@article {bnh-8292, title = {Identification of fuel management locations and risk reduction potential}, number = {715}, year = {2021}, month = {12/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Planned burning is one of the most utilised fuel management activities, but the safe and effective application of this method is likely to be hindered by climate change (e.g. shrinking and shifting windows of opportunity) and potential adverse societal outcomes (e.g. smoke impact, risk of fire escape). For this reason, fire managers need access to detailed information to help them make informed decisions and select a fuel management strategy that is compatible with a range of factors.

This project explored the use of experts{\textquoteright} knowledge and the UNHaRMED Decision Support System (DSS) framework (an integrated spatio-temporal model for analysing natural hazard risk within urban and rural environments) to identify areas where fuel management activities should be conducted within the study area and identify future bushfire risk reduction potential at identified hotspots.

The discussions with end-users resulted in the selection of five major areas to focus on for this study (i.e. Gingin, Kalamunda, Mundaring and Margaret River). The level of bushfire risk simulated in UNHaRMED for a baseline period indicated a good agreement with the perceived levels of bushfire risk at the rural-urban interface identified by the relevant bushfire management agencies. This observation therefore suggests that UNHaRMED is suitable for identifying areas of emerging risk under different climate change scenarios.

This research also highlighted that areas where fuel management activities are currently conducted in Gingin, Kalamunda, Mundaring and Margaret River overlap with areas of high bushfire risk modelled in UNHaRMED (rural-urban interface). This suggests that UNHaRMED is suitable for assessing the impact of fuel load mitigation activities a the rural-urban interface in WA.

The next step will be to run UNHaRMED simulations involving a range of future climate and population growth scenarios with and without fuel management activities (M2). This will then enable us to identify how bushfire risk changes for each scenario, where management activities are desirable, and where potential risk reduction will be possible (irrespective of management type) (D2).

}, keywords = {Fuel management, locations, potential, risk reduction}, issn = {715}, author = {Amelie Jeanneau and Aaron Zecchin and Hedwig van Delden and Tim McNaught and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-7138, title = {The Australian Disaster Resilience Index: a summary}, number = {588.2020}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Natural hazards, such as bushfires, cyclones, floods, storms, heatwaves, earthquakes and tsunamis, have always occurred and will continue to occur in Australia. These natural hazards frequently intersect with human societies to create natural hazard emergencies that, in turn, cause disasters.

The effects of natural hazards on Australian communities are influenced by a unique combination of social, economic, natural environment, built environment, governance and geographical factors.

Australian communities face increasing losses and disruption from natural hazards, with the total economic cost of natural hazards in Australia averaging $18.2 billion per year between 2006 and 2016 (Deloitte Access Economics, 2017). This is expected to almost double by 2030 and to average $33 billion per year by 2050 (Deloitte Access Economics, 2016). The social impacts of disasters are also substantial. Costs associated with social impacts may persist over a person{\textquoteright}s lifetime and can be greater than the costs of tangible damages (Deloitte Access Economics, 2016).

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and magnitude of some natural hazard types in Australia (BOM \& CSIRO, 2018). An increasing population, demographic change, widening socio-economic disparity, expensive infrastructure and the location of\  communities in areas of high natural hazard risk also contributes to the potential for increasing losses from natural hazards.

There are two prominent schools of thought about the influence of natural hazards in human societies:

This resilience perspective has been adopted in the Australian Disaster Resilience Index, with the aim of better understanding and assessing the disaster resilience of Australian communities nationwide.

As such, disaster resilience can be understood as a protective characteristic that acts to reduce the effects of, and losses from, natural hazards. Resilience arises from the capacities of social, economic and government systems to prepare for, respond to and recover from a natural hazard event, and to learn, adapt and transform in anticipation of future natural hazard events.

}, keywords = {communities, Disaster risk reduction, emergencies, Emergency, Natural hazards, people, resilience, risk, risk reduction}, isbn = {978-0-6482756-6-4}, issn = {588.2020}, author = {Melissa Parsons and Ian Reeve and James McGregor and Graham Marshall and Richard Stayner and Judith McNeill and Peter Hastings and Sonya Glavac and Phil Morley} } @article {bnh-6964, title = {Community engagement for disaster preparedness: A systematic literature review}, journal = {International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction}, year = {2020}, month = {05/2020}, abstract = {

Disaster management agencies invest differing levels of resources into guiding communities to get ready for a range of hazards, and are increasingly turning to community engagement as a way of increasing preparedness. This paper presents a systematic literature review that reports on the effect of community communication and engagement techniques that have been used in a hazard preparedness context. The review findings suggest that most community engagement techniques are effective in generating some level of increased preparedness. For techniques that were found not to work, lack of benchmarking research, context and skill levels of those implementing the engagement were thought to be at fault rather than structural or conceptual problems with the technique itself. Face to face techniques were more consistently successful than mass media campaigns. However, all of the intervention types reported had some measure of success, even though there were individual failures. The 41 studies included used a wide variety of research methods that also varied greatly in rigor and replicability. Agency efforts to engage communities in preparedness should include a wide range of techniques that work together to change behaviour, including face-to-face community engagement that triggers and supports community-led preparedness activity.

}, keywords = {community engagement, Community engagement tools, hazard, Preparedness, risk reduction}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101655}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420919317893?via\%3Dihub}, author = {Barbara Ryan and Kim Johnston and Maureen Taylor and Ryan McAndrew} } @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-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-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} } @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} } @conference {bnh-6508, title = {School-based bushfire education: advancing teaching and learning for risk reduction and resilience}, 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 = {

In response to Recommendation 6 of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, the topic of bushfire has been incorporated into the Australian school curriculum. To support the implementation of this new curriculum content, fire agencies and education authorities have invested in a range of bushfire education programs and resources. Research in the field of school-based bushfire education has also intensified. Drawing on key findings from a suite of recent Australian studies, this paper outlines two key elements of effective school-based bushfire education that have the potential to advance teaching and learning for risk reduction and resilience. The first is a holistic risk framework that builds children{\textquoteright}s conceptual understanding of bushfire risk as a socioenvironmental phenomenon that derives from the interaction a physical hazard, the vulnerability of exposed people and assets, and the capacities people possess for disaster risk reduction. The second is a place-based pedagogy of bushfire risk, which grounds teaching and learning in the socioenvironmental contexts of children{\textquoteright}s lives.\  The paper concludes with some key recommendations for the continued development of good practice in this emergent field.

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

}, keywords = {Bushfire, education, resilience, risk management, risk reduction, schools, Vulnerability}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/australian-journal-of-emergency-management-monograph-series/}, author = {Briony Towers} } @mastersthesis {bnh-6633, title = {Understanding Wildfire Patterns in the South-Eastern Australia}, year = {2018}, month = {04/2018}, school = {University of New South Wales}, address = {Sydney}, abstract = {

Wildfires affect ecological processes, threaten human lives and cause economic losses. Understanding of fire patterns is required to better support the planning of sustainable fire management and risk reduction activities. Fire occurrence and fire size are two essential fire pattern components that describe the distribution of fires and the impacts of fires on landscapes and ecosystems. They vary substantially within and between regions due to variation in weather, fuel, topography and ignition sources. In this thesis, remotely sensed and administrative records as well as Generalised Linear Models and Generalised Additive Models have been used to understand fire occurrence patterns in the south-eastern part of Australia, as well as to obtain knowledge on the patterns of fire occurrence and fire size in the inland semi-arid riverine area.The results suggest that in the south-eastern Australia, wildfires are more likely to occur in mountainous areas, forests, savannas, and in areas with high vegetation coverage and near human infrastructures, while they are less likely to occur on grasslands and shrublands. Environmental variables are strong individual predictors while anthropogenic variables contribute more to the final model. Fire-ignition drivers and their effects vary across ecoregions. There are non-linear relationships between the probability of fire ignition and some of its drivers e.g. the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index.This study also reveals that on the NSW side of the Riverina bioregion, human-caused fires mostly occur in spring and summer while natural fires are clustered in summer. Forested wetlands and dry lands experience summer and spring-summer fire regime, respectively. Fire probabilities are higher in forested wetlands than in dry lands and in areas with intermediate inundation frequencies. Weather, fuel and ignition sources are comparably important in regulating human-caused ignitions, while weather contributes more than fuel in driving natural ignitions. Larger-size Fires that burned Entirely in forested Wetlands (FEW) are associated with higher ambient rainfall conditions of the 6th, 13-14th and 17-18th months before fires. Fire danger index is more powerful than other ambient weather factors in explaining the FEW size. The contributing and the most effective factors become different when fires burned in dry lands are incorporated.

}, keywords = {fire occurrence patterns, modelling, risk reduction, wildfires}, url = {https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo-explore/fulldisplay?vid=UNSWORKS\&docid=unsworks_51121\&context=L}, author = {Yang, Zhang} } @article {bnh-6663, title = {Business exposure information framework}, number = {542}, year = {2017}, month = {12/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Bushfire and Natural Hazards are features of the Australian climate and landscape and the threats will continue (COAG, 2011). These hazards can have profound personal, social, economic and environmental impacts. The impacts of these disasters demand the need to advance the efforts of planning, preparation, response and recovery to improve community resilience. Disaster management is a collective responsibility of all levels of government, society, businesses and individuals. For disaster resilience, emergency management planning should consider risk and risk treatments across the built, economic, social and environmental assets (COAG, 2011). Exposure {\textquotedblleft}what is at risk{\textquotedblright} information is fundamental for assessing risk from natural hazards and therefore nationally consistent information is required for evidence based prioritising and targeting interventions. To address this, consistent methodologies and frameworks are required to enable information sharing and accurate interpretation.

In natural hazards and disasters decision making Exposure is a key component and constitutes people, buildings, infrastructure (transport, energy, communications and water), businesses, hazardous substances, primary and major industries. This report is an outcome of research funded by Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC to develop an {\textquotedblleft}Australian Natural Hazards Business Exposure Information Framework{\textquotedblright}. The framework is aimed at supporting the development of nationally consistent and centralised business and economic exposure information to enable the decision making in disaster management to the evidence based. This research has reviewed the current literature and information providers; engaged end users and researchers for future requirements, and conducted a gap analysis.

The literature review has helped to understand the relevant practices and future trends at international, national, regional and local levels. In particular, the review highlighted the business and economic exposure data requirements to enable researchers to develop models for better impact analysis.

The project has conducted an on-line survey of existing exposure information capabilities in Australia to ascertain existing data and information capabilities for disaster response and recovery. Overall a lack of national consistency in existing data and information capabilities is a limiting factor in evidence based decision making.

The project also conducted a Stakeholder Engagement Workshop with an aim to identify the exposure information needs of researchers and other end users in Australia. The workshop provided an opportunity for thirty six participants representing decision makers, emergency managers, planners, researchers, asset managers and the insurance sector to outline their future requirements. The collective views of data managers, researchers and end users have informed the basis for exposure information\  requirements to develop a consistent, standardised exposure information framework that will support vulnerability assessments for disaster risk reduction and socio-economic impact analysis.

Information on some exposure elements is critical for some end users and may not be of interest for others. To reduce the complexity, the framework categorises the information provision into three levels depending on user requirements such as policy and planning; response and recovery; and research and analysis. Australian Natural Hazards Exposure Framework (ANHEF) levels and their aims, description and boundaries are outlined in Built Environment Exposure Information Framework Report. There is some fundamental information and common elements that underpins the entire exposure framework such as spatial enablement; land use categorisation; insurance status and metadata outlined in Built Environment Exposure Information Framework Report.

The business exposure information framework presents the exposure elements required to develop information systems to support the impact analysis of both micro-economic (business sectors) and macro-economic (regional) for disaster risk reduction from a variety of natural hazards. The micro-economic variables considered in the framework include business entity, type, size, operations, space usage, workforce and input requirements. Whereas the macro-economic variables include the size and performance of the economy, industry sectors and labour force characteristics to assess the local economy.

The document outlines a generic framework to underpin the utilisation and is focused on end user requirements. The report identifies a list of exposure elements across different components of the business and economic activity that are presented in the summary tables.

}, keywords = {business exposure, disaster, framework, modelling, risk reduction}, issn = {542}, author = {Krishna Nadimpalli and Itismita Mohanty and Mohsen Kalantari and Abbas Rajabifard} }