@article {bnh-8116, title = {Indigenous fire and land management - impact and sustainability}, number = {680}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Context

Significant work has been done over the life of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre around the issues, opportunities and challenges facing remote Indigenous communities in the face of natural hazards. In the north of Australia, the predominant natural threats are cyclones, wildfire and flood, though the level of threat and impact of any of these differs considerably from region to region. There are other hazards that deeply concern remote community leaders, again, not equally across regions: heat stress and exposure, natural water resource salination and pollution, food security, toxicity and asthma issues from crude community waste burning, infrastructure issues (including road access); and related challenges; local capability to act, governance, resilience, inclusion etc.

The emergency management sector research has focused on technologies, capability, recruitment, and other aspects of EM agency preparation, response and recovery. This project responds to an identified gap in addressing the overall environment of Emergency management in remote areas. . . working together!

It is broadly recognised within Indigenous communities that EM is carried out FOR them, not WITH them. (See detailed discussion of this in the Arnhem Land context in Maypalama et. al.: 2016 and Sithole et. al.: 2021). This has generated increased interest, not only in the future engagement of communities in EM, but in the roles, if any, of EM and other agencies in the resilience of communities who, given structural and resource limitations in EM, are keen (and encouraged) to increase {\textquoteleft}self-reliance{\textquoteright} and take on more responsibilities in this space.

There is now a growing conversation nationally around government agencies and Indigenous communities collaborating more effectively. Much of this conversation has been around the perceived positive impact of traditional knowledge (particularly use of fire) on landscape health, and vulnerability to wildfire, how this may be integrated into rural fire service practice and what the real impact of this might be.

Indigenous leaders and rangers have consistently said and shown that use of fire is not separate from other (holistic) elements of caring for traditional country and that the social and cultural dimensions to land and fire management need to be acknowledged and respected to deliver the desired benefits to country and people (Sithole et. al. 2021: Maypalama et.al. 2019: James et. al. 2019: Burgess et. al. 2009). There are many aspects to this conversation and many perceived potential benefits of working together. They underpin this project{\textquoteright}s focus on partnerships to be able to explore this work together. Thus, the research brief is to:

Method

This research was conducted as a series of community-based discussions and workshops in the Northern Territory and north Queensland. NAILSMA provided resources, logistics, backgrounding and other support to local Indigenous researchers and facilitators who ran the meetings on country. This was a Participatory Action Research (PAR) method, consistent with preceding research on community resilience and partnerships by ARPNet and NAILSMA under the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC project Developing effective partnerships in remote north Australian communities: Indigenous research and leadership in Ramingining and Galiwin{\textquoteright}ku. Inherent in this approach are direct benefits to Indigenous researchers and their communities from the process and from longer term outcomes influenced by their research and advocacy with EM agency leaders.

\ Where possible, meeting notes from the NT and Qld discussions were drafted and circulated to respondents and all invitees to the final combined workshop. This was to share what had already been discussed and to help provide focus.

An Agency Reference Group (ARG) (made up predominantly of representatives from QFES, NTES and DFES, but including CDU, Red Cross, NAILSMA and BFNT people) was invited to review and respond to early workshop outcomes, and attend the final workshop. This step was to inform the ARG and Indigenous community invitees to the final workshop with a general view of both Indigenous and agency perspectives on EM priorities and partnership prospects. They were able to kick-off their face-to-face discussions with a degree of prior understanding and focus.

This final, combined workshop was hosted by Djabugay people on their land, facilitated by Barry Hunter, a Djabugay leader and consultant and supported by NAILSMA.

Findings

To inform a Future Research Strategy the research team has organised ideas from the workshop and broader project into:

The work found that gaps are evident within communities, within EM agencies and between them. Summary of the findings includes:

Research Priorities mirror the above gaps and challenges, leading to achieving practical steps in long-term relationship pathways:

Integrating Indigenous fire and land management knowledge with EM operations and systems is not about taking the knowledge, it{\textquoteright}s about building respectful and trusting relationships with Indigenous people to deliver more effective EM together.

Utilisation

This research method (Participatory Action Research) assumes that the Indigenous researchers and their communities are a focal end-user. Participating EM agencies are another key end-user, not only by benefiting from the research in the long run but through face-to-face interactions with community researchers through which opportunities and challenges in developing direct relationships with participating communities can be discussed and solutions progressed firsthand.

In this sense the research is being used as it develops, to benefit communities, relationship building and short-term achievable change. It is also aimed at the national agenda for partnerships with Indigenous land managers, seeking to inform the new Natural Hazards Research Australia[1] about future research priorities and to encourage more discussion, more experience sharing and broader engagement of Indigenous leaders and influential EM agency staff in collaborative workshops hosted by Communities in different jurisdictions on country. This latter aim reflects the success of this project{\textquoteright}s collaborations and use of this model as an ongoing forum to benefit the sector. See for example the Aims and Expectations of the final project workshop below.

\ The summary of next steps:

  1. Relevant EM agencies and community leaders to start or continue working on their relationship and achievable change now.
  2. This report, supported by participating agencies, is presented to the new Natural Hazards Research Australia as a foundation to attract a future fully funded program of collaborative PAR with community researchers and of partnered EM activity.
  3. For the next and future collaborative workshops to be planned and funding secured so they may become annual, focused, Indigenous led pillars of EM sector partnerships.
  4. Conversations continue at 3 levels: community level, transregional and across the multi-agency national conversation. This should include Qld, NT and WA EM agencies connecting more effectively with each other and supporting each other to progress partnership building at North Australia scale.
  5. Indigenous communities and land management groups, their representative organisations and supporters take whatever steps they are able to, to build resilience and capability in EM.
}, keywords = {challenges, Emergency management, fire management, Impact, indigenous, land management, opportunities, partnerships, research strategy, sustainability}, issn = {680}, author = {Glenn James and Danny Burton and Otto Bulmaniya Campion and Barry Hunter and Jimmy Morrison and Ted Gondarra and James Bayung} } @article {bnh-6050, title = {Strengthening and repair of reinforced concrete columns by jacketing: state-of-the-art review}, journal = {Sustainability}, volume = {11}, year = {2019}, month = {06/2019}, pages = {3208}, abstract = {

Sustainability necessitates the protection of infrastructure from any kind of deterioration over the life cycle of the asset. Deterioration in the capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) infrastructure (e.g., bridges, buildings, etc.) may result from localised damage sustained during extreme loading scenarios, such as earthquakes, hurricanes or tsunamis. In addition, factors such as the corrosion of rebars or ageing may also deteriorate or degrade the capacity of an RC column, thereby necessitating immediate strengthening to either extend or ensure its design life is not limited. The aim of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art review of various strengthening and repair methods for RC columns proposed by different researchers in the last two decades. The scope of this review paper is limited to jacketing techniques for strengthening and/or repairing both normal- and high-strength RC columns. The paper also identifies potential research gaps and outlines the future direction of research into the strengthening and repair of RC columns.

}, keywords = {Infrastructure, Multi-hazard, sustainability}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113208}, url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3208}, author = {Saim Raza and Muhammad Khan and Scott Menegon and Hing-Ho Tsang and John Wilson} } @article {bnh-4584, title = {Using a worldview lens to examine complex policy issues: a historical review of bushfire management in the South West of Australia}, journal = {The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability }, year = {2018}, month = {01/2018}, abstract = {

The scale and intensity of bushfire activity in Australia is likely to increase as a result of climate change. Effective bushfire management policy measures are therefore essential to minimise the interrelated social, environmental and economic impacts of fire in the landscape. This paper presents a historical review of bushfire management in the South West of Australia (SW): a bushfire prone and biodiverse region. Using a worldview framework to analyse key policy documents and literature, the paper demonstrates that the evolution of complex policy sectors such as bushfire management, is influenced not only by scientific and technical developments but also as a result of changing worldviews. Adapting the Integrative Worldview Framework (IWF), seven worldview categories that dominated particular periods of history in Australia are presented. These worldview categories are then used to examine the evolution of bushfire management practice, policy and institutional arrangements relevant to the SW. The argument presented herein is that a better understanding of worldviews and how they influence complex and contentious policy fields such as bushfire management, is useful for policy analysis, reflexive practice and research. The paper suggests an integrative worldview approach, which enables opportunities for exchanges and constructive conflict between stakeholders and agencies with diverse worldviews, could contribute to creating more sustainable bushfire management. Finally, it is argued that opportunities for Indigenous and Western worldview exchanges in the bushfire management sector, through collaborative knowledge partnerships could assist the sector in both management practice and policy formulation.

}, keywords = {Australia., bushfire management, governance, Policy, sustainability, worldviews.}, doi = {10.1080/13549839}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13549839.2018.1467390?scroll=top\&needAccess=true}, author = {Simone Ruane} }