostic tools that are part of critical frameworks for best practice in integrating urban planning and natural hazard mitigation in Australia. These diagnostic tools allow assessment of integration and risk management across urban planning and emergency management systems and processes. This set of tools is the final product for this research project and the utilisation output delivered to end-users. This output represents a comprehensive understanding of the potentials and limits of urban planning systems when it comes to disaster risk reduction. It allows for a range of new ways forward to fully utilise and integrate urban planning with natural hazard mitigation actions and outcomes. Broadly, these diagnostic tools suggest that a comprehensive assessment of integration of urban planning and natural hazard mitigation should include consideration of

Utilisation

This project is in its first three-year cycle, so it was not able to move into utilisation.\  However, the outcomes of the work provide an ability to understand, critique and improve urban planning{\textquoteright}s influence and impact on risk reduction to natural hazards, providing many new ways forward.

Therefore, there is great potential for the utilisation of the critical model developed in the research to assess and guide reform in processes of land use planning in existing and future settlements. In particular, modifying the processes of state and local government during planning decision-making is likely to yield significant impact. The development of illustrative critical and explanatory understandings of the importance and application of urban planning as a tool for disaster risk reduction is in and of itself a significant output that can be utilised.

Many of the project findings have been included in the AIDR Handbook {\textquotedblleft}Land Use Planning for Disaster Resilient Communities{\textquotedblright} (March \& Gonzalez-Mathiesen, 2020) and have informed submissions to the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (Stanley et al., 2020)and to the Inquiry into the 2019-2020 Victorian Fire Season (Stanley et al., 2020,embargoed).

There are many potential areas for ongoing utilisation. These fall under the following broad categories:

}, keywords = {integrated, mitigation, natural hazard, urban planning}, issn = {635}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes} } @article {bnh-7013, title = {Integrating bushfire risk reduction and statutory mechanisms in South Australia: assessment of the draft Planning and Design Code 2019}, number = {584}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Bushfires pose significant threats to life and property in many parts of Australia.\  The frequency and intensity of bushfires are increasing over time in association with worsening weather conditions that support extreme fires (Dowdy, 2018) and ongoing settlement growth (Allen, 2018). High bushfire risks generally occur when fires interact with human settlements, where housing and other structures are near flammable vegetation and associated impacts such as ember attack.

This report is an output of the wider project {\textquotedblleft}Integrating Urban Planning with Disaster Risk Reduction{\textquotedblright} funded by the Bushfire Natural Hazard Cooperative Research Centre. It is part of a critical review of the integration of emergency management and urban planning in South Australia focusing on the detail of bushfire treatment mechanisms proposed in the State Planning Reform Document Draft Planning and Design Code {\textendash} Phase 2 Rural Areas (DPTI, 2019b) released in October 2019 by the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure, and State Planning Commission. In parallel, the review also considered other relevant regulations and codes such as AS 3959-2018 Building in Bushfire Prone Areas (Standards Australia - Committee FP-020, 2019) and Ministerial Building Standard MBS008 Designated Bushfire Prone Areas {\textendash} Draft October 2019 (DPTI, 2019a). The present report provides a basis for later work in subsequent stages that develops new approaches and improvements in collaboration with practitioners.

The review begins by setting out the conceptual and theoretical basis of integration and moves to presenting a general description of bushfires and the main factors that contribute to bushfire risks in the built environment. Then, it sets out the main elements of investigation relating to the integration of bushfire risk reduction in the built environment, summarising the adopted research approach and the role of this report in the wider research project. Then the report moves to critically analysing the outcomes of applying these integration principles to bushfire risks as they are dealt with by the draft Code. Findings point to elements of the Code that could be improved to reduce risks across the areas of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.

}, keywords = {bushfires, planning and design code, risk reduction, south australia}, issn = {584}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-7510, title = {Urban planning and natural hazard risk reduction: critical frameworks for best practice}, number = {631}, year = {2020}, month = {11/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

Urban planning offers a range of potential benefits to reduce or even avoid many of the risks associated with natural hazards.\  However, it is is not always fully utilised as a core mechanism to manage natural hazard risks, particularly those relating to human settlements.

This document sets out a critical framework to guide improved integration of land use planning and wider natural hazard risk reduction actions. It is intended to support emergency managers and urban and regional planning practitioners in the complex task of integrating land use planning and disaster risk reduction in different Australian jurisdictions. The critical framework has been designed to speak to current terminology, processes and arrangements already used by these audiences.

The diagnostioc tools are scalable and adapatable to various circumstances and needs. Hence, the diagnoses can be applied to particiular hazards, certain geographical places, parts of or the entire planning system, or specific challenges associated with disaster risk reductions.

Three interconnected elements comprise the diagnstic tools, based on developing and applying knowledge regarding:

  1. Natural Hazards, the sources of harm or situations with a potential to cause loss with their core transmission systems in the natural world.0F[1]
  2. Cross-Cutting Themes, core disaster risk reduction principles that apply to all urban planning, settlement and natural hazard circumstances.
  3. Diagnostic Focus Areas, risk reduction principles that relate to key categories of urban planning, communities and the range of other systems they interact with.

The diagnostic tool includes a sequenced approach to examine complex situations and to develop logical and evidence-based directions for improved urban planning. This also allows improved connections with wider Disaster Risk Reduction practices.\ 

1 {\textendash} Establish Context, scope and key focus

2 {\textendash} Analyse focus area(s) in terms of relevant hazards

3 {\textendash} Analyse focus area(s) in terms of cross-cutting themes and challenges

4 {\textendash} Analyse focus area(s) in terms of specific diagnostic focus areas

5 {\textendash} Review and adjust or modify as appropriate

[1] It is assumed here that expertise and data will mainly come from a variety of credible sources as a basis for effective action.\  Accordingly, detailed descriptions of each hazard are not included here. Rather, reference to more exhaustive materials available elsewhere is provided.

}, keywords = {frameworks, natural hazard, practice, risk reduction, urban planning}, issn = {631}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Hedwig van Delden and Janet Stanley and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-7164, title = {Urban planning capabilities for bushfire: treatment categories and scenario testing}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {35}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, pages = {32-40}, abstract = {

The challenges facing settlements relating to bushfire require integrated approaches that manage risks across a wide range of factors. This paper sets out a framework demonstrating how urban planning, when coupled with appropriate decision support and future scenario testing, can reduce risks relating to bushfire while considering future growth. Examples of how planning can modify aspects of risk in association with scenario testing are included. Five main categories of risk reduction treatments are shown. The paper contributes to risk reduction by providing practical mechanisms for risk avoidance and treatment via urban and land-use planning systems combined with forward scenario testing to guide existing settlements and future growth.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, capabilities, scenario testing, treatment, urban planning}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-july-2020-urban-planning-capabilities-for-bushfire-treatment-categories-and-scenario-testing/}, author = {Alan March and Graeme Riddell and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Dovers, Steve and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-6294, title = {Challenges for wildfire-prone urban-rural interfaces: The case of Melbourne}, journal = {Urbano}, volume = {22}, year = {2019}, month = {04/2019}, pages = {88-105}, abstract = {

Wildfires are an ever-increasing threat for many residents of urban-rural interfaces located in wildfire-prone areas. Spatial planning is an important aspect of contending with wildfire risk, as it has the potential to modify the design, location and\ characteristics of settlements. However, planning systems can struggle to integrate actions to this end. Using a case-study methodology, this paper reflects on treatment responses to key wildfire risk factors in urban-rural interfaces and the challenges associated with this task. It analyses the case of Melbourne from the perspective of the spatial planning mechanisms addressing wildfire risk that are related to physical structures and the roles of agencies. The physical risk treatment responses are examined considering mapping, strategic actions and decision-making processes. Finally, the following challenges faced by spatial planning mechanisms when addressing wildfire risk are also highlighted: the direct and indirect influence of politics, other planning demands that compete with and slow risk management, implementation limitations, and problems associated with the legacy of risk in existing settlements.

}, keywords = {Disaster risk, peri-urban, spatial planning, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.22320/07183607.2019.22.39.05}, url = {http://revistas.ubiobio.cl/index.php/RU/article/view/3309}, author = {Constanza Gonzalez-Mathiesen and Alan March and Janet Stanley} } @article {bnh-6236, title = {Integrated urban planning for natural hazard mitigation: annual report 2018-2019}, number = {522}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This document reports on the carried-out activities, achieved milestones, and submitted deliverables for the second year of operation of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC Integrated Urban Planning for Natural Hazard Mitigation project {\textendash} 1st July 2018 to 30th June 2019. It contrasts achieved and planned outcomes and explains the necessary adjustments carried out to date. It starts by offering a background to the project, followed by considerations to the research approach being undertaken and then an explanation of the project implementation in greater detail and its utilisation outputs. This Year 2 {\textendash} 2018-2019 report will be followed by one final annual report to be submitted in mid-2020. In parallel to annual reports, this research project generates quarterly reports that further detail its operation every three months, as well as yearly self-assessment matrices. On the 30th of June 2020, a final report summarising key research project outcomes will also be submitted.

}, keywords = {Emergency management, future, integrating, mitigation, Planning, urban}, issn = {522}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes} } @article {bnh-6577, title = {Integrating bushfire risk reduction and statutory mechanisms in South Australia}, number = {536}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, institution = {Bushfire \& Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Bushfires pose significant threats to life and property in many parts of Australia. The frequency and intensity of bushfires are increasing over time in association with worsening weather conditions that support extreme fires (Dowdy, 2018) and ongoing settlement growth (Allen, 2018). High bushfire risks generally occur when fires interact with human settlements, where housing and other structures are near flammable vegetation and associated impacts such as ember attack.

This report is an output of the wider project {\textquotedblleft}Integrating Urban Planning with Disaster Risk Reduction{\textquotedblright} funded by the Bushfire Natural Hazard Cooperative Research Centre. It is part of a critical review of the integration of emergency management and urban planning in South Australia focusing on the detail of bushfire treatment mechanisms proposed in the State Planning Reform Document Draft Planning and Design Code {\textendash} Phase 2 Rural Areas (DPTI, 2019b) released in October 2019 by the Department of Transport, Planning and Infrastructure, and State Planning Commission. In parallel, the review also considered other relevant regulations and codes such as AS 3959-2018 Building in Bushfire Prone Areas (Standards Australia - Committee FP-020, 2019) and Ministerial Building Standard MBS008 Designated Bushfire Prone Areas {\textendash} Draft October 2019 (DPTI, 2019a). The present report provides a basis for later work in subsequent stages that develops new approaches and improvements in collaboration with practitioners.

The review begins by setting out the conceptual and theoretical basis of integration and moves to presenting a general description of bushfires and the main factors that contribute to bushfire risks in the built environment. Then, it sets out the main elements of investigation relating to the integration of bushfire risk reduction in the built environment, summarising the adopted research approach and the role of this report in the wider research project. Then the report moves to critically analysing the outcomes of applying these integration principles to bushfire risks as they are dealt with by the draft Code. Findings point to elements of the Code that could be improved to reduce risks across the areas of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, mechanisms, risk reduction}, issn = {536}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-6038, title = {Path dependency of the development contributions system}, journal = {Planning News}, volume = {45}, year = {2019}, month = {02/2019}, abstract = {

Clause 19 of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) outlines the importance of planning for the timely delivery of social and physical infrastructure, and states that planning authorities should consider the use of infrastructure contributions to assist in achieving this. Infrastructure contributions have been collected in Victoria for some time, but it was not until 1995 that the Development Contributions Plan (DCP) system became legislated in the Planning and Environment Act. This legislation was prompted by a landmark legal case in a greenfield setting known as the {\textquoteright}Eddie Barron decision{\textquoteright} which resulted in the principles of need, nexus, equity and accountability forming the basis of the way in which development contributions are collected in Victoria. The introduction of the Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) system in October 2016 was the first significant change to the way in which development contributions are collected since this legislation was introduced. The ICP currently applies to metropolitan greenfield settings, the application of the system in regional growth areas and strategic development areas is yet to be resolved.

}, keywords = {development, Infrastructure, Planning}, url = {https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=180596462251061;res=IELBus}, author = {Emily Killin and Alan March} } @article {bnh-6221, title = {Urban planning: historical changes integrating bushfire risk management in Victoria}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {34}, year = {2019}, month = {07/2019}, pages = {60-66}, abstract = {

Bushfires represent an increased risk for people and properties in exposed urban areas. The integration of bushfire risk management considerations into urban planning is one of the approaches used to address this challenge. This paper summarises the key changes in urban planning and building regulations that were introduced in Victoria over time to minimise the effects of bushfire on settlements. These have generally occurred within four main eras, being the independent origins of planning and bushfire risk management, the progressive emergence of bushfire risk management into urban planning between the late 1970s and the early 1990s, the formalisation of bushfire risk management via urban planning with the Wildfire Management Overlay in 1997 and the 2011 reforms associated with the Bushfire Management Overlay and its following adjustments. Advancements in urban planning regulation have usually occurred after bushfire events that inflicted significant losses on communities. These changes represent an ongoing trend towards the integration of bushfire risk reduction measures into urban planning mechanisms.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, risk management, urban planning}, url = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, author = {Constanza Gonzalez-Mathiesen and Alan March and Justin Leonard and Mark Holland and Blanchi, Raphaele} } @article {bnh-6665, title = {Australian inquiries into natural hazard events}, number = {544}, year = {2018}, month = {11/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This is the second research report for the Integrated Urban Planning for Natural Hazard Mitigation BNH-CRC project and constitutes a preliminary assessment of selected current approaches to integrating urban planning and natural hazard mitigation. Major post-event inquiries can play an important role in pushing for the reform of current urban planning arrangements to target disaster risk reduction. This was evident in the implementation of the Bushfire Management Overlay (see Appendix 1) and related statutory mechanisms in the State of Victoria after the 2009 Bushfires. Furthermore, recommendations can shed light on areas perceived as gaps during wider assessments of causes and contributory factors relating to major hazard events. Therefore, a review of urban-planning-related recommendations following major post-event inquiries and reviews across all-natural hazards will form the basis of this report, considering the role of urban planning in reducing emergent and legacy risks associated with the built environment.

The form of post-event inquiries varies widely, from the focused, technical and brief, to wide-ranging and lengthy such as those carried out by a Royal Commission (Eburn \& Dovers, 2015). While the recommendations of inquiries are very rarely binding on governments, they nonetheless carry significant weight and implementation is the norm. There were 142 post-event inquiries in Australia between 2009 and 2017, constituting by far the largest body of evaluation data regarding actual or perceived issues in disaster prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. This report begins to explore those recommendations from 55 major inquiries that relate to urban planning (Cole, Dovers, Eburn, \& Gough, 2017; Cole, Dovers, Gough, \& Eburn, 2018).

In this context, a preliminary assessment of urban-planning-related recommendations put forward by major post-event inquiries and reviews proved a worthwhile undertaking as the first step into understanding current approaches to integrating urban planning and natural hazard mitigation in the past 10 years.

The assessment of these recommendations was informed by the analytical framework developed in the first research report for this project, developed through a review of relevant literature and in consultation with end-users. This analytical framework proposed a set of elements of an approach to integration, and a general list of urban planning tools and another of urban planning treatments of risk that can be used to support natural hazard mitigation.

Assessing urban-planning-related recommendations against the set of categories proposed in this analytical framework targeted both the mapping of these recommendations to unveil concentrations as well as the testing and expansion of the framework through its first practical application.

Findings from this preliminary assessment will inform the next stage of this research project which consists in the assessment of specific Australian and international case studies. The former will provide an opportunity to contrast recommendations with implemented integration while the later holds potential for an expansion of possibilities to integration to those already being employed in Australia.

}, keywords = {events, inquiries, mitigation, Natural hazards, urban planning}, issn = {544}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Dovers, Steve and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-6331, title = {Establishing Design Principles for Wildfire Resilient Urban Planning}, journal = {Planning Practice and Research}, volume = {33}, year = {2018}, month = {02/2019}, pages = {97-119}, abstract = {

This study elaborates on the built and natural environment disciplines{\textquoteright} potential to develop applied understandings of resilience, using the example of land-use planning design guides in wildfire-prone areas. It argues that land-use planning can develop and apply spatial and physical resilience principles to disasters, contributing to developing meaningful ways of achieving resilience by bridging the space between overarching goals and the specificity of individual contexts, focusing on physical resistance. It concludes that there are nine design principles that can improve settlements resilience in wildfire-prone areas to reduce risks, organized under two major categories: acting on resistance and facilitating response.

}, keywords = {disaster, land-use planning, resilience, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2018.1429787}, url = {https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697459.2018.1429787$\#$.XfrID49xXb0}, author = {Constanza Gonzalez-Mathiesen and Alan March} } @article {bnh-4955, title = {Practical and theoretical issues: integrating urban planning and emergency management}, number = {414}, year = {2018}, month = {10/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

This report examines selected examples of integration between urban planning and emergency management in Australia. It seeks to identify initial issues to implementation at National and State level. Overall, this report argues that an integrated approach will require a coordinated framework at the strategic, tactical and operational levels, across functional areas and stakeholders, to establish an effective integrated governance approach that offers desired societal outcomes when faced with extreme events.

The key purpose of urban planning is to bring about improvements and avoid problems in human settlements that would not be achieved without intervention, organization and facilitation (Hall, 2007).\  While urban planning can occur in various forms and can use many mechanisms that seek a range of goals, its actions are primarily oriented to the physical characteristics of cities, towns and regions.\  This combines with the characteristics and distribution of people and the interactions and activities they undertake in various locations as the outcomes of planning.\ 

}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Dovers, Steve and Holger Maier} }