Speaker
Description
Globally, natural hazards are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change impacts, with the potential to trigger disasters. Planning plays a crucial role in disaster risk reduction, preparedness and recovery, as it influences locations of uses and building requirements. This role is influenced by wider policy and institutional frameworks for disaster prevention and response. Therefore, there is a need for integration of the work of planning and disaster management agencies.
This research aims to improve understanding of the role of planning in disaster management in Australia and how policy coordination and integration could be improved. It critically examines institutional arrangements and coordination mechanisms on the state government level and highlights gaps, barriers and opportunities for improved coordination and interaction.
The project uses a mixed methods approach. Firstly, we mapped current arrangements and frameworks for the coordination of planning and disaster management in Australia. Based on the mapping, case study research was undertaken across three Australian states, comprising document analysis and 27 stakeholder interviews.
Our analysis suggests that, while good practice and some regulations and frameworks exist, integration between planning and disaster management could be further improved. Currently, disaster management agencies play coordinating roles on disaster preparedness, response and recovery, and to some extent disaster prevention, generally and also in relation to planning agencies. For planning, formal interaction occurs particularly through state emergency management planning and through fire agencies acting as referral agencies. However, the activities and knowledge of these lead agencies need to be better integrated with planning agencies on a day-to-day basis and there is a need to raise disaster risk awareness in planning agencies, i.e. how disaster risk impacts planning and vice versa.
Disaster risk reduction is embedded strongly regarding bushfire planning, but is less clearly regulated for other natural hazards. Planning processes and policies for moving away from risk areas (managed retreat) and compensation (buyback) schemes are used on an ad hoc basis but are not well coordinated or implemented. Furthermore, planners sometimes are not aware or do not understand the disaster risk, e.g. due to low data availability or because interactions with hazard agencies are not common – which leads to insufficient acknowledgement of this risk.
Barriers to the integration of planning and disaster management include differing work cultures and objectives and the loss of institutional knowledge that can result from frequent organisational restructuring and the prolific use of fixed-term contracts. In relation to local government, an absence of necessary resources often prevents sufficient disaster risk reduction activities and sufficient response in the disaster recovery phase.
Enhanced institutional coordination to strengthen planning in disaster prevention, preparedness and recovery could include adding disaster themes to relevant planning legislation and policy frameworks and the development of clear policy priorities. Clearer policy positions and specific regulations about priority criteria for urban development decisions in relation to disaster risk and improved data availability and harmonisation can support planners in making firmer decisions about limiting urban development. Furthermore, a clearer assignment of planning agency’s responsibilities in the different disaster phases and more formal and informal exchange between planning and disaster agencies would also support coordination.
| Keywords | policy integration; disaster management; planning; Australia |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
