@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} } @article {bnh-7508, title = {Improved decision support for natural hazard risk reduction {\textendash} annual report 2019-2020}, number = {629}, year = {2020}, month = {11/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

There is increasing recognition of the urgency to consider how disaster risk might change into the future, what impacts this is likely to have and, most importantly, what we can do to reduce this risk.\  There is also increased recognition that in order to achieve this, we need to adopt a holistic approach that takes into account community values, vulnerabilities and resilience, future changes in population and demographics, climate change, multiple hazards, cascading events, adaptation and a range of risk reduction strategies, such land use planning, community education, land management, structural measures and changes to building codes.

Over the last 5 years, this project has co-developed conceptual, modelling and decision support frameworks for tackling the above problems in conjunction with more than 40 end-user organisations in four states (South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and Victoria).\  The frameworks facilitate (i) the development of the capacity for strategic thinking and for tackling long-term disaster risk in an integrated fashion, (ii) the collaboration between different government departments and different levels of government (federal, state and local), (iii) the development of a shared understanding of risks and values between a range of stakeholders (e.g. different levels of government and the community), (iv) the quantification of how disaster risks and costs might change into the future under a range of integrated socio-economic and climate scenarios and (v) the development of the best adaptive mitigation strategies under these scenarios.

The above frameworks have resulted in the development of the decision support software UNHaRMED (Unified Natural Hazards Risk Mitigation Exploratory Decision support system), applications for which have been co-developed with end users for greater Adelaide, Perth and surrounds, Tasmania and greater and peri-urban Melbourne.\  They are now being deployed in a variety of manners to support understanding and decision making on disaster risk reduction along with continual improvements to the capability.

In the last financial year users have now been trained in all jurisdictions. This report summarises some of the enhanced software capabilities along with describe several utilisation activities designed to highlight the benefits of using an interactive risk assessment tool in participatory settings. This has included facilitating a mitigation exercises for South Australian State and Local Government agencies exploring mitigation activities for a changing coastal risk profile and assessing floodplain management approaches in the Gawler River.

}, keywords = {decision support, improved, natural hazard, risk reduction, UNHaRMED}, issn = {629}, author = {Holger Maier and Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Sofanit Araya and Aaron Zecchin and Roel Vanhout and Graeme Dandy and Eike Hamers} } @article {bnh-7026, title = {Improved decision support for natural hazard risk reduction {\textendash} annual project report 2018-2019}, number = {583}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

There is increasing recognition of the urgency to consider how disaster risk might change into the future, what impacts this is likely to have and, most importantly, what we can do to reduce this risk. There is also increased recognition that in order to achieve this, we need to adopt a holistic approach that takes into account community values, vulnerabilities and resilience, future changes in population and demographics, climate change, multiple hazards, cascading events, adaptation and a range of risk reduction strategies, such as land use planning, community education, land management, structural measures and changes to building codes.

Over the last five years, this project has co-developed conceptual, modelling and decision support frameworks for tackling the above problems in conjunction with more than 40 end-user organisations in four states (South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and Victoria). The frameworks facilitate:

The above frameworks have resulted in the development of the decision support software UNHaRMED (Unified Natural Hazards Risk Mitigation Exploratory Decision support system), applications for which have been co-developed with end-users for greater Adelaide, Perth and surrounds, Tasmania and greater and peri-urban Melbourne. In Adelaide, UNHaRMED is being used in collaboration with local governments for strategic flood mitigation planning and the development of a state emergency management exercise focused on recovery and long term mitigation related to sea level rise.

End-user training for the Perth and Tasmania UNHaRMED applications only occurred in 2019 and relevant agencies in these states are working towards the incorporation of these applications in state planning processes. End-user training for the greater and peri-urban application of UNHaRMED will take place in July 2019.

Other opportunities have also presented themselves in working with agencies and providing outputs and insight from UNHaRMED into other projects and products. These have included working with the SA Government on a mitigation exercise which will take place early in the next financial year focused on how to explore future impacts of coastal flooding and develop mitigation activities to be implemented. Another has been working with the National Resilience Taskforce on modelling capabilities for understanding climate and disaster risks.

}, keywords = {decision support, Natural hazards, risk reduction, UNHaRMED}, issn = {583}, author = {Holger Maier and Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Sofanit Araya and Aaron Zecchin and Roel Vanhout and Graeme Dandy and Eike Hamers} } @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-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-6567, title = {Simulation optimisation for natural hazard risk management}, number = {533}, year = {2020}, month = {01/2020}, institution = {Bushfire \& Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

In this report, we outline a decision-support framework for natural hazard management that combines the use of simulation and optimisation for exploring what risk reduction measures best achieve management priorities. This framework addressed several needs that practitioners have with regard to risk and adaptation assessment. First, it uses optimisation approaches to screen through and identify those management options that perform best across a number of decision criteria. This is important, as there are a very diverse range of management options which could be combined in an extremely large number of ways to make portfolios of management options and it is difficult to screen through all potential portfolios to shortlist a small number for further consideration. Second, it simulates the effectiveness of management options over long-term planning horizons. This is important, for management options may have long lead-in-times, and/or may have long lifetimes, are not easily/readily changed, and so need to be effective over a broad range of plausible future conditions, which likely include larger populations, increased economic development and climate change. Third, the framework emphasises holistic assessment, wherein the Integrated assessment modelling (IAM) simulates the effect of management options across a number of criteria, therefore allowing practitioners to explore the trade-offs between risk reduction with other community goals, including environmental, social and economic outcomes.


The value of this framework arises from the greater demands that are being placed on planners to effectively manage natural hazard risk, whether from politicians or from the public who have an increasingly reduced appetite for hazard losses. This creates a need for analytic frameworks for exploring how to best manage risk, and this framework addresses this gap.


Through application to a case study, this report shows how the framework is able to increase the effectiveness and efficiency by which IAM can be applied to natural hazard risk management. The role of the optimisation was seen not to be prescriptive, but to enable better exploration of risk management options. The framework was therefore able to provide rich information on the effectiveness of management portfolios by which better risk management plans could be formed.


The case study to which the framework was applied considered coastal flood risk within Greater Adelaide and explored the combinations of zonal exclusion areas along the coast which prevented further development. If unmitigated, coastal risk could increase by 10\% over the next three decades. However, results of the case study application showed that zonal exclusion policies could effectively reduce this growth of coastal risk, however this required excluding further development from 7000 Ha of land along the coast. Saying that, the growth in risk could be limited to 3\% (i.e. a reduction in growth by 60\%), through excluding coastal development from only 1500 Ha.

}, keywords = {natural hazard, optimisation, risk management, simulation}, issn = {533}, author = {Jeffrey Newman and Graeme Dandy and Aaron Zecchin and Hedwig van Delden and Charles Newland and Holger Maier and Graeme Riddell} } @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-5694, title = {Exploratory scenario analysis for disaster risk reduction: Considering alternative pathways in disaster risk assessment}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2019}, month = {07/2019}, abstract = {

Disaster risk is a combination of natural hazards, along with society{\textquoteright}s exposure and vulnerability to them. Therefore, to ensure effective, long-term disaster risk reduction we must consider the dynamics of each of these components and how they change over extended periods due to population, economic and climatic drivers, as well as policy and individual decisions. This paper provides a methodology to capture these factors within exploratory scenarios designed to test the effectiveness of policy responses to reduce disaster losses. The scenarios developed and subsequent analysis of them combine knowledge and insight from stakeholders and experts, and make use of simulation modelling to enable scenarios with qualitative and quantitative elements to be integrated within risk assessment processes and contribute to strategic risk treatments. The methodology was applied to a case-study in Greater Adelaide, Australia, and used to assess how disaster risk for earthquakes, bushfire and coastal inundation changes from 2016 to 2050 under five exploratory scenarios for the future of the region. This analysis can be applied more broadly to consider how future risks impacts on regional viability, and suitability for investment related to the need to gain a better understanding of governmental and organisational exposure to physical risks.

}, keywords = {Disaster risk, Risk assessment, Scenarios, Simulation modelling, Stakeholder engagement}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101230}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420919302286}, author = {Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Holger Maier and Aaron Zecchin} } @mastersthesis {bnh-6661, title = {Foresight for risk {\textendash} using scenarios for strategic risk assessment and management of emergent disaster risk}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, school = {University of Adelaide}, address = {Adelaide}, abstract = {

Disaster impacts around the world are increasing with 2011 and 2017 the largest on record in terms of total losses from disasters in recorded history (USD 444billion and USD 341billion, respectively). The reasons for the increase in losses are multiple. Climate change is increasing the likelihood and intensity of several natural hazard types, and as the world{\textquoteright}s population and economy grow, and humans increasingly develop in areas exposed to natural hazard (e.g. along rivers, and coastal areas), the values exposed are also rapidly increasing. These multiple factors contribute to the complex nature of disaster risk, which is considered to be the combination of natural hazard intensity and extent, exposure (assets, people, other values), and vulnerabilities of the exposed values to the characteristics of the hazards. This can be considered the risk triangle {\textendash} hazard, exposure and vulnerability {\textendash} and each of these factors change into the future impacted by a range of drivers; population and economic change, technology, urbanisation rates, political actions etc.

To reduce the impacts of disasters, risk management and reduction activities are designed and implemented, and are typically underpinned by risk assessments. Risk assessments use qualitative and/or quantitative approaches to attempt to characterise the likelihood and impact of disaster types for a region or organisation. Currently, risk assessments do not capture future changes across all dimensions of risk in a manner that provides insight into the strategic threats and opportunities of emergent disaster risks. Therefore, there is a need for approaches to consider realistic degrees of complexity within the disaster risk system and account for the uncertainty in emergent risk. By capturing this within disaster risk assessments, treatment options can be developed and tested that strategically manage these risks over time.

This research has developed these approaches and provides three key contributions through the use of foresight, primarily scenarios within disaster risk assessment processes, to support effective policy and investment decision making to reduce future impacts. The thesis is organised around three publications, all contributing to the development of a generic framework which integrates foresight into disaster risk management and specific approaches to develop and use scenarios for strategic risk assessment and management of emergent disaster risk. The first paper (Chapter 2) proposes and demonstrates this generic framework for the incorporation of the principles of foresight into risk assessment and management processes. The second paper (Chapter 3) focuses on the design of scenarios to support policy making for disaster risk reduction through several improvements to the methodological approach for constructing relevant and challenging scenarios using an {\textquotedblleft}outcomes of interest{\textquotedblright} framing. The third paper (Chapter 4) outlines and applies an approach for the use of exploratory scenarios within quantitative disaster risk assessment through the development of alternative pathways of disaster risk using scenarios and integrated risk models.

}, keywords = {Disaster risk management, Foresight, modelling, Risk assessment, Scenarios}, url = {https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/122575}, author = {Graeme Riddell} } @conference {bnh-6513, title = {Future risk framework: understanding tomorrow{\textquoteright}s risk and what we can do to reduce it}, 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 = {

Unless appropriate mitigation action is taken, disaster risk is likely to increase into the future due to factors such as climate change, population growth, economic development and an ageing population. Consequently, there is a pressing need to think about plausible future risks and how to best mitigate them. This paper presents the future risk framework, which provides a structured, stepwise approach for relevant agencies to explore future risk and what it means for their organisation. The framework consists of four main steps, progressively increasing in levels of insight into future risk, as well as increasing the level of quantification of risk. A key feature of the framework is the incorporation of sense-making and its implementation consists of a combination of participatory approaches and the use of data, information, modelling and analysis. Application of the framework is illustrated for the case study of Greater Adelaide, South Australia, highlighting the approaches used and the level of insight into future risk obtained at each of the four stages. A discussion on the challenges associated with using this insight to mitigate future risk is also provided, suggesting that a collaborative, multidisciplinary, multi-agency approach is needed to effectively mitigate all aspects of future risk, especially those associated with increases in exposure and vulnerability.\ 

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

}, keywords = {Climate change, Disaster risk, mitigation, Planning, risk management, risk reduction}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/australian-journal-of-emergency-management-monograph-series/}, author = {Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Holger Maier and Aaron Zecchin and Roel Vanhout and James Daniell and Sofanit Araya and Graeme Dandy and Jeffrey Newman} } @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-6260, title = {Tomorrow{\textquoteright}s disasters {\textendash} Embedding foresight principles into disaster risk assessment and treatment}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2019}, month = {12/2019}, abstract = {

Disaster risk is a complex, uncertain and evolving threat to society which changes based on broad drivers of hazard, exposure and vulnerability such as population, economic and climatic change, along with new technologies and social preferences. It also evolves as a function of decisions of public policy and public/private investment which alters future risk profiles. These factors however are often not captured within disaster risk assessments and explicitly excluded from the UN General Assembly definition of a disaster risk assessment which focuses on the current state of risk. This means that 1) we cannot adequately capture changes in risk and risk assessments are out of date as soon as published but also 2) we cannot show the benefit of proactive risk treatments in our risk assessments. This paper therefore outlines a generic, scale-neutral, framework for integrating foresight {\textendash} thinking about the future {\textendash} into risk assessment methodologies. This is demonstrated by its application to a disaster risk assessment of heatwave risk in Tasmania, Australia, and shows how risk changes across three future scenarios and what proactive treatments could be possible mitigating the identified drivers of future risk.

}, keywords = {Disaster risk management, Foresight, Risk assessment, Risk treatment, Scenarios}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101437}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420919305588}, author = {Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Holger Maier and Aaron Zecchin} } @article {bnh-5686, title = {UNHaRMED framework report: a co-creation approach for the development and use of decision support systems for disaster risk reduction.}, number = {484}, year = {2019}, month = {07/2019}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report proposes a generic approach for the development and use of decision support systems (DSSs) for disaster risk reduction (DRR). At the core of the DSS is an integrated model, consisting of a land use model and risk models for four hazards, including flooding, coastal inundation, bushfire and earthquake. The inputs to these models are affected by a number of external drivers that change over time, including demographics, climate change and economics, as well as a number of mitigation options, including spatial planning, land management, structural measures and community-based resilience efforts. The outputs from the integrated model include risk maps for the individual hazards that change over time, as well as cost-benefit, social and environmental indicators used for assessing the impact of risk reduction portfolios.

}, keywords = {DDR, decision support system, Disaster management, framework, UNHaRMED}, issn = {484}, author = {Hedwig van Delden and Graeme Riddell and Roel Vanhout and Holger Maier and Jeffrey Newman and Aaron Zecchin and Graeme Dandy} } @conference {bnh-4771, title = {Applying unharmed for risk reduction planning {\textendash} comparing strategies and long-term effectiveness}, booktitle = {AFAC18}, year = {2018}, month = {09/2018}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Perth}, abstract = {

Natural hazards are an unavoidable component of life in Australia. Analysis shows the average cost of natural hazards in 2015 totalled $9.6billion, and this figure is projected to increase to $33billion by 2050 (Deloitte Access Economics 2015). These figures correspond to a substantial impact and coupled with the social and environmental impacts of disasters, paint a bleak picture. However, as tomorrow{\textquoteright}s risk is a function of today{\textquoteright}s decisions with effective risk reduction planning there is significant scope to minimise tomorrow{\textquoteright}s impacts. The challenge though exists in that ex-ante analysis on the long term effectiveness of risk reduction strategies, the type of analysis required to justify significant investment and policy decisions, is challenging given the dynamic, complex nature of disaster risk, and the length of assessment period required to consider returns. In response to this and to support improved understanding of future risks and ex-ante testing of risk reduction solutions a tool was developed between researchers and Australian government agencies.

}, author = {Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Roel Vanhout and Holger Maier and Jeffrey Newman and Aaron Zecchin and Graeme Dandy} } @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-5132, title = {Enhancing the policy relevance of exploratory scenarios: generic approach and application to disaster risk reduction}, journal = {Futures}, volume = {99}, year = {2018}, month = {05/2018}, pages = {1-15}, chapter = {1}, abstract = {

Exploratory scenarios (i.e. scenarios that question what could happen) have been widely applied to a vast array of complex and uncertain socio-environmental system problems. Despite this fact, they have also been criticised by policy makers for not being relevant to policy processes and assessment. This paper proposes a generic approach to enhance policy relevance in the development of exploratory scenarios. This is carried out by participatory exploration and categorisation of available policy responses and framing of scenarios in terms of challenges to these. An exploration of the factors that make these policies more or less effective is used to develop a narrative for temporal developments in scenario instantiation, in comparison to more generic drivers for change. Within this paper, this process is applied to a case-study exploring the future of natural disaster risk; improving understanding of future uncertainties and subsequently the effectiveness of long-term disaster risk reduction. The case-study application consider bushfire, earthquake, flooding and heatwaves and resulted in five scenarios framed on challenges to resilience and challenges to mitigation for policy makers in Adelaide, Australia.

}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.03.006}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001632871730410X}, author = {Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Graeme Dandy and Aaron Zecchin and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-5053, title = {Improved decision support for natural hazard risk reduction: annual project report 2017-18}, year = {2018}, month = {11/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

Natural hazards are an unavoidable component of life in Australia. Analysis shows the average cost of natural hazards in 2015 totalled $9.6 billion, and this figure is projected to increase to $33 billion by 2050. These figures correspond to a substantial impact and coupled with the social and environmental impacts of disasters, paint a bleak picture. However, tomorrow{\textquoteright}s risk is a function of today{\textquoteright}s decisions, and with effective adaptation planning there is significant scope to minimise tomorrow{\textquoteright}s impacts. To support improved understanding of future risks and testing of adaptation solutions this project is working on mechanisms to better inform decision making with quantitative tools by working with multiple government agencies.

}, issn = {427}, author = {Holger Maier and Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Jeffrey Newman and Aaron Zecchin and Graeme Dandy and Roel Vanhout and Sofanit Araya and Bree Bennett} } @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} } @article {bnh-5210, title = {Urbanisation pressures and flood risk: Gawler River catchment and regional development}, year = {2018}, month = {12/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Adelaide is built on a natural floodplain and as such is at constant threat of\ inundation from flood waters. The risk from flooding is a significant threat to\ South Australia, with it being the State{\textquoteright}s most costly natural hazard. In 2017 the\ State{\textquoteright}s average annual damages from flooding were approximated at $32\ million (Burns et al., 2017). It is also estimated that 8,500 properties are\ vulnerable to a 1-in-100-year event (as of 2010).

Flood risk is a complex interaction between many dynamic and interrelated\ processes, and can be considered as the combination of the flood hazard itself\ (its depth, extent, and velocity can all be considered), along with the assets\ and values exposed to the hazard and the vulnerabilities of these. This can be\ considered as the {\textquoteleft}risk triangle{\textquoteright} (Crichton, 1999).\ Each of these factors is also subject to change with time. Flood hazard is\ impacted by climate change via various mechanisms including changing\ intensity and frequency of rainfall events, along with impacts on vegetation\ and antecedent moisture (van Aalst, 2006; Alfieri et al., 2015). The exposure and\ vulnerability of the region is also changing with increased economic\ productivity and residential demands for land, along with different building\ codes and personal resilience (Koks et al., 2015; Mazzorana et al., 2012).

There are also interactions between the components of flood risk such as the\ impact of urbanisation in a floodplain {\textendash} increasing the number of exposed\ assets and increasing runoff, along with new developments and changing\ building codes influencing the vulnerability of buildings in a floodplain. This\ report will specifically highlight the interaction between new development in a\ region and its flood risk in the Gawler River floodplain.

As exposure increases driven by the need to meet economic and population\ demands for land, catchments become increasingly urbanised and hence\ impermeable. This reduces the ability for the landscape to manage the risk of\ pluvial flooding, as natural surfaces are replaced with more impermeable\ surfaces (like concrete or asphalt) leading to increased runoff.

This report will look at the probability of urbanisation in the Gawler River\ floodplain in comparison to areas subject to inundation and of high flood\ hazard.

To achieve this the Metronamica land use model (www.metronamica.nl) was\ applied to the region and calibrated to incorporate the local context and\ conditions appropriately. This model was then used to consider scenarios for the
region{\textquoteright}s growth (economic and population) to 2050 to consider the location\ and likelihood of urbanisation and its relationship to flood hazard.

This is done to highlight the value of considering changes in urbanisation and flood risk, however it should be noted this modelling is performed as proof-of-concept and should not be used for any planning or investment decision.

}, issn = {434}, author = {Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-3355, title = {Futures Greater Adelaide 2050: An exploration of disaster risk and the future}, number = {243}, year = {2017}, month = {01/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Natural disaster risk is a combination of the natural hazard, exposure\ and vulnerability. As a result when considering future disaster risk and planning to minimise it, the uncertainty and complexity of each factor must be considered. Influencing factors on the three components of risk include political decisions, economic development, technological advancement, demographic changes and changing climate, many of which are mutually influential as well. The uncertainty and complexity that arise from these factors are critical to understand when considering long term disaster risk reduction planning, especially when planning decisions can have long lasting influence and large expense.

In an attempt to characterise, understand and subsequently make better decisions under these conditions the BNHCRC funded project {\textquotedblleft}Decision Support System (DSS) for Assessment of Policy \& Planning Investment Options for Optimal Natural Hazard Mitigation{\textquotedblright}, was initiated. For Greater Adelaide the project looks to develop an integrated spatial DSS to model long term changes in risk and subsequently assist decision makers plan and implement disaster risk reduction policies and investments.\  Incorporated with the development of the prototype software package is a facilitated stakeholder engagement process informing the development and then subsequent use of the system.

In September 2014 the first stage of this process was completed with results documented in Van Delden et al. (2015). The second phase, of which this report documents, incorporated the development of exploratory scenarios\ to better understand relevant uncertainties, develop strategic capacity in decision makers to consider uncertainties impacting on policies and provide a better understanding of the value and use of the developed DSS.

The process looked to discover critical elements relevant to disaster risk reduction\ and consider how they change into the future. As a method for exploring the future, scenarios were developed considering the changes from 2013 to 2050. Five alternate futures for Greater Adelaide were developed by members of SA{\textquoteright}s State Mitigation Advisory Group (SMAG), assisted by the scenarios team at the University of Adelaide and Research Institute for Knowledge Systems. These were subsequently modelled and results of the qualitative and quantitative scenarios will be presented in this report.

}, issn = {243}, author = {Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Graeme Dandy and Holger Maier and Aaron Zecchin and Jeffrey Newman and Charles Newland} } @article {bnh-4207, title = {Improved decision support for natural hazard risk reduction: annual project report 2016-17}, number = {321}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Decision support systems that contain integrated models for the assessment of natural hazard mitigation options are an important component for robust, transparent, and long-term mitigation planning. Integrated modelling of underlying social, environmental, and economic systems is required to take into account system dynamics, and to explore the implications of future changes, such as changes in demographics, land use, economics and climate.\ Consequently, a generic decision support system for the long-term planning for natural disaster risk reduction is being developed as part of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre.\ 

The project consists of implementing an iterative development and use cycle across three different case studies. This development aspect of this cycle focuses on creating a generic framework for the integration of models to answer policy relevant questions, in this case for improved understanding and reduction of disaster risk. The use process tailors this framework to each of the case study regions, Greater Adelaide, Greater \& Peri-Urban Melbourne and Tasmania.\ 

The focus of 2016-2017 has been on the completion of the first development cycle for Greater Adelaide, with the prototype software to be delivered to end user organisations shortly. Training was also provided to users within the South Australian government and on-going support will be provided to this user group to enable uptake and use within respective departments.\ 

Work has also continued on the Greater \& Peri-urban Melbourne case study with significant process in the data collection and application of the DSS system to the region. Coupled with this has also been the use process of scenario development, with four scenarios for the region currently in draft form prior to follow up sessions in 17-18 to finalise the drafts, quantitatively model the scenarios and look to integrate the exploration of plausible futures to strategy development into organisations.

Similar progress in Tasmania has also been made with the land use model application completed and data collection for the hazard, and exposure modelling ongoing for completion of the first iteration of DSS development by the end of 2017. The participatory use process also saw multiple workshops take place in Tasmania throughout 16/17. These were centred on exploring uncertainties for change in the state, along with collecting data for multiple criteria analysis of risk reduction options, and defining optimisation questions for future analysis.

Other efforts have gone into the publication of journal papers, analysing the current state of literature in the field of decision support for risk reduction planning, and the calibration of land use modelling. Significant effort has also been placed into utilisation activities and exploring future application regions, resulting in a successful NDRP project proposal to apply the DSS in Western Australia.\ 

}, issn = {321}, author = {Holger Maier and Hedwig van Delden and Graeme Riddell and Jeffrey Newman and Aaron Zecchin and Graeme Dandy and Charles Newland} } @conference {bnh-3906, title = {Multi-hazard mitigation planning, combining modelling, scenarios and optimisation: results from South Australia}, booktitle = {AFAC17}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

Natural hazards are an unavoidable component of life in Australia, but with effective planning and mitigation spending, their impacts can be minimised significantly. Analysis shows an average cost of natural hazards in Australia for 2015 totalled $9.6 billion, and this figure is projected to increase to $33 billion by 2050 (Deloitte Access Economics, 2016). These figures correspond to a substantial impact and coupled with the social and environmental impacts of disasters, paint a bleak picture. However, tomorrow{\textquoteright}s risk is a function of decisions made today, including the developments permitted and laws passed, and as such there is significant scope to minimise tomorrow{\textquoteright}s impacts.

To assist in the understanding of tomorrow{\textquoteright}s risk, driven by changing hazards, exposure and vulnerability, a decision support system (DSS) and integrated use process have been developed. This DSS models risk into the future and how it is driven by climatic, economic and demographic factors. Figure 1 shows the integration of risk across exposure, vulnerability and hazard along with some of the factors that are encompassed, as well as the drivers and uncertainties surrounding these factors that make the future so hard to predict.

}, author = {Graeme Riddell and Hedwig van Delden and Roel Vanhout and Holger Maier and Jeffrey Newman and Aaron Zecchin and Graeme Dandy} } @article {bnh-3916, title = {Review of literature on decision support systems for natural hazard risk reduction: current status and future research directions}, journal = {Environmental Modelling \& Software}, volume = {96}, year = {2017}, month = {10/2017}, pages = {378-409}, chapter = {378}, abstract = {

Natural hazard risk is largely projected to increase in the future, placing growing responsibility on decision makers to proactively reduce risk. Consequently, decision support systems (DSSs) for natural hazard risk reduction (NHRR) are becoming increasingly important. In order to provide directions for future research in this growing area, a comprehensive classification system for the review of NHRR-DSSs is introduced, including scoping, problem formulation, the analysis framework, user and organisational interaction with the system, user engagement, monitoring and evaluation. A review of 101 papers based on this classification system indicates that most effort has been placed on identifying areas of risk and assessing economic consequences resulting from direct losses. However, less effort has been placed on testing risk-reduction options and considering future changes to risk. Furthermore, there was limited evidence within the reviewed papers on the success of DSSs in practice and whether stakeholders participated in DSS development and use.

}, doi = {10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.042}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815216311239}, author = {Jeffrey Newman and Holger Maier and Graeme Riddell and Aaron Zecchin and James Daniell and Andreas Schafer and Hedwig van Delden and Bijan Khazai and Michael O{\textquoteright}Flaherty and Charles Newland} } @article {bnh-2925, title = {Natural hazard mitigation decision support system: Annual project report 2015-2016}, number = {178}, year = {2016}, month = {08/2016}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Decision support systems (DSS) that contain integrate models for the assessment of natural hazard mitigation options are an important component of robust, transparent, and long-term mitigation planning. Integrated modelling of underlying social, environmental, and economic systems is required to take into account system dynamics, and to explore the implications of future changes, such as changes in demographics, land use, economics and climate. Consequently, a generic decision support system for the long-term planning for natural disaster risk reduction is being developed through the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre.\ The project consists of implementing an iterative development and use cycle across three different case studies. The development aspect of this cycle focuses on creating a generic framework for the integration of models to answer policy relevant questions, in this case for improved understanding and reduction of disaster risk. The use process tailors this framework to each of three case study regions, Greater Adelaide, Greater \& Peri-Urban Melbourne and Tasmania.

The focus of 2015-2016 has been on the use cycle for Greater Adelaide, with a first prototype of the software application presented to end-users and five exploratory scenarios qualitatively and quantitatively developed that capture policy-relevant uncertainties in the development of Greater Adelaide. The DSS application in its first iteration provides annual expected losses from coastal inundation, riverine flooding, bushfire and earthquake. The entire use process has been driven by several stages of stakeholder engagement involving SA{\textquoteright}s State Mitigation Advisory Group.\ Work has also begun on the Greater \& Peri-urban Melbourne case study with the first stage of stakeholder engagement occurring on the 21st {\textendash} 23rd October 2015. This involved questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and a workshop to collect information on spatial region, hazards, drivers for change, risk reduction options and indicators of interest. Model development followed focussing initially on the central land use model, and data have also been collected for hazard modelling. Further stakeholder work will occur in the second half of this year including presentation of a first iteration of the software, and its integrated use process of exploratory scenario development.\ The first stage of stakeholder engagement for the Tasmania case study occurred on 4th {\textendash} 6th November 2015. Similar information was collected regarding inputs to the system{\textquoteright}s development. The spatial region considered initially excluded the World Heritage and National Park sites on the South West of the island, but this has changed due to fire events over summer 2015/16. Due to this change in scope the DSS development has been delayed, with a first iteration of the software now planned to be completed in 2017.
Other work has also involved the development of specific hazard models by project team members to be integrated within the systems for each of the case studies. These include a riverine flood and coastal inundation model, and a bushfire risk assessment model co-developed with SA{\textquoteright}s Department of Environment, Water \& Natural Resources (DEWNR).

}, issn = {178}, author = {Holger Maier and Hedwig van Delden and Graeme Riddell and Jeffrey Newman and Aaron Zecchin and Graeme Dandy and Charles Newland} } @conference {bnh-2949, title = {A spatial decision support system for natural hazard risk reduction policy assessment and planning}, booktitle = {AFAC16}, year = {2016}, month = {08/2016}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Brisbane}, abstract = {

The challenges facing environmental policymakers grow increasingly complex and uncertain as more factors that impact on their ability to manage the environment and its risks need to be considered. Due to a large number of influencing environmental and anthropogenic factors, natural hazard risk is difficult to estimate accurately, and exaggerated by large uncertainty in future socioeconomic consequences. Furthermore, resources are scarce, and the benefits of risk reduction strategies are often intangible. Consequently, a decision support system assisting managers to understand disaster risk has great advantage for strategic policy assessment and development, and is the focus of this extended abstract.
The spatial decision support system (SDSS) presented is being developed in collaboration with several South Australian government departments and funded by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC. It integrates multiple hazard models with a land use model which includes information on population and building stock to consider long term spatial and temporal dynamics of natural hazard risk. The integrated SDSS operates at a 100m resolution with a time-step of one year and can be used to model 20{\textendash}50 years into the future. Hazards included in the SDSS include riverine flood, coastal inundation, bushfire, heatwave and earthquake. Each is modelled dependent on the relevant physical properties of the hazard and include the impacts of climate change on hydro-meteorological, bushfire and heatwave hazard. The land use model is driven by land use demand (population and jobs), and allocates land accordingly.

}, author = {Graeme Riddell and Holger Maier and Hedwig van Delden and Jeffrey Newman and Aaron Zecchin and Roel Vanhout and James Daniell and Andreas Schafer and Graeme Dandy and Charles Newland} } @article {bnh-2673, title = {An uncertain future, deep uncertainty, scenarios, robustness and adaptation: How do they fit together?}, journal = {Environmental Modelling \& Software}, volume = {81}, year = {2016}, month = {04/2016}, pages = {154-164}, chapter = {154}, abstract = {

A highly uncertain future due to changes in climate, technology and socio-economics has led to the realisation that identification of {\textquotedblleft}best-guess{\textquotedblright} future conditions might no longer be appropriate. Instead, multiple plausible futures need to be considered, which requires (i) uncertainties to be described with the aid of scenarios that represent coherent future pathways based on different sets of assumptions, (ii) system performance to be represented by metrics that measure insensitivity (i.e. robustness) to changes in future conditions, and (iii) adaptive strategies to be considered alongside their more commonly used static counterparts. However, while these factors have been considered in isolation previously, there has been a lack of discussion of the way they are connected. In order to address this shortcoming, this paper presents a multidisciplinary perspective on how the above factors fit together to facilitate the development of strategies that are best suited to dealing with a deeply uncertain future.

}, doi = {10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.03.014}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815216300780}, author = {Holger Maier and J.H.A Guillaume and Hedwig van Delden and Graeme Riddell and M Haasnoot and J.H Kwakkel} } @conference {bnh-2089, title = {A decision support framework for multi-hazard mitigation planning - non peer reviewed extended abstract}, booktitle = {Adelaide Conference 2015}, year = {2015}, address = {Adelaide, Australia}, abstract = {

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

}, author = {Jeffrey Newman and Hedwig van Delden and Graeme Riddell and Charles Newland and Aaron Zecchin and Holger Maier and Roel Vanhout and Ed Pikusa and Graeme Dandy} } @article {bnh-2342, title = {Natural hazard mitigation decision support system: Annual project report 2014-2015}, number = {135}, year = {2015}, month = {02/11/2015}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Decision support systems (DSS) that contain integrated models for the assessment of natural hazard mitigation options are an important component for robust, transparent, and long-term mitigation planning.\  Integrated modelling of underlying social, environmental, and economic systems is required to take into account system dynamics, and to explore the implications of future changes, such as changes in demographics, land use and climate.\  Consequently, a generic decision support system for the long-term planning of natural disaster impact mitigation options is being developed as part of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre.

Throughout 2014-2015, the project team has focussed on the production of a framework for the {\textquoteleft}development{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}use{\textquoteright} of the DSS. The {\textquoteleft}development{\textquoteright} aspects propose a generic framework for the integration of models to bridge the science-policy gap through a collaboration between scientists, end users and IT specialists. The {\textquoteleft}use{\textquoteright} process focusses on the application of the generic DSS to a region of interest; in this project three case study locations are considered including Greater Adelaide, Greater Melbourne and Tasmania. This involves collaboration between modellers, stakeholders and facilitators to customise, calibrate and validate the case-study specific integrated models. Subsequently, the integrated model is used to support a Storyline and Simulation (SAS)[1] approach that attempts to develop scenarios through a participatory process, wherein the DSS helps build and assess these scenarios through an iterative process.

Additional to the production of this overarching framework has been specific model development to ensure appropriate models are available to consider hazard risk within the integrated DSS. Risk models for flooding, coastal inundation and bushfire have been conceptually developed and will be applied to each case study as appropriate. Each model focuses on changing risk spatially and temporally.

The Greater Adelaide DSS is the first case study application of the generic framework, which began with an extensive intial stakeholder engagement phase in September 2014. This involved identification of key stakeholders, questionnaries, interviews and a whole-day workshop at the University of Adelaide on the 18th of September. From there, critical external drivers and uncertainties were identified, along with aspects of risk and indicators of hazard impact and mitigation performance. These factors have subsequently been incorporated within the DSS for Greater Adelaide and a proto-type DSS will be completed in time for further stakeholder engagement around scenario development and DSS use in October/November 2015.

Greater Melbourne and Tasmania have also begun to progress as case studies. Key contacts have been developed in each location, and with the assistance of these contacts, data and model availability have been discussed for each location, along with identification of stakeholders relevant for each location. The first stage of stakeholder engagement for these case studies, as described for Greater Adelaide, will occur in October/November 2015.\ 

}, issn = {135}, author = {Holger Maier and Hedwig van Delden and Jeffrey Newman and Aaron Zecchin and Graeme Dandy and Graeme Riddell and Charles Newland and Michael O{\textquoteright}Flaherty} } @article {bnh-1520, title = {Literature Review on Decision Support Systems for Optimising Long-term Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy and Project Portfolios}, year = {2014}, abstract = {

In this report, literature pertinent to the development of natural hazard mitigation decision support systems is reviewed across four areas:

1. Evidence for the increased frequency of natural hazards and the benefits of mitigation are reviewed.\ \ 

2. Mitigation planning is reviewed, with the presentation of mitigation planning frameworks and classifications of mitigation options.

3. The decision support system (DSS) literature is surveyed to understand current research thrusts in this field.\ \ 

4. The development of emergency management DSSs since the early 1980s is surveyed, with a particular focus on DSSs for mitigation.\ 

Consequently, this report concludes that the development of decision support systems that (i) use state of the art methodologies, (ii) incorporate the use of optimisation within a multihazard approach, (iii) consider changes in climate, demographics, land use and economics, and (iv) assess land-use related mitigation measures in addition to structural and management measures, is both important and novel.

}, author = {Jeffrey Newman and Holger Maier and Hedwig van Delden and Aaron Zecchin and Graeme Dandy and Graeme Riddell and Charles Newland} }