New online - September 2016

New journal articles and reports on CRC research are now available online.

The research papers from our annual conference - AFAC16 powered by INTERSCHUTZ - are available. This includes papers presented during the Research Forum, as well as the research papers that were presented on 31 August and 1 September on the AFAC16 program. Download the full research proceedings. Alternatively, download individual papers here. 

Many annual project reports for 2015-2016 are now available online, with more to follow soon. Read up on all the research from the following projects: 

• Pre-disaster multi-hazard damage and economic loss estimation model 

• Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard vulnerability and risks at the institutional scale

• Policies, institutions and governance of natural hazards

• Scientific diversity, scientific uncertainty and risk mitigation policy and planning

• An analysis of human fatalities and building losses from natural disasters
• Using realistic disaster scenario analysis to understand natural hazard impacts and emergency management requirements
• Building best practice in child-centred disaster risk reduction

• Natural hazards exposure information framework

• The Australian Natural Disaster Resilience Index

• Improved predictions of severe weather to reduce community impact

• Mitigating the effects of severe fires, floods and heatwaves through the improvements of land dryness measures and forecasts

• Fire coalescence and mass spot fire dynamics: experimentation, modelling and simulation
• Fire spread prediction across fuel types
• Optimisation of fuel reduction burning regimes for fuel reduction, carbon, water and vegetation outcomes

The Policies, institutions and governance of natural hazards is seeking feedback on a discussion paper, Learning for emergency services: looking for a new approach. The paper reviews the processes used in inquiries following significant natural hazard events, and in particular bushfires. It is argued that the coroner/Royal Commissioner model has not proved effective in identifying learning that will help communities to rebuild relationships after an event, or develop resilience in anticipation of the next event. Specifically, feedback is sort on the following questions:

1. What do you think the community should expect from post-event reviews?
2. Are we well served by current post-event review processes?
3. Are the criticisms of current post-event reviews justified?
4. Is there value in current post-event reviews that the authors have not identified or given due weight to?
5. Do you agree with the suggestions for the move to restorative justice practices? Why or why not?
6. Do you have other suggestions on how post event reviews may be improved and made more meaningful?
7. How could we improve this report to make it more relevant, meaningful and helpful?
8. Are there any other thoughts, criticisms, concerns or ideas you would like to share?

Feedback can be directed to the author on michael.eburn@anu.edu.au