@article {bnh-6977, title = {Australian inquiries into natural hazard events: Recommendations relating to urban planning for natural hazard mitigation (2009-2017)}, number = {571}, year = {2020}, month = {06/2020}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This document reports on an assessment of major Australian post disaster and emergency event inquiries and reviews from the past 10 years in terms of recommendations relating to the integration of urban planning and natural hazard mitigation.

Findings from this review must be understood in the context of inquiries {\textendash}examinations of events seeking mainly to identify problems and areas for improvement.\  Accordingly, the recommendations do not typically highlight successes or existing strengths, even while these may be well understood and recognised by those involved. Additionally, this report has avoided making detailed assessments of the numbers of various recommendation types, given the uneven distribution of a relatively low number of events. Nonetheless, the emphases upon certain areas and omission of others suggest areas for future improvement.

}, keywords = {events, inquiries, mitigation, Natural hazards, urban planning}, issn = {571}, 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} } @inbook {bnh-6647, title = {Dimensions of Risk Justice and Resilience: Mapping Urban Planning{\textquoteright}s Role Between Individual Versus Collective Rights}, booktitle = {Natural Hazards and Disaster Justice: Challenges for Australia and Its Neighbours}, year = {2020}, pages = {93-115}, publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan}, organization = {Palgrave Macmillan}, edition = {1st}, chapter = {5}, address = {Singapore}, abstract = {

This chapter applies a justice framework to the complex of dilemmas between individual rights and the public good. It uses the case of the Wye River and Separation Creek Christmas Day 2015 bushfire in Victoria, Australia. Analysis of this event reveals the complex interactions of assumed, asserted and contested rights that play out before, during and after major destructive bushfire events, and their justice implications. The chapter suggests that there is a need to acknowledge and treat risks as complex manifestations of ongoing decisions over time; that existing emphases on individual property rights often erode the public good; that there is a need to set minimum standards in settlements; and that there is need to actively integrate individual and collective action to achieve risk justice.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, Human settlements, Justice, Public good, risk, urban planning, Wildfire}, isbn = {978-981-15-0465-5}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0466-2_5}, url = {https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-0466-2_5}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Janet Stanley} } @book {bnh-6841, title = {Feeling the heat: International perspectives on the prevention of wildfire ignition}, series = {Series on Climate Change and Society}, year = {2020}, pages = {319}, publisher = {Vernon Press}, organization = {Vernon Press}, edition = {1st}, address = {Wilmington}, abstract = {

In the context of climate change, world population growth and crashing ecological systems, wildfire is often a catastrophic and traumatic event. Its impact can include loss of life, life-changing injuries, long-term psychological stress; increases in domestic violence; destruction of properties, business and livestock; long-term housing insecurity; increased insurance premiums, fire-fighting, legal and health costs; as well as significant changes and species losses in the natural environment.

}, keywords = {ignition, Planning, prevention, response, risk, Wildfire}, issn = {978-1-64889-010-9}, url = {https://vernonpress.com/book/890}, author = {Janet Stanley and Alan March and James Ogloff and James Thompson} } @article {bnh-6576, title = {Integrated urban planning for natural hazard mitigation}, number = {535}, year = {2020}, month = {01/2020}, institution = {Bushfire \& Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This report is the third in a series produced for the BNHCRC-funded project Integrating Urban Planning and Natural Hazard Mitigation. The first report constituted a theoretical exploration of integration between urban planning and emergency management supported by an overarching understanding of national and state contexts for these two fields of inquiry and practice, with a focus on the states of Victoria and South Australia. This report generated a preliminary framework used to subsequently interrogate a series of urbanplanning-related recommendations from royal commissions of inquiry and reviews targeting natural-hazard-related events in the past ten years, summarised in the second report.

Building on the preliminary framework of integration previously developed, this current report presents the development of an analytical framework for assessing integration between urban planning and emergency management arrangements and practice and its application in a real case in the state of Victoria. Findings presented in this report serves as the basis for the analysis of the South Australian case of integration in a moment when its planning system is under considerate reforms. A separate report containing findings from this subsequent analysis is to be submitted next.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, mitigation, Natural hazards, Risk assessment, urban planning}, issn = {535}, 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-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} } @article {bnh-7164, title = {Urban planning capabilities for bushfire: treatment categories and scenario testing}, journal = {Australian Journal of Emergency Management}, volume = {35}, year = {2020}, month = {07/2020}, pages = {32-40}, abstract = {

The challenges facing settlements relating to bushfire require integrated approaches that manage risks across a wide range of factors. This paper sets out a framework demonstrating how urban planning, when coupled with appropriate decision support and future scenario testing, can reduce risks relating to bushfire while considering future growth. Examples of how planning can modify aspects of risk in association with scenario testing are included. Five main categories of risk reduction treatments are shown. The paper contributes to risk reduction by providing practical mechanisms for risk avoidance and treatment via urban and land-use planning systems combined with forward scenario testing to guide existing settlements and future growth.

}, keywords = {Bushfire, capabilities, scenario testing, treatment, urban planning}, url = {https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/ajem-july-2020-urban-planning-capabilities-for-bushfire-treatment-categories-and-scenario-testing/}, author = {Alan March and Graeme Riddell and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Dovers, Steve and Holger Maier} } @article {bnh-6294, title = {Challenges for wildfire-prone urban-rural interfaces: The case of Melbourne}, journal = {Urbano}, volume = {22}, year = {2019}, month = {04/2019}, pages = {88-105}, abstract = {

Wildfires are an ever-increasing threat for many residents of urban-rural interfaces located in wildfire-prone areas. Spatial planning is an important aspect of contending with wildfire risk, as it has the potential to modify the design, location and\ characteristics of settlements. However, planning systems can struggle to integrate actions to this end. Using a case-study methodology, this paper reflects on treatment responses to key wildfire risk factors in urban-rural interfaces and the challenges associated with this task. It analyses the case of Melbourne from the perspective of the spatial planning mechanisms addressing wildfire risk that are related to physical structures and the roles of agencies. The physical risk treatment responses are examined considering mapping, strategic actions and decision-making processes. Finally, the following challenges faced by spatial planning mechanisms when addressing wildfire risk are also highlighted: the direct and indirect influence of politics, other planning demands that compete with and slow risk management, implementation limitations, and problems associated with the legacy of risk in existing settlements.

}, keywords = {Disaster risk, peri-urban, spatial planning, Wildfire}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.22320/07183607.2019.22.39.05}, url = {http://revistas.ubiobio.cl/index.php/RU/article/view/3309}, author = {Constanza Gonzalez-Mathiesen and Alan March and Janet Stanley} } @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} } @article {bnh-6665, title = {Australian inquiries into natural hazard events}, number = {544}, year = {2018}, month = {11/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

This is the second research report for the Integrated Urban Planning for Natural Hazard Mitigation BNH-CRC project and constitutes a preliminary assessment of selected current approaches to integrating urban planning and natural hazard mitigation. Major post-event inquiries can play an important role in pushing for the reform of current urban planning arrangements to target disaster risk reduction. This was evident in the implementation of the Bushfire Management Overlay (see Appendix 1) and related statutory mechanisms in the State of Victoria after the 2009 Bushfires. Furthermore, recommendations can shed light on areas perceived as gaps during wider assessments of causes and contributory factors relating to major hazard events. Therefore, a review of urban-planning-related recommendations following major post-event inquiries and reviews across all-natural hazards will form the basis of this report, considering the role of urban planning in reducing emergent and legacy risks associated with the built environment.

The form of post-event inquiries varies widely, from the focused, technical and brief, to wide-ranging and lengthy such as those carried out by a Royal Commission (Eburn \& Dovers, 2015). While the recommendations of inquiries are very rarely binding on governments, they nonetheless carry significant weight and implementation is the norm. There were 142 post-event inquiries in Australia between 2009 and 2017, constituting by far the largest body of evaluation data regarding actual or perceived issues in disaster prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. This report begins to explore those recommendations from 55 major inquiries that relate to urban planning (Cole, Dovers, Eburn, \& Gough, 2017; Cole, Dovers, Gough, \& Eburn, 2018).

In this context, a preliminary assessment of urban-planning-related recommendations put forward by major post-event inquiries and reviews proved a worthwhile undertaking as the first step into understanding current approaches to integrating urban planning and natural hazard mitigation in the past 10 years.

The assessment of these recommendations was informed by the analytical framework developed in the first research report for this project, developed through a review of relevant literature and in consultation with end-users. This analytical framework proposed a set of elements of an approach to integration, and a general list of urban planning tools and another of urban planning treatments of risk that can be used to support natural hazard mitigation.

Assessing urban-planning-related recommendations against the set of categories proposed in this analytical framework targeted both the mapping of these recommendations to unveil concentrations as well as the testing and expansion of the framework through its first practical application.

Findings from this preliminary assessment will inform the next stage of this research project which consists in the assessment of specific Australian and international case studies. The former will provide an opportunity to contrast recommendations with implemented integration while the later holds potential for an expansion of possibilities to integration to those already being employed in Australia.

}, keywords = {events, inquiries, mitigation, Natural hazards, urban planning}, issn = {544}, 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-4955, title = {Practical and theoretical issues: integrating urban planning and emergency management}, number = {414}, year = {2018}, month = {10/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, abstract = {

This report examines selected examples of integration between urban planning and emergency management in Australia. It seeks to identify initial issues to implementation at National and State level. Overall, this report argues that an integrated approach will require a coordinated framework at the strategic, tactical and operational levels, across functional areas and stakeholders, to establish an effective integrated governance approach that offers desired societal outcomes when faced with extreme events.

The key purpose of urban planning is to bring about improvements and avoid problems in human settlements that would not be achieved without intervention, organization and facilitation (Hall, 2007).\  While urban planning can occur in various forms and can use many mechanisms that seek a range of goals, its actions are primarily oriented to the physical characteristics of cities, towns and regions.\  This combines with the characteristics and distribution of people and the interactions and activities they undertake in various locations as the outcomes of planning.\ 

}, author = {Alan March and Leonardo Nogueira de Moraes and Graeme Riddell and Janet Stanley and Hedwig van Delden and Ruth Beilin and Dovers, Steve and Holger Maier} }