@article {bnh-8136, title = {Capability Maturity Assessment facilitators guide}, number = {681}, year = {2021}, month = {07/2021}, 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 that has truly overwhelmed our society.

An essential component of planning for severe-to-catastrophic disasters is to develop an understanding of capability maturity to deliver the desired effect. Knowledge of capability gaps can then be used to enhance planning and identify alternate sources of capability.

The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements stated:

Jurisdictional approaches to capacity and capability development have served fire and emergency services well in the past. However, climate and demographic changes are likely to increase the demand on fire and emergency services. The ability of individual jurisdictions to meet this demand at peak times is likely to become increasingly difficult, prompting a need for increased resource sharing. There is a need to consider capabilities nationally, and for a more consistent and connected approach to capability planning across jurisdictions.

The Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework outlines a direction to improve understanding of national capability in the context of severe-to-catastrophic disasters.

Purpose

This guide provides instructions on how to conduct a first-pass capability maturity assessment for a jurisdiction to identify capability gaps and development priorities.

Audience

This guide is directed towards those who may manage or participate in the capability maturity assessment process.

}, keywords = {assessment, Capability, Emergency management, guide, maturity, Policy, Preparedness, tool}, issn = {681}, author = {Andrew Gissing} } @article {bnh-8038, title = {Economic Analysis Screening Tool: Guidelines}, number = {665}, year = {2021}, month = {05/2021}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

This document provides an overview of the Economic Analysis Screening Tool (EAST) and its development, as well as the instructions on how to use it and how to interpret the results derived from it. EATS was developed by researchers from the University of Western Australia as part of the BNHCRC funded project {\textquotedblleft}Economics of Natural Hazards.{\textquotedblright}

These Guidelines should be used in conjunction with EAST and should be considered an integral part of the Tool package. We recommend users read these Guidelines before using EAST.

}, keywords = {analysis, EAST, economic, guidelines, screening, tool}, issn = {665}, author = {Veronique Florec and Abbie Rogers and David J Pannell} } @article {bnh-8039, title = {Value Tool for Natural Hazards: Guidelines}, number = {361.2018}, year = {2018}, month = {06/2018}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {MELBOURNE}, abstract = {

The {\textquotedblleft}Value Tool for Natural Hazards{\textquotedblright} comprises of a Value Tool Database, which provides a collection of non-market value estimates relevant to natural hazards, and these Value Tool Guidelines, which describe how to use the values collated in the Database. The purpose of the Value Tool is to provide an accessible list of non-market value estimates for policy makers to use in decision making about natural hazard management.

The non-market or intangible benefits and costs of natural hazards are large in many cases, and should be accounted for in prioritising investment in natural hazard mitigation. We recommend that non-market values should be considered in natural hazard decision making as follows:

The Guidelines provide an overview of non-market values and benefit transfer for natural hazard decision making as follows:\ 

The Value Tool Database and Guidelines provide guidance on how the non-market value estimates should be used, and the policy contexts under which they are best suited for use. We recognise that the non-market valuation literature is incomplete with respect to providing highly accurate value estimates for all of the value types that might be affected by a natural hazard (see Section 3). However, we advocate that the use of an approximate number is usually better than no number, when it comes to decision making. It is better to have some information about the intangible benefits of a decision, than to ignore them completely: the error, and decision bias, resulting from the latter is likely to be far greater than the error from using an inaccurate number.

Provided the policy maker is aware of the potential for this error, uses a conservative approach for transferring values, and undertakes appropriate sensitivity analysis in analyses that use those values, then the values can provide useful, quantitative information for decision making. As noted above, in some cases, where a value transfer is too unreliable, we don{\textquoteright}t recommend using the values in a quantitative analysis, but suggest using them in a qualitative manner to inform thinking about particular policies.

}, keywords = {guidelines, hazards, natural, tool, Value}, issn = {361}, author = {Abbie Rogers and Fiona L Gibson and Peter Boxall and Michael Burton and Jacob Hawkins and Robert Johnston and Marit Kragt and John Rolfe and David J Pannell} }