@article {bnh-7296, title = {Compound natural disasters in Australia: a historical analysis}, number = {605}, year = {2020}, month = {09/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Compound disasters pose complex disaster coordination and recovery challenges. To inform disaster planning for catastrophic disasters it is essential to understand their frequency and characteristics. In this study we utilise natural disaster loss databases to identify the frequency of historical compound disasters in Australia, considering their characteristics and climate influences. Results show that compound disasters have occurred frequently and are associated with the highest seasonal losses in terms of both insured financial losses and fatalities. They may occur coincidently with other societal stressors such as wars, recessions and pandemics further exacerbating their consequences. Though their component disasters most frequently occur in eastern Australia, events can comprise disasters in both the east and west of the continent.\  There is no temporal trend in their frequency when considering financial losses, but there is a downward trend when considering only fatalities. \ It is essential that future disaster risk assessments and plans consider compound disaster scenarios. Relationships with climate drivers may assist to forecast their occurrence.

}, keywords = {compound, historical analysis, Natural disasters}, issn = {605}, author = {Andrew Gissing and Matthew Timms and Stuart Browning and Coates, Lucinda and R Crompton and John McAneney} } @article {bnh-6809, title = {Planning and capability requirements for catastrophic and cascading disasters}, number = {557}, year = {2020}, month = {03/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Catastrophic events pose unique challenges and are inevitable. Previous reviews have highlighted gaps in Australia{\textquoteright}s preparedness for catastrophic disasters. Australia has no recent experience of a catastrophe, with the Spanish Flu (1918-19) and Cyclone Tracey (1974) being perhaps two historic examples that have overwhelmed systems of management. Catastrophic events require the adoption of a whole community approach. However, this is challenged by the culture of emergency services and wider community apathy. This report provides insights into the preparedness for catastrophic disasters based upon a review of the global literature. Implications for practitioners are discussed to assist in strengthening capability and capacity to reduce the likelihood of becoming overwhelmed.

}, keywords = {Capability, cascading disasters, Catastrophic, Planning}, issn = {557}, author = {Andrew Gissing and Michael Eburn and John McAneney} } @article {bnh-7705, title = {Planning and capability requirements for catastrophic and cascading disasters - final project report}, number = {634}, year = {2020}, month = {12/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Background

Planning and capability requirements for catastrophic and cascading disasters\ was a three-year research project focusing on the research questions of:

The research\ was based on literature reviews; interviews with representatives from emergency management organisations, businesses and community organisations; analysis of historical disaster loss data and content analysis of previous business contributions to disaster responses.

Findings

While\ a truly catastrophic disaster is by definition unmanageable, emergency managers can still help reduce loss of life and property and assist in sustaining the continuity of affected communities (Harrald, 2006). However, business-as-usual response strategies that work for smaller, more frequent events will not cut it in truly catastrophic circumstances. Often the success of the response is reliant upon the capacities already present in communities. Emergency managers must look to bolster these extant capacities.

Emergency services need to conceptualise how their service delivery models will have to adjust to the overwhelming demand for services and the complexity of catastrophes, including how they will anticipate and work with community first responders. Emergency management organisations must define capabilities they are best able to deliver in support of wider community efforts. For other capabilities, planners should look to community-based sources to supplement those available within government and consider altering service delivery standards.

Our results support existing well defined principles for disaster planning and risk reduction (Alexander, 2005): however, we found they are not effectively implemented to develop plans that consistently inform decision making. Planning is being inhibited by cultural, knowledge and resource constraints dominated by reactive response-oriented approaches.

There is a lack of knowledge regarding collective capability requirements and gaps to manage severe-to-catastrophic disasters. Unlike the defence forces, emergency services collectively lack a long-term view of capability\ requirements. There is need for a collective national view of future capability\ requirements to inform investment.

Severe-to-catastrophic disasters will require resources beyond the impacted\ jurisdiction. Although resources are already shared between jurisdictions, there is\ a need to bolster approaches for jurisdictions to work seamlessly together,\ including investments to enhance interoperability and to strengthen\ mechanisms of national coordination. The Commonwealth{\textquoteright}s role must also be\ defined by Commonwealth emergency management legislation as has\ previously been recommended (Eburn et al., 2019).

The need for strengthening national coordination arrangements is reinforced by\ analysis of historical compound disasters, which shows that it is possible for\ numerous concurrent or sequential severe disasters to occur across multiple\ jurisdictions, resulting in potential resource conflicts across jurisdictions.

Our research ultimately supports the principle of shared responsibility. The whole-of-community approach recognises that any severe-to-catastrophic disaster will\ involve whole-of-society responses. Despite the recognition of the value of\ businesses and community organisations in the National Strategy for Disaster\ Resilience, emergency management approaches are based on an inadequate\ view of community organisation and business capabilities and the culture\ remains largely government-centric.

Governments, whilst considering the lessons of previous disasters, must be\ proactive, forward looking and risk-based. Capability and capacity\ requirements for severe-to-catastrophic disasters will likely evolve into the future\ due to societal, environmental and technological changes. Technology offers\ significant opportunities to enhance capabilities.

Ultimately, our research supports the need for further efforts to mitigate disaster\ risk and build resilience, similar to recommendations of the Productivity\ Commission and APRA.

Utilisation\ 

The\ project adopted a collaborative approach with end-users assisting to define\ research questions and utilisation outputs. A key utilisation output from the\ research has been an emergency management capability maturity assessment\ tool that can be utilised by jurisdictions and organisations to better understand\ potential capability gaps in the context of severe-to-catastrophic disaster\ scenarios. Through utilisation funding provided by the Bushfire and Natural\ Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, this tool will be promoted for use across\ all jurisdictions.

Following analysis of emergency management legislation, a model\ Commonwealth Emergency Management Act was drafted for consideration by\ end-users.

Outcomes of the research were presented as evidence to the 2020 Royal Commission\ into National Natural Disaster Arrangements.

}, keywords = {Capability, cascading, Catastrophic, disasters, Planning}, issn = {634}, author = {Andrew Gissing and Steve George and Michael Eburn and John McAneney and Matthew Timms and Stuart Browning} } @article {bnh-5542, title = {Influence of road characteristics on flood fatalities in Australia}, journal = {Environmental Hazards}, volume = {18 }, year = {2019}, month = {04/2019}, abstract = {

An analysis of published flood fatalities in Australia occurring between 1960 and 2015 revealed that 49\% of 229 flood fatalities were vehicle related. After reviewing previous work on vehicle-related flood fatalities, this study examines attributes of roadways that may have influenced driver decisions to enter floodwaters and the survivability of people in vehicles that did so and concludes by discussing policy implications. Characteristics most frequently present were small upstream catchment length that may influence the rate of rise of floodwaters; the absence of roadside barricades; deep flooding immediately adjacent to the roadway; the absence of lighting; dipping road grades that lead floodwaters to increase once a vehicle enters them; the lack of curb and guttering and the inability of motorists to easily turn around. Each of these factors were observed in at least 50\% of the cases studied and provide a risk-based means of assessing other sites vulnerable to flooding but where fatalities have not been observed to date.\ 

}, keywords = {Emergency management, Flood, flood fatalities, risk management, road safety}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2019.1609407}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2019.1609407}, author = {Andrew Gissing and S. Opper and Matalena Tofa and Coates, Lucinda and John McAneney} } @conference {bnh-4795, title = {Planning and capability requirements for catastrophic and cascading events}, booktitle = {AFAC18}, year = {2018}, month = {09/2018}, publisher = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, organization = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Perth}, abstract = {

Catastrophic events pose unique challenges and are inevitable. Previous reviews have highlighted gaps in Australia{\textquoteright}s preparedness for catastrophic disasters. Australia has no recent experience of a catastrophe, with the Spanish Flu (1918-1919) and Cyclone Tracey (1974) being perhaps two historic examples that have overwhelmed systems of management. Catastrophic events require the adoption of a whole of community approach. However, this is challenged by the culture of emergency services and wider community apathy. This report provides insights into building increased preparedness to reduce the occurrence of catastrophic disasters based upon a review of the global literature. Implications for practitioners are discussed.

}, author = {Andrew Gissing and Michael Eburn and John McAneney} } @article {bnh-6629, title = {Shaping future catastrophic disasters}, number = {537}, year = {2018}, month = {08/2018}, institution = {Bushfire \& Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This study explores the influence of political, economic, environmental, social and technological factors on our changing riskscape and how these factors might influence the ability of communities to respond and recover from future catastrophic disasters. These factors are explored through a review of relevant literature and short interviews with emergency management leaders.

While there is wide uncertainty regarding future conditions that may shape disaster events, special consideration should be given to the increased risks posed by urban development in at-risk areas; the impact of climate change on the extreme weather events; system inter-connectedness and contagion risks; cyber-security; societal reliance on new technologies, and ageing infrastructure.

There are, however, opportunities to positively influence future risk profiles through the adoption of improved building codes and risk-informed land-use planning; urban renewal to enhance the resilience of existing development; climate change adaptation, especially in respect to the consequences of increased air temperatures and sea-level rise; by incorporating resilience considerations into infrastructure design; and the adoption of technological advances to better understand and manage risk.

}, keywords = {catastrophe, disaster, future}, issn = {537}, author = {Andrew Gissing and Michael Eburn and John McAneney} } @article {bnh-4145, title = {A natural hazard building loss profile for Australia: 1900-2015}, number = {331}, year = {2017}, month = {10/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This study examines building damage as recorded in PerilAUS to determine the national profile of natural peril impacts and frequencies. The analysis employs Risk Frontiers{\textquoteright} Damage Index based on a House Equivalent (HE) loss metric introduced by Blong (2003); a normalisation correction based on Crompton and McAneney (2008) and Crompton et al. (2010); and a lower bound event threshold of 25 normalised HE. The latter is equivalent to a monetary loss of around $10m in 2015-16. Normalisation puts historical events on a common footing with losses that would be incurred given 2015 societal and demographic conditions. It answers the question: what would be the building losses if historic events were to recur today?

While more validation and analysis remains to be done, we are confident that the relative importance of the various perils and their spatial distribution across states and territories has been faithfully captured. Broadly we find that there have been on average 5.85 events per year causing losses in excess of 25 normalised HE. This frequency exhibits no statistically significant change since 1900. The mean loss per event is $118m with a standard deviation of $430m.

The most costly event in terms of building damage is the 1999 Sydney hailstorm, which was also the most expensive insured loss. The losses broadly follow a Pareto distribution in which 20\% of events account for 80\% of the aggregated normalised building losses and the top 20 are responsible for 50\% of those losses. We can expect natural disaster events as costly as the 1999 Sydney hailstorm to occur about once per century, events like the Brisbane floods once every 30 to 40 years and that of the Hobart Bushfires about once a decade.

Just why most of the extreme losses {\textendash} the 1974 Brisbane floods and Cyclone Tracy in the same calendar year, the 1999 Sydney hailstorm and the 2011 Queensland and Victorian floods {\textendash} are clustered post-1970 requires further investigation. We do not believe this to be a reporting bias and know in the case of floods, for example, that Brisbane experienced much higher floods in the early and late 19th century than either the 1974 and 2011 floods. Regardless of the reason, the pattern of losses demonstrates clearly the {\textquoteleft}heavy-tailed{\textquoteright} character of the distribution of natural peril losses: in other words, there is always the possibility of event losses far in excess of the historical mean. This may be occur because of an event of higher intensity or larger footprint, that footprint impacting an area of higher-valued exposure, or all of these together.

Of all the perils, tropical cyclones have been most destructive and responsible for 30\% of the national building damage since 1900. Bushfires, floods and hail have all been similarly costly each accounting for another 18\% of building losses, although when hailstorms are combined with other storm events (excluding cyclones), thunderstorms similarly contribute 30\% of the losses. Compared with meteorological hazards, geophysical perils have had a minor influence on building damage over the last 116 years with earthquake losses dominated by a single event -- the 1989 Newcastle earthquake. However this time period is too short to predict the frequency of damaging seismic events and in the case of this peril, as with some others, the spatial pattern of losses shown here could be overturned by another extreme loss.\ 

}, issn = {331}, author = {John McAneney and Madappatt, N and Coates, Lucinda and R Crompton and Rebecca D{\textquoteright}Arcy and Blong, R} } @article {bnh-5078, title = {The Excess Heat Factor as a metric for heat-related fatalities: defining heatwave risk categories}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {31}, year = {2016}, month = {07/2016}, abstract = {

Heatwaves represent Australia{\textquoteright}s most significant natural disaster in terms of mortality. A unanimous definition of what constitutes a heatwave does not currently exist. However, recent work from the Bureau of Meteorology (Nairn \& Fawcett 2013) has provided a metric designed to summarise their intensity. This metric, called the Excess Heat Factor, is being increasingly adopted by the research community as it is well-suited to characterise heatwave hazards. Yet the link between the Excess Heat Factor and the potential societal or economic impacts heatwaves can have is still not well understood. Using the PerilAUS archive of heat-related fatalities in Australia, this paper proposes to develop a classification of heatwave events in terms of their risk potential for human loss of life. This paper also quantifies the likely death toll from populations exposed to each of these categories. The category scheme is used to analyse the risk gradient of the three most lethal events in south-east Australia since 1900. The scheme helps communicate about heatwave fatality risk in Australia and provides some insight into the location of the populations under greatest threat. This study also catalogued 466 events in south-east Australia using the Excess Heat Factor and the newly developed heatwave categories. Using principal component analysis to identify the key modes of variability, a synthetic catastrophic heatwave scenario is generated and analysed for projected fatalities.

}, url = {https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-31-04-13}, author = {Thomas Loridan and Coates, Lucinda and Daniel Arg{\"u}eso and Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick and John McAneney} } @article {bnh-1658, title = {Exploring 167 years of vulnerability: An examination of extreme heat events in Australia 1844{\textendash}2010}, journal = {Environmental Science and Policy}, volume = {42}, year = {2014}, month = {10/2014}, pages = {33-44}, chapter = {33}, abstract = {

Despite their relative importance in terms of human mortality, extreme heat events have not attracted the same level of study compared with other natural hazards in regards to vulnerability and implications for emergency management and policy change. Definitional confusion and inconsistencies in defining heat related deaths over time have made it difficult to determine an absolute death toll. Notwithstanding these issues, this study employs PerilAUS {\textendash} Risk Frontiers{\textquoteright} database of natural hazard event impacts {\textendash} in combination with official sources in an attempt to provide a lower-bound estimate of heat-associated deaths in Australia since European settlement. From 1844 to 2010, extreme heat events have been responsible for at least 5332 fatalities in Australia and, since 1900, 4555: more than the combined total of deaths from all other natural hazards. Over 30\% of those deaths occurred in just nine events.

Both deaths and death rates (per unit of population) fluctuate widely but show an overall decrease with time. The male to female death-rate ratio has fluctuated and approaches but does not reach equality in more recent times. In line with other studies, seniors have been the most vulnerable age group overall, with infants also over-represented. Policy implications in view of a warming climate and an ageing population are discussed.

}, keywords = {Extreme heat event, Heat waves, Mortality statistics, Natural disasters, Vulnerability}, doi = {doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.003}, url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114000999}, author = {Coates, Lucinda and Katharine Haynes and James O{\textquoteright}Brien and John McAneney and Felipe Dimer de Oliveira} } @article {2047, title = {Australian bushfire fatalities 1900-2008: exploring trends in relation to the {\textquoteleft}Prepare, stay and defend or leave early{\textquoteright} policy}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Policy}, volume = {13}, year = {2010}, month = {05/2010}, pages = {185 - 194}, abstract = {

In many jurisdictions, including parts of the US, authorities often dictate mandatory evacuations of communities threatened by bushfire (wildfire). Prior to the 2009 [{\textquoteleft}]Black Saturday{\textquoteright} fires in Victoria, Australian fire authorities in all States advised residents to decide whether they would prepare to stay and defend homes or leave early. The clear intent of that policy was to avoid late evacuations and the risks to life that this could entail. This study re-examines evidence underpinning this policy using analyses of a database of bushfire fatalities. The database contains information on 552 civilian (non-fire fighter) fatalities obtained from print media archives at Risk Frontiers and forensic, witness and police statements contained within coronial inquest reports for all bushfire fatalities between 1901 and 2008. This data, compiled before the Black Saturday fires, clearly show the dangers of being caught outside during a bushfire and the gendered division of the circumstances of these deaths. While men have been most often killed outside while attempting to protect assets, most female and child fatalities occurred while sheltering in the house or attempting to flee. The database provides a benchmark against which the Black Saturday experience can be examined.

}, keywords = {Community safety, Fatalities, Policy, Wildfire, Wildland-urban interface}, isbn = {1462-9011}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.002}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901110000201}, author = {Katharine Haynes and John Handmer and John McAneney and Tibbits, Amalie and Coates, Lucinda} }