Risk and reward

This article was first published by Victoria University for its Research Highlights 2018 magazine.

We know that the cost of natural hazards like bushfires, floods and heatwaves is high - socially, economically and environmentally. But few Australians would know that the annual cost is set to soar to a staggering $33 billion by 2050; and that is without considering changing climate risks.

Now, Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC researchers at Victoria University have developed a risk framework that changes the way we plan for such disasters by focusing on reducing their impacts and building greater resilience, instead of building back what just broke.

The central question posed in the work done by Research Fellow Celeste Young, of the Institute for Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities, and Professorial Research Fellow Roger Jones, centred on risk "ownership" - who owns it, how they own it, and how is that ownership allocated.

Mapping and understanding bushfire and natural hazard risk on an institutional scale was a three-year project funded by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC.

The researchers were also concerned with establishing what was of value and how it was at risk from natural hazards. This was critical to understanding how resources could best be leveraged and allocated to build resilience in the community and support longer term recovery. It was also considered crucial to ensuring the future sustainability of emergency services organisations.

Historically, the community has outsourced much of its natural hazard risk to the emergency services, government and insurance companies. One of the key findings of the research project was that the current ownership split between private and public sectors was unbalanced and potentially unsustainable.

For the community to build resilience, the researchers argued that it needed to be part of the wider conversation on strategic risk and decision-making. Co-ordination and shared decision-making between contributing agencies and the community was important in order to clarify ownership, also to support more effective management of activities and use of resources over the longer term.

The researchers developed a Risk Ownership Framework for Emergency Management Policy and Practice in collaboration with key end users. It takes a values-based approach, which includes negotiation and consensus.

The Framework provides descriptions of risk ownership, types of decision-making, and strategic and systemic risk. It also provides key questions and tools to assist practitioners.

“Traditional risk assessments were done by asking what the risks were,” explains Ms Young. “With this model, you ask what is important in this situation – is it the water and the power, or is it the school or the sawmill that employs many in the community? Then you establish how it is at risk so you can start planning what action is needed.

“You need to take them through the process so they can think beyond the event and see the connections between the things that are important to them and see how it is related to the risk. This way, they can understand what they are responsible for and why.”

She said the framework had been tested with risk practitioners and the next step was to test it with community practitioners.

Emergency Management Victoria has already incorporated some of the concepts of risk ownership into policy. The work has also been incorporated into training at Tasmania’s State Emergency Services.

Find out more about the research.