@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-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-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-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} }