Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 26 June 2013
Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter
Discussion Paper
AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter
This Discussion Paper was funded by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities through the Sustainable Regional Development Program Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
Creative Commons This report is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en).
AECOM Australia Pty Ltd
Level 2, 60 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia T +61 2 6201 3000 F +61 2 6201 3099 www.aecom.com
ABN 20 093 846 925 26 June 2013
Prepared by Davina Thomas, Nicola Glendining and Marcus Sainsbury
Reviewed by Jennifer McAllister and Guillaume Prudent Richard
Revision History
Authorised Revision Date Details Name/Position Signature
Marcus Sainsbury Early Draft Discussion 1 1-Mar-2013 Principal Environmental Original Signed Paper Scientist Marcus Sainsbury Draft Discussion 2 19-Apr-2013 Principal Environmental Original Signed Paper Scientist Guillaume Prudent Richard Final Discussion 3 24-May-2013 Environment Group ACT, Original Signed Paper Team Leader Guillaume Prudent Richard Final Discussion 4 26-June-2013 Environment Group ACT, Paper Team Leader
AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001 and ISO14001. © AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM). All rights reserved.
AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and AECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.
AECOM has exercised reasonable care when completing this report. However, caution must be taken when considering our conclusions because significant uncertainty remains due to the inherent complexities involved in analysing the past climate and variables typically encountered when modelling future climate change. AECOM cannot guarantee the accuracy of the climate observations and projections described in this report and cannot be responsible for any third party’s reliance upon on this information.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter
Table of Contents Glossary i List of Acronyms ii Executive Summary iii 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Discussion Paper scope and research questions 2 2.0 Approach 3 2.1 Limitations of this study 6 3.0 Modelling community resilience 7 3.1 Definitions and the relationship between resilience and vulnerability 7 3.2 Principles 7 3.3 Building a community resilience model 8 3.4 Model elements/ indicator examples 9 3.5 Building a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model 11 4.0 Lower Hunter Profile 12 4.1 Overview 12 4.2 Lower Hunter 12 5.0 Hazard Profile 17 5.1 Overview 17 5.2 Sea Level Rise 17 5.3 Coastal Recession 19 5.4 Fluvial Flooding 21 5.5 Storms 28 5.6 Extreme heat and human health effects 29 5.7 Bushfire 32 5.8 Earthquakes 38 6.0 Formal Risk Response 41 6.1 Overview 41 7.0 Discussion 53 7.1 Overview 53 7.2 Model or framework approach 53 7.3 Data and indicators 54 7.4 Governance 58 8.0 Recommendations 59 8.1 Stakeholder testing 59 8.2 Ranking options 60 8.3 Recommendations 62 9.0 References 66 Appendix A - Stakeholder Workshop A
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter i
Glossary
Term Definition
The capacity to be flexible, both during and after a disaster as well as to change Adaptive Capacity preparation and response behaviours to disasters in non-crisis periods.
Climate Change Change in climate over time due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
A group of people with a commonality of association and generally defined by location, Community shared experience or function.
A result or effect of an action or condition. Risk can be understood and expressed as a Consequence combination of the consequence of an event (including changes in circumstances) and the associated likelihood of occurrence.
A condition or situation of significant destruction, disruption and/ or distress to a Disaster community.
An event, actual or imminent, which endangers or threatens to endanger life, property or Emergency the environment, and which requires a significant and coordinated response.
A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause Hazard loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation.
Hazard Consideration of the frequency, duration, intensity, magnitude and rate of the onset as Assessment well as .likelihood and consequence.
The state or fact of something being possible or probable. Risk can be understood and Likelihood expressed as a combination of the consequence of an event (including changes in circumstances) and the associated likelihood of occurrence.
The capacity of human behaviour, social and physical environments to withstand loss or Resilience to recover if loss or damage occurs due to an emergency or disaster.
Risk The degree of exposure to a hazard where there is a potential for loss.
A characteristic of human behaviour, social and physical environments, describing the Vulnerability broad measure to the susceptibility or propensity to suffer loss or damage.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter ii
List of Acronyms
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics AGSO Australian Geological Survey Organisation AHD Australian Height Datum AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process BoM Bureau of Meteorology CCF Community Capitals Framework CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation DCC (Commonwealth) Department of Climate Change DCCEE (Commonwealth) Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency DCP Development Control Plans DISPLAN Hunter Central Coast Emergency Management District Disaster Plan DIT (Commonwealth) Department of Infrastructure and Transport DPI Department of Planning and Infrastructure DECCW (NSW) Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water DoP (NSW) Department of Planning ECL East Coast Low EMA Emergency Management Australia EMPLAN (NSW) State Emergency Management Plan EPBC Act (Commonwealth) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 EPA Act (NSW) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ERM Emergency Risk Management FDM Floodplain Development Manual FFDI Forest Fire Danger Index GA Geoscience Australia GFDI Grassland Fire Danger Index ICA Insurance Council of Australia IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change HCCREMS Hunter & Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy LEP Local environmental plans LGA Local Government Area MAP Measure of Australia’s Progress MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis NSW New South Wales OEH Office of Environment and Heritage SEPP State environment planning policies RDA Regional Development Australia SEWPaC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities SLR Sea level rise
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter iii
Executive Summary Project Background This Discussion Paper is funded under the Sustainable Regional Development Program being undertaken by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) to help facilitate a strategic assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Lower Hunter strategic assessment will assess broad environmental, social and economic sustainability aspects within the local government areas (LGAs) of Newcastle, Maitland, Cessnock, Lake Macquarie and Port Stephens. The strategic assessment incorporates urban development areas and associated infrastructure corridors, with a focus on matters of national environmental significance protected under national environmental law. In the context of strategically managing urban, industrial and agricultural expansion and the conservation of key environmental values, the constraints brought by natural hazards cannot be ignored. While natural hazards cannot be prevented, it is possible to reduce the economic, physical, social and environmental impacts on and vulnerability of communities through resilience. Resilient communities experience less damage and tend to recover more quickly from disaster. They absorb stress either through resistance or adaptation and manage and maintain basic functions despite the impacts from disasters. Resilient communities also have strong capacity to recover from impacts through specific behavioural strategies for risk reduction. Role of Discussion Paper The primary purpose of this Discussion Paper is to understand whether it is feasible to develop a modelling tool to measure and improve community resilience to natural hazards in the Lower Hunter. It explores a variety of community resilience models and analyses the applicability of such models to the Lower Hunter Region as well as the feasibility of developing a specific model. The scope of this project does not include building a community resilience model. It is about recognising how other models have been built and understanding the suitability of developing a similar, adapted, model for the Lower Hunter region. Modelling Community Resilience The literature review undertaken as part of this project shows that it is possible to measure community resilience and there are already a number of resilience frameworks and models developed to understand and measure community resilience and vulnerability. Such frameworks and tools can differ in their scope, purpose and approach. Some are designed to provide practical general guidelines for service providers or policy makers while others focus on enhancing resilience in specific types of communities or in response to specific hazards. Steps considered necessary in developing a model to measure community resilience include: - setting framework or model parameters (determination of study area, targeted outcomes, data requirements) - measuring antecedent or current conditions (community profile and hazard profile to understand inherent vulnerability and resilience in social systems, natural systems and the built environment) - risk analysis (assessment to look at frequency, duration, intensity, magnitude, and rate of onset for hazards) - understanding risk response (formal and informal coping mechanisms) - determination of vulnerability indicators and required data to measure indicators - weighting of indicators and sensitivity analysis - vulnerability assessment or modelling. Discussion Recognising that community resilience can be modelled, this Discussion Paper considers community resilience model elements for the Lower Hunter including identifying: natural hazards within the region; key regional social and economic characteristics; and an overview of the current planning response to natural hazards. Regional Characteristics Determining the key social and economic characteristics would form part of the second stage of developing a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model; in terms of measuring antecedent or current conditions. In identifying the characteristics of the region according to five capitals (natural, human, social, financial and built) it is evident that the greater the strength in these areas of capital, the greater the population’s resilience and adaptive capacity in the face of natural hazards and a changing climate. These differing capitals could act as one set of sub- indicators within a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter iv
Hazards in the Lower Hunter A model measuring community resilience needs to understand the potential risk to the region from natural hazards to which the region is most vulnerable or exposed (and the changing profile of natural hazards due to climate change). For the Lower Hunter a hazard profile would need to focus on sea rise, coastal recession, fluvial flooding, storms, extreme heat, bushfire and earthquakes. While there are some uncertainties in methodologies for measuring the risk of these hazards, collection of up-to-date data and review of hazard risk assessment methodologies could overcome some of these uncertainties. Current Planning Arrangements A resilience model or framework which incorporates a review of government land use and strategic planning processes highlights the responsibility and role (individually and collectively) of varying levels of government to contribute to community resilience and adaptive capacity. From an initial review it is evident that current strategic and land use policy documents for the Lower Hunter, particularly those produced in the last five years, emphasise how land use planning can account for natural hazards and play a role in minimising potential impacts. There is however, little account for building community resilience for preparing for and responding to natural hazards within formal or informal planning arrangements. Options for Developing a Model The appropriateness and effectiveness of utilising the elements discussed to build a model will be affected by a number of considerations around the approach adopted, the data and indicators used and the governance for the model. A number of options have been developed for building a model and categorised within each of these three areas. There are a range of options under each area and it is not suggested that the adoption of one option removes the possibility of another, however it should be noted that individual model or framework options may have implications in terms of data requirements and governance arrangements.
No. Options 1. Model or framework approach 1.1 Develop a qualitative framework 1.2 Develop a quantitative ‘live’ model 1.3 Build a model or framework which includes both qualitative and quantitative elements 2. Data and indicators 2.1 Develop measures of general adaptive capacity, and sensitivity 2.2 Develop indicators for a qualitative framework model 2.3 Develop indicators for hazard specific resilience 3. Governance 3.1 Develop LGA pilot model then regional model 3.2 Establish technical working group with Federal, State and Local stakeholders to develop and run model 3.3 Ownership by one LGA with input from other LGAs and Government 3.4 Regional ownership with Council input
Consultation On 29 April 2013 a workshop was held in Newcastle as part of this project. The draft version of this Discussion Paper was circulated to stakeholders and formed the basis of the workshop and discussion. This targeted consultation was organised to explore: - feedback on the work completed to date and the proposed options for an improved resilience model - additional work already being undertaken in the region around building community resilience which had not been identified in the draft Discussion Paper and to which this project may align - the potential for the development of an improved and more responsive and inclusive model, including governance arrangements. The results of this Discussion Paper have consequently been compared with the expressed stakeholder expectations to arrive at a set of recommendations for a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter v
Recommendations Based on the outcomes of the stakeholder workshop and multi-criteria analysis (MCA) undertaken as part of this Discussion Paper, it is possible to identify a set of recommendations for developing a community resilience model for the Lower Hunter. It is important to recognise that these recommendations are based on an understanding that the use of one option does not eliminate the adoption of others. The overall recommended approach, therefore, is not for the development of a single model. Rather, the sequential development of a model is recommended. These recommendations are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather they suggest a staged approach to the development of a community resilience model. This would also include the type of benchmarks and data which may be included to measure resilience, and offer a case study for developing a particular tool that could be incorporated into a multi-hazard mapping tool. In the first instance a simple, qualitative model (both in terms of inputs and outputs) should be developed by, and be the responsibility of a regional body (such as HCCREMS) informed by a technical working group comprising representatives from Local Governments and State Governments’ Agencies involved in natural hazards prevention, protection and preparedness (e.g. SES, OEH, Council technical staff) and other relevant stakeholders (such as CMA, Academics and eventually EMA). One of the first steps in developing this model would be to adjust and agree on the terms of reference, and to seek funding to establish and maintain the model. This model could then be expanded into more sophisticated models which integrate both quantitative and qualitative elements, and are applicable to the whole region. These models should be tested at a local level before regional application. Type of model The key recommendation for approach and data in terms of the type of model is to adopt a staged approach: 1. A qualitative model is initially developed which establishes a logic and set of framework principles as well as a number of specific indicators to evaluate community resilience. This initial model does not focus on a specific hazard, but rather aim to capture the region resilience to natural hazards. 2. Depending on the success of the initial model, it is further developed to a quantitative and qualitative based framework model with some in-built live components. This second iteration of the model could include hazard specific modules in addition to the consideration of general resilience aspects. 3. The ultimate model for the Lower Hunter would include quantitative elements (for instance for natural hazards and socio-economic aspects) and qualitative elements (capturing the institutional and governance aspects) and cover multi-hazards and be partially built in a GIS domain (i.e. having a spatial representation function). This model would have some ‘live’ modules built-in; see Section 8.0 for a diagram illustrating this possible model. Key Stakeholders and Governance Arrangements The key recommendations for governance are: - Identifying a regional organisation that would be responsible for establishing and maintaining the model and coordinating data collection and inputs from stakeholders. This organisation would need to be established at the regional level and have some in-house expertise on natural hazards and a track record in delivering multi-disciplinary projects within the Hunter Region, as well as established connection and engagement with relevant stakeholders. An organisation for consideration would be HCCREMS. - Establishing a working group which includes specialist stakeholders from Local Governments and State Governments' Agencies involved in natural hazards prevention, protection and preparedness (e.g. SES, OEH and Council technical staff) , as well as other stakeholders with relevant knowledge and direct involvement in natural hazard management (e.g. CMA, University of Newcastle, CSIRO and BoM). Commonwealth Agencies like the Attorney-General's Department EMA Branch could also be included as part of the consultation process. The role of this working group would be to define the model (including the details of a staged approach) and act as a technical advisory body supporting the regional organisation. - Temporarily establishing another group focusing on the funding aspects (and including possible funding stakeholders). This group would be initially accountable for sourcing the funding necessary for developing the model. This funding group would comprise of organisations involved in funding natural hazards management activities (such as local government); and other organisations which are ultimately involved in providing funding following damages (such as NSW Treasury). Investment in a natural hazard resilience model would translate in the longer term to fewer damages across the region and result in savings in terms of recovery and reconstruction efforts. The level of investment of each organisation should be proportional to the possible benefits and cost savings. Once established, this funding function could be transferred to a sub- group within the working group mentioned above.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 1
1.0 Introduction The Lower Hunter, as the sixth largest urban area in Australia and one of New South Wales (NSW) major centres of economic activity, is expected to continue to grow as people are attracted by its lifestyle and opportunities. Natural hazards, already present within the Lower Hunter are likely to have an increased influence on planning and development within the region in the context of population expansion and economic development. Climate change is likely to exacerbate this challenge, particularly in coastal areas of the Lower Hunter, where substantial population numbers are focussed and a range of hazards tend to occur. This could also place significant pressure on key matters of national environmental significance known to occur throughout the region. It is therefore imperative to develop approaches and tools to increase the resilience of the Lower Hunter community in the face of these changes, while enabling reasonable development to continue. This Discussion Paper is funded under the Sustainable Regional Development Program being undertaken by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) to help facilitate a strategic assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Lower Hunter strategic assessment will assess broad environmental, social and economic sustainability aspects within the local government areas (LGAs) of Newcastle, Maitland, Cessnock, Lake Macquarie and Port Stephens. The strategic assessment incorporates urban development areas and associated infrastructure corridors, with a focus on matters of national environmental significance protected under national environmental law. Natural hazards resilience is an issue that traditionally has not been comprehensively considered in regional planning by any level of government. While there has been a great deal of research and investigation focussing on some natural hazards (especially following disasters), the consideration of natural hazards as part of a coordinated and forward looking planning process has been piecemeal. In the context of strategically managing urban, industrial and agricultural expansion and the conservation of key environmental values, the constraints brought by natural hazards cannot be ignored. While natural hazards cannot be prevented, it is possible to reduce the economic, physical, environmental and social impacts on and vulnerability of communities. Beyond mere structural defence, an integrated risk management approach deploys a diversified set of measures that moderate the economic and social drivers of risk and improve risk governance (Schelfaut et al, 2011). Community resilience is one outcome of such integrated risk management. Resilient communities experience less damage and tend to recover more quickly from disaster. They also absorb stress either through resistance or adaptation, manage and maintain basic functions despite effects and can recover with specific behavioural strategies for risk reduction (Orencio and Fujii, 2013). Resilient communities include those which can: - identify individuals, families, groups, communities, neighbourhoods, localities and systems that may be vulnerable to particular hazards or who may have particular strengths and capabilities - plan for and meet needs that may arise after disasters - plan to use and build upon local and system strengths and capacities - identify skills, expertise, knowledge, resources, networks and other capabilities that can be used to develop and sustain resilience - support local, agency, municipal, regional and State disaster planning and management processes (Buckle et al, 2001).
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 2
1.1 Discussion Paper scope and research questions The following key services formed the scope for preparing this Discussion Paper: - undertaking a gap analysis to identify potential areas to complement government legislation, industry self- regulation and/or policy, with the aim of contributing to successful resilience and sustainability outcomes in the Lower Hunter region - undertaking research and consulting with key stakeholders to develop a Discussion Paper on opportunities for improved natural hazard resilience planning for different development scenarios in the Lower Hunter region - providing recommendations for future research, policy development and/or capacity building programs related to resilience planning for natural hazards (e.g. risks and opportunities associated with environmental offsets provided under EPBC Act strategic assessments). These services were undertaken in order to address the following primary and secondary research questions. Primary: Is it possible to develop a modelling tool that allows local government to measurably increase community resilience to natural hazards? And if so, what would such a tool comprise and how much would it cost? Secondary: - What are the historical and projected natural hazards in the Lower Hunter region? - How is natural hazard risk identified and evaluated in the Lower Hunter region? How is this risk planned for and reflected in the local and regional planning framework? In the examples where natural hazard risk is incorporated into the planning framework, are these frameworks successfully implemented or are they overturned? - What opportunities are there for implementation of best practice tools for identifying and evaluating natural hazard risk? - What opportunities exist for best practice planning approaches for enhanced resilience planning to natural hazards in the Lower Hunter Region? Each of these research questions are explored in this Discussion Paper. Section 2 outlines the approach undertaken.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 3
2.0 Approach The approach for this Discussion Paper has been developed to explore primary and secondary research questions and to address: - in the first instance whether it is possible to model community resilience toward natural hazards - secondly, to understand the appropriateness and feasibility of developing such a model for the Lower Hunter region. The figure below provides an overview of the approach taken in this Discussion Paper. Figure 1 Discussion Paper approach
To respond to the primary research question, a literature review of vulnerability and existing resilience models was undertaken. It explores the various definitions of risk, resilience and vulnerability as well as the key stages involved in developing a resilience model and some of the essential principles framing the development of a community resilience model. It also includes an evaluation of the variety of indicators developed by the different models to measure resilience or vulnerability. Recognising that models to measure community resilience to natural hazards have been established and could be adapted for a specific Lower Hunter model, the second part of this Discussion Paper considers the elements that a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model may entail and explores the elements required for building a model, including where additional data or material would be required to develop the model. The approach undertaken for the first two stages of the Discussion Paper draws on a variety of sources. The table below provides the key data and information sources used for each of the different chapters and analyses. Table 1 Data and information sources
Chapter Sources Literature - Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2010) Measures of Australia’s Progress Review - Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO), (1996 – 2001) Cities Project: Effects of a range of natural hazards on urban communities - Buckle, Philip, Marsh, Graham and Smale, Sydney, (2001) Assessing Resilience & Vulnerability: Principles, Strategies and Actions - Cutter, S , Barnes, L, Berry, M, Burton, C, Evans, E, Tat, E and Webb, J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience - Insurance Council of Australia (ICA), (2008) Improving community resilience to extreme weather events
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 4
Chapter Sources - Kappes, M, Papathoma-Kohle, M and Keiler, M, (2012) Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an indicators based model - Orencio, P and Fujii, M (2013) A localised disaster resilience index to assess coastal communities based on an analytical hierarch process - Price-Robertson, Rhys and Knight, Ken, (2012) Natural disasters and community resilience: A framework for support - Shelfaut, K, Pannemans, B, van der Craats, I, Krywkow, J, Mysiak, J and Cools, J, (2011) Bringing flood resilience into practice: the Freeman Project
Community - Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS) (2009). Labour Force Australia Profile - Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS) (2012). Australian Census Data, 2011 - Department of Planning (DoP) (2006). Lower Hunter Regional Strategy - Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), (2012)
Hazard Profile - Attorney General’s Department, 2010. Heatwaves - In My Backyard? - Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) (2011) The Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project: Annual Sea Level Data Summary Report July 2010- June 2011 - Climate Commission (2011). The Critical Decade: Climate science, risks and responses - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) (2009). Interactions between climate change, fire regimes and biodiversity in Australia: A preliminary assessment. - CSIRO (2012). Sea Level Rise, Understanding the past – Improving projections for the future, - Department of Climate Change (DCC) (2009). Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coast, A First Pass National Assessment. - Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) (2010a) Impacts of Climate Change on Natural Hazards Profile: Hunter Region. - Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) (2010b) NSW Climate Impact Profile: the impacts of climate change on the biophysical environment of New South Wales. - Dufty, N. (no date). The Importance of Connected Communities to Flood Resilience - Geoscience Australia (GA) (2002) Earthquake Risk in Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. - GA (2012) What is an Earthquake? - HCCREMS (2010d). Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Bushfire Risk in Hunter, Lower North and Central Coast Region, Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast Regional Climate Change Project: Case Study 3. - HCCREMS (2010e). CASE STUDY 2: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Extreme Heat Events Affecting Public Health in the Hunter, Lower North Coast and Central Coast Region. - Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environment Management Strategy (HCCREMS) (2010f) Potential impacts of climate change on the Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast of NSW. - HCCREMS (2010G) Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Extreme Events in the Coastal Zone of the Hunter, Lower North Coast and Central Coast Region. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4). - Lucas, C., Hennessy, K., Mills, G. and Bathols, J. (2007) Bushfire weather in southeast Australia: Recent trends and projected climate change impacts. - Met Office (2011). Climate: Observations, projections and impacts – Australia - Sinadinovski, C., Jones, T., Stewart D. & Corby, N. (2002) Earthquake History, Regional Seismicity and the 1989 Newcastle Earthquake. - Steffen, W. (2009). Climate Change 2009 Faster Change & More Serious Risks
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 5
Chapter Sources Formal Risk - Development Control Plans (various) Response - Hunter Central Coast Emergency Management District Disaster Plan - Hunter Regional Action Plan NSW 2021 - Lake Macquarie Community Plan - Local Environmental Plans (various) - Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan 2009 - Lower Hunter Regional Strategy 2006 – 2031 - Newcastle 2030 Community Strategic Plan - NSW State Emergency Management Plan - RDA Hunter Regional Plan 2010-2020 - SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 - SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development) 2008 - SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 - SEPP (Major development 2005) - SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008 - SEPP (State + Regional Development) 2011 - Urban Planning for the Hunter’s Future 2012
Following on from the literature review on community resilience models, the Discussion Paper considers elements suitable for a community resilience model for the Lower Hunter. This discussion builds on the identified natural hazards within the region, the key social and economic characteristics, and the current planning responses to identify key opportunities to develop a resilience model, including available datasets and planning initiatives. Critical questions and challenges, which would need to be resolved before a model could be further progressed, are also presented. This approach was developed recognising that the scope of this project does not include building a community resilience model, but rather, an analysis of other models to determine the suitability of developing a similar, adapted, model for the Lower Hunter region. The approach therefore provides an overview of different types of models and an evaluation of elements and indicators that may be applicable to a Lower Hunter specific model. The aim is to determine the potential for an appropriate and effective resilience model for the Lower Hunter region. Recognising that any model which has been developed to measure the impacts associated with community resilience has a strong relationship with local ownership, the data collected and the model created should be validated with primary information collected through consultations. Targeted consultation will provide vital insights into the development of the model which cannot be gained from a review of secondary sources alone. Furthermore the success of a community resilience model will be contingent on its acceptance by current and prospective users. For this reason, targeted consultation with key stakeholders in the Lower Hunter was undertaken and used to inform this Discussion Paper. Consultation On 29 April 2013 a workshop was held in Newcastle as part of this project. The draft version of this Discussion Paper was circulated to stakeholders and formed the basis of the workshop and discussion. This targeted consultation was organised to explore: - feedback on the work completed to date and the proposed options for an improved resilience model - additional work already being undertaken in the region around building community resilience which had not been identified in the draft Discussion Paper and to which this project may align - the potential for the development of an improved and more responsive and inclusive model, including governance arrangements. The results of the draft Discussion Paper were considered along with the expressed stakeholder expectations to develop a set of recommendations for a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 6
2.1 Limitations of this study This Discussion Paper was prepared to investigate the feasibility of developing a modelling tool to enhance community resilience in the Lower Hunter. The following key limitations and assumptions apply: - The Discussion Paper is intended to inform debate with key stakeholders rather than act as the foundation for the development of a model to enhance community resilience to natural hazards. - The Discussion Paper is based entirely on desktop sources, and no quantitative testing has been undertaken. Further investigations might identify a preferred approach for the development of a model, when the availability of data is more clearly understood. - The hazard analysis canvassed in this Discussion Paper is not planned to inform detailed hazard zoning or hazard management. It is intended to be indicative for the purposes of understanding the key natural hazards present within the Lower Hunter. - The development of a model to enhance community resilience to natural hazards would in practice, involve wide consultation and stakeholder input into the preferred approach, the key data sources and indicators, and the governance around the model. - The Discussion Paper reviews some potential methodologies that may assist in the development of a model, without identifying a preferred approach. This recognises that a combination of other approaches may be applicable to the Lower Hunter region.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 7
3.0 Modelling community resilience There are a number of resilience frameworks and models which have been developed to understand and measure community resilience and vulnerability to natural hazards. Such frameworks and tools can differ in their scope, purpose and detail; some are designed to provide practical general guidelines for service providers or policy makers, while others focus on enhancing resilience in specific types of communities or in response to specific hazards. The following sections provide an overview of a range of models, detailing their definitions of resilience and vulnerability and the stages for developing the models or frameworks. The review includes consideration of a range of models including academic, theoretical models and models prepared by government or non-government agencies. It also considers models that are geographic and non-geographic specific and quantitative and qualitative.
3.1 Definitions and the relationship between resilience and vulnerability There are some differences between the proposed definitions of risk, resilience, vulnerabilities (somewhat fixed) and adaptive capacity (somewhat dynamic) in the examined models. There are, however, synergies between the overall characterisation of the terms. Based on the literature, risk can be understood as the degree of exposure to a hazard where there is a potential for loss. Vulnerability is a characteristic of human behaviour, social and physical environments, describing the broad measure to the susceptibility or propensity to suffer loss or damage. Resilience is the capacity of human behaviour, social and physical environments to withstand loss or to recover if loss or damage occurs due to an emergency or disaster. Cutler et al (2008) generally classify vulnerability as a pre-event characteristic, a function of exposure and sensitivity and resilience as a present or post-event characteristic, a function of coping. They suggest that resilience has two qualities: inherent (functions well during non-crisis periods) and adaptive (flexibility in response during disasters) and can be applied to infrastructure, institutions, organisations, social systems or economic systems. Gibbs (2009) proposes that resilience should be framed in both a context of “resilient to what” (such that resilience is defined with respect to specific hazards) and separately considered in a more general context. This paper specifically focusses on community resilience to natural hazards, however recognises that there are some aspects of resilience that are directly relevant to particular hazards, and at the same time some general characteristics of resilience that may apply to a range of hazards. There is a definitive relationship between resilience and vulnerability. Buckle et al (2001) highlight that while vulnerability and resilience are connected they are not opposite ends of the risk continuum. The relationship is not linear. They are both measures for defining exposure to risk but can be regarded as separate measures rather than opposites. They explain this relationship by emphasising that a person may be vulnerable or exposed to a particular loss, say flooding of their home, but may have resilience in terms of being insured or having skills to repair the damage.
3.2 Principles A number of the papers suggest the importance of ensuring that any model developed to measure resilience and vulnerability are built on the foundation of certain principles. The key principles include: - Simplicity: the strength of many measurement tools (especially for communities) lies in their simplicity and the ability to reduce the complexity of environments and identify important causal relationships (e.g. between local identity and community resilience) - Adaptive: the resilience of a community is not static and neither should a model measuring resilience. The effectiveness and appropriateness of the model should be regularly assessed and amended as necessary. - Not stand alone: modelling instruments comprise one in a suite of techniques and strategies that can be used by governments or service providers to assist with building community resilience. Models and frameworks should be used in conjunction with other techniques and strategies. - Future: generally developed models are based on historical assumptions about nature, frequency and intensity of events. Where available it is more appropriate to use predicate assumptions.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 8
3.3 Building a community resilience model While many of the considered models and frameworks have been developed to measure the resilience and vulnerability of different environments (social, built), varying hazards (general or specific such as flooding), or different responsibilities (government, communities), there are consistencies between the required stages or elements included in building the models or frameworks. Essential steps include: - setting framework or model parameters (determination of study area, targeted outcomes, data requirements) - measuring antecedent or current conditions (community profile and hazard profile to understand inherent vulnerability and resilience in social systems, natural systems and the built environment) - risk analysis (assessment to look at frequency, duration, intensity, magnitude, and rate of onset for hazards) - understanding risk response (formal and informal coping mechanisms) - determination of vulnerability indicators and required data to measure indicators - weighting of indicators and sensitivity analysis - vulnerability assessment or modelling. Some of the frameworks, such as those developed by Price-Robertson and Knight or the Insurance Council of Australia, are qualitative in nature. They aim to establish a set of indicators to evaluate community resilience in order to appropriate and adjust community and government responses and actions through a continuous process of monitoring and review. Others develop a ‘live’ model to continually generate a result based on indicators. Orencio and Fujii (2013) for example have created an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) which involves modelling paired comparisons of various alternatives by weighting alternatives and ranking criteria to create resilience building priorities within certain criteria. These live models are built on simple elements through complex modelling and require the availability of up-to-date and precise data.
Case Study for developing a resilience model: AGSO Cities Project The Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO) Cities Project provides a case study of a model which was created and tested for a variety of urban communities in Queensland, including Cairns and Mackay as well as for the wider region. With each of the early tests in Cairns and Mackay, the model was refined and adapted in order to ensure the appropriateness and effectiveness of the final model, which was the first multi-hazard risk assessment in the Cities Project encompassing a large population and a wide range of hazards. The established model provides a comprehensive overview of the natural hazard risks faced by the communities, infrastructure and organisations across the region, promoting community awareness by developing an understanding of the natural hazards and their risk in the region. The natural hazards considered in the study include tropical cyclones, east coast lows (winter cyclones), floods, earthquakes, landslides, severe thunderstorms, heatwaves and bushfires. The model was established using stages, such as setting framework parameters and developing vulnerability indicators, measuring current conditions and risk and understanding risk responses to identify area for improvement. To assess community vulnerability, AGSO adopted a systematic approach to describing the elements at risk in the community and their vulnerability to hazard impact. These elements are grouped into the five themes of setting, shelter, sustenance, security and society (the ‘5s’). As a quantitative model the collected data was analysed to identify the districts that provided a disproportionate contribution to community risk because of the number and nature of elements they contained.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 9
3.4 Model elements/ indicator examples Indicators for assessing community resilience provide a means of measuring and charting the recovery of a community from the impacts of shock and disaster. Many of the discussed frameworks and models are built by developing vulnerability / resilience and risk / hazard profiles to then develop a set of indicators to measure community vulnerability or risk. From reviewing the literature it is evident that the indicators provided as examples for use in models or frameworks vary depending on the target audience or users of the framework. They also vary depending on whether they focus on certain environments or hazards. A selection of the suggested indicators from the literature review is provided below as examples that could be applicable for a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model. Price -Roberts and Knight Price-Roberts and Knight have three indicators which they believe should be the foundation of community resilience model. These factors are based on a number of elements that are considered to enable resilience while being specific to certain community areas, depending on their risk and vulnerability profiles. - physical characteristics of a community (e.g. local infrastructure, local emergency and health services) - procedural characteristics of the community (e.g. systems in place to respond to and recover from disasters including disaster policies, local knowledge, institutional and governance arrangements) - social characteristics of the community (e.g. community cohesion, community leaders, social capital). Insurance Council of Australia The Insurance Council of Australia has a slightly varied set of framework elements which are more aligned with the procedural characteristics described by Price-Roberts and Knight: - community understanding of weather related risks - risk appropriate land use planning and zoning - risk appropriate mitigation measures - risk appropriate property protection standards - financial risk mitigation in the community - community emergency and recovery planning Cutter et al The indicators developed by Cutter et al are for a disaster resilience of place model (DROP) which looks to improve comparative assessment of disasters at a community or local government level are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Indicators proposed by Cutter et al
Dimension Candidate variables Ecological Wetlands average and loss Erosion rates % impervious surface Biodiversity # coastal defence structures Social Demographics (age, class, race, gender) Social networks and social embeddedness Community values-cohesion Economic Employment Value of property Wealth generation Municipal finance/ revenues
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 10
Dimension Candidate variables Institutional Participation in hazard reduction programs Hazard mitigation plans Emergency services Zoning and building standards Emergency response plans Interoperable communications Continuity of operation plans Infrastructure Lifelines and critical infrastructure Transportation network Residential housing stock and age Commercial and manufacturing establishments Community Competence Local understanding of risk Absence of psychopathologies (alcohol, drug, spousal abuse) Health and wellness (low rates mental illness, stress-related outcomes) Quality of life (high satisfaction) The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and SEWPaC The ABS Measure of Australia’s Progress (MAP) collates select indicators about society, the economy and the environment in order to provide insight into national progress. Similarly, SEWPaC has a measuring sustainability program which looks to monitor how social and human capital, natural capital and economic capital are tracking in Australia. Each of these measures about progress is about understanding societal wellbeing, a model which closely connects with societal resilience. MAP is specifically designed to understand whether life in Australia is improving. Within the broad headings of society, the economy and the environment several dimensions are addressed such as health and work within the social domain and national income within the economic domain. Within most of these dimensions a headline indicators which directly addresses the notion of progress is used to form part of a story about the extent of progress within that dimension. The SEWPaC sustainability indicators are designed to complement the ABS Map model by reflecting both stocks (quantity and quality of resources) and flows (uses or drivers of change in stocks) of social and human, natural and economic capital. The reports against the indicators are produced every two years to highlight key trends and emerging issues across the dimensions of sustainability in Australia. The set of sustainability indicators under the SEWPaC model are comprised of headline indicators which are divided into themes. The table below includes the high level indicators from the ABS model and the more specific indicators from the SEWPaC framework. There are clear similarities between the two models (see Table 3). Table 3 ABS and SEWPaC headline indicators
Type ABS Headline Indicators SEWPaC Headline Indicator Themes Social Education and training Skills and Education Health Health Work Institutions, Governance and Community Crime Engagement Family, community and social cohesion Employment Democracy, governance and citizenship Security Economic National income Wealth and income National wealth Housing Household economic wellbeing Transport and infrastructure Housing Productivity and Innovation Productivity Environment Biodiversity Climate and Atmosphere Land Land, Ecosystems and Biodiversity Inland waters Water Ocean and estuaries Waste Atmosphere Natural Resources Waste
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 11
3.5 Building a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model The literature review undertaken as part of this Discussion Paper illustrates that the steps for establishing any community resilience model should be customised to a certain degree. Variables such as the users or whether the model is qualitative or quantitative will influence the stages of development, the required information inputs, and the way the model runs. To test the viability and feasibility of a Lower Hunter model, the following chapters of the Discussion Paper explore in more detail particular elements and stages of a resilience model. Chapters 4 to 6 align with the first stages of building a model, setting some of the model parameters and considering the current regional context. Chapter 4 profiles the Lower Hunter region considering the location, demographic environmental, economic and political contexts. This is an important stage in beginning to understand local vulnerability and resilience characteristics. Chapter 5 is a hazard profile, with an overview of natural hazards in the Lower Hunter region, including the frequency, duration, intensity, magnitude, and rate of onset for natural hazards. This is a critical phase for a potential Lower Hunter model that recognises the risks of natural hazards to the region. Chapter 6 describes the current government planning arrangements for preparing for and responding to natural hazards. In the models studied, there are a variety of stakeholders responsible for risk response and layers of preparation and management. Government is one of the key stakeholders with such responsibility and accounts for this through mechanisms like land use and strategic planning. Chapter 6 considers how current land use and strategic plans and policies manage and respond to natural hazards and community resilience. Particular examples of best practice, both from the Lower Hunter region and nationally across Australia have also been included. Chapter 7 aggregates the material presented in the preceding chapters, explores the feasibility and appropriateness of developing a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model and considers some of the key steps and elements that may be required to build such a model. Chapter 8 provides a set of recommendations for preferred options and model elements. These options have been developed through the testing of the Discussion Paper ideas with key stakeholders and through the use of a basic schema to rank options.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 12
4.0 Lower Hunter Profile
4.1 Overview To determine the vulnerability of a community to natural hazards, it is necessary to integrate a hazard assessment with an analysis of a community’s capacity to recover and adapt. Communities are constantly evolving, however some have better adaptive capacity compared to others, and it is important to capture this information in the development of any modelling tool prepared to improve community resilience to natural hazards. The availability and mix of activities and assets that people can draw on makes a significant difference in their ability to deal with changes (CSIRO, 2011). The Lower Hunter profile below provides context regarding the Lower Hunter community’s potential to adapt following impacts from natural hazards – a necessary component of any resilience modelling tool eventually developed for the region. Given that there are many existing approaches for assessing the characteristics of a community, it is proposed that a Lower Hunter community profile is developed using one of these existing frameworks. The Community Capitals Framework (CCF) (Flora and Flora, 2004) was selected as being a framework effective at drawing out relevant community data on adaptive capacity, and has been used as the foundation for the following assessment. It is a framework that is often used in the natural hazard and more broadly climate change adaptation space (e.g. the CSIRO’s Mapping the capacity of rural Australia to adapt to climate change project). The CCF provides a tool for ‘analysing how communities work’. It offers a platform for assessing and comparing the ‘availability and mix of activities and assets that people can draw on…to deal with changes’ (CSIRO, 2011). The framework is based on successful and sustainable communities that directly paid attention to and developed seven types of capital necessary for community and economic development. The greater the strength within each of the capitals, the greater the community’s resilience and adaptive capacity is likely to be in the face of climate change. Consistent with the CSIRO’s Mapping the capacity of rural Australia to adapt to climate change project, it was determined that not all seven elements of Flora and Flora’s CCF were applicable for a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model and this assessment. Thus the five relevant elements; natural, human, social, financial and built capital have been evaluated below to provide an overall Lower Hunter profile and highlight the region’s vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity. The discussion below identifies some of the key characteristics of the region with respect to these capitals, rather than providing a measure of their relative contribution to community resilience.
4.2 Lower Hunter The natural Lower Hunter region is defined to be the part of the Hunter River valley where it opens out to a coastal plain. It is bounded by the coast to the east, and otherwise by the higher terrain enclosing the valley. It is separated from the remainder of the Hunter River valley by the rise in the valley floor northwest of Maitland (OEH, 2012). The coastal strip extends to the south to include the northern part of the Central Coast urban centre. There are approximately 520,700 persons residing in the Lower Hunter (ABS, 2012), making it the second most populated region in NSW. The region covers an area of approximately 430,000 hectares, containing the regional centres of Maitland, Kurri Kurri and Newcastle. It is characterised by large vegetated areas, strong economic growth, and an aging population. Natural capital Natural capital is defined as the ‘productivity of land, water and biological resources that support…livelihoods’ (CSIRO, 2011). Natural capital is an important factor in determining the resilience or adaptive capacity of a community. For example, when considering the capacity of land owners to adapt to changes in weather patterns such as precipitation, those with strong natural capital may find it easier to adopt new agricultural practices (CSIRO, 2011). The Lower Hunter is characterised by significant areas of rural, agricultural and forested lands. It is estimated that approximately 60 per cent, or 264 000 hectares of the Lower Hunter is vegetated. The region is of biogeographic significance as it supports northern and southern plant and animal communities, and has a number of important green corridors traversing the land, which are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (DoP, 2006).
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 13
It contains extensive mineral resources, including coal, clay, gravel, rock and sand (DoP, 2006) which provide the region, and more broadly the State of NSW with significant commercial opportunities. Such resources also influence the region’s human and economic capital. The Lower Hunter has a large number of rivers and lakes, which provide habitat for fish and marine life, and recreational opportunities such as fishing, whale watching and boating. These commercial opportunities are important to the region as they provide diversity to the economy. The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy has deemed that these significant environmental values contribute to the area being ‘unsuitable for new large scale urban development, other than building on the existing community at Medowie and employment land at Tomago and Williamtown’. Human capital Human capital is the ‘skills, health and education that contribute to…livelihoods’ (CSIRO, 2011). The human capital of the Lower Hunter is characterised by a highly skilled, transient and aging population. A key consideration in the strength of a region’s human capital is the ‘skills and abilities’ of the population. Data for the Lower Hunter from the 2011 Australian Census (ABS, 2012), has been summarised below to show the highest level of education achieved, qualification and occupation of employed persons in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 respectively. Table 4 Level of Education achieved (ABS, 2012)
Highest Level of School Achieved Percentage Year 12 or equivalent 29.14
Year 11 or equivalent 5.31
Year 10 or equivalent 26.42
Year 9 or equivalent 8.72
Year 8 or below 4.71
Table 5 Qualification (ABS, 2012)
Qualification Percentage Postgraduate Degree Level 1.83
Graduate Diploma and Graduate Certificate Level 0.99
Bachelor Degree Level 8.27
Advanced Diploma and Diploma Level 6.05
Certificate Level 18.58
Not applicable 64.27
Table 6 Occupation of Employed Persons: Percentage of Total Employed Persons within Labour Force Status (LFSP) (ABS, 2012)
Occupation Percentage
Managers 9.48
Professionals 19.43
Technicians and Trades Workers 16.42
Community and Personal Service Workers 10.21
Clerical and Administrative Workers 14.20
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 14
Occupation Percentage
Sales Workers 10.20
Machinery Operators and Drivers 8.08
Labourers 10.12
Inadequately described or not stated 1.52
In 2011, 60 per cent of the population of the Lower Hunter had finished schooling to year 10, and just over 29 per cent finished year 12, a figure that is lower than the national average of 38 per cent (ABS, 2012). There is a high level of employment self-sufficiency in the Lower Hunter, with the largest group of employed residents working as professionals, and the second largest technicians and trade workers. Data from the 2011 census showed that the population of working age residents (15-64) in the Lower Hunter was 365,083, with an unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent lower than the national average over the same time period. The human capital of a community can be ‘increased through investing in education and health services’ (CSIRO, 2011). For that reason, the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy recognises access to quality infrastructure and services, including education and health as necessities for a ‘sustainable’ future. Social capital Social capital is the ‘family and community support available, and access to networks for ideas and opportunities’ (CSIRO, 2011). The social capital of a region can be ‘enhanced through programs that support community development and communication infrastructure’ (CSIRO, 2011). ‘A review of the literature clearly supports the notion that resilience in rural communities is firmly anchored in the various elements of social capital including networks, social participation and community engagement’ (McIntosh, 2008). The social capital of the Lower Hunter is characterised by a population that is aging at a faster rate than the NSW average (DoP, 2006), a transient mining population, and population growth centred around coastal areas, particularly Newcastle, Lake Macquarie and Port Stephens. Both an aging population and transient population reduce the adaptive capacity of a community. The aging population of the Lower Hunter has implications for social diversity and infrastructure needs, in particular transport, housing and health provisions. Approximately 14,300 people were employed in mining in the Hunter Valley (Upper and Lower) in 2009 (ABS, 2009).The significant employment opportunities presented by the mining industry has resulted in a large transient population in the Lower Hunter. The region experiences a range of issues relating to this transience, including (but not limited to): strains on housing and infrastructure and small communities being overwhelmed by new population connected with mining. Strong social capital is reflected by’ strong connections among people and organisations’, and maintaining those connections in a transient population are fraught with difficulty. Further, the transient nature and considerable remuneration received by those employed by the mining industry can create a divide within the community, further bridging social capital. On the other hand, the City of Newcastle has ‘experienced a resurgence as a lifestyle city’ (DoP, 2006) in recent years, and the relative affordability of land further up the valley in Maitland has seen significant population growth there. The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy has attributed growth and gentrification of the regional centres in the Lower Hunter to its ‘liveable residential environments, cultural city life and proximity of coastal and rural landscapes’ implying that in parts of the region social capital is strong. In addition, communities with substantial population bases have generally greater abilities to attract and retain human capital (McIntosh, 2008). With strategically designed community and support facilities, there is an opportunity to develop the social capital and in turn resilience of the Lower Hunter.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 15
Financial capital Financial capital is the level and variability of the different sources of income, savings and credit available (CSIRO, 2011). Financial capital is an important factor in determining the resilience or adaptive capacity of a community, for example, when there are significant changes in weather patterns, farmers with strong financial capital may find it easier to adapt to different crops (CSIRO, 2011). The Lower Hunter has a strong mining and industrial heritage upon which it is building an increasingly diverse economic base, skilled workforce and nationally significant economic infrastructure (DoP, 2006). The Lower Hunter has a high level of employment self-sufficiency, and high potential for a strong and diverse workforce (DoP, 2006) to continue providing financial capital into the future. In 2005, the population of the Lower Hunter ‘showed [their] resilience and dynamism’ when faced with the challenge of a BHP closure (a significant employer in the region), by diversifying and expanding the region’s economy and growing the job base (Property Council of Australia, 2005). A current trend of job growth in the tertiary sector is anticipated to continue in centres (DoP, 2006). With effective implementation, the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy is expected to facilitate job growth in existing, larger employment areas (DoP, 2006), providing continued job opportunities. It is important to consider the aging population in the financial capital of the Lower Hunter, as economic growth potential and the capacity for the region to maintain a strong and diverse workforce will be challenged (DoP, 2006). Figure 2 provides an indication of the changing age profile in the region over the next 20 years, showing a substantial increase in population at retirement age and above. Figure 2 Comparison of the Lower Hunter Region population’s age structure in 2001 and as projected for 2031 (DoP, 2006)
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 16
Built capital Built capital is ‘the infrastructure that supports the community, such as telecommunications, industrial parks, main streets, water and sewer systems and roads (Property Council of Australia, 2005). A community’s level of built capital, in combination with their financial capital, makes up their level of economic resilience. The Lower Hunter is an important centre for ‘modern industry and commerce as a key distribution centre with port, rail, road and air access’ (Property Council of Australia, 2005). Major infrastructure in the region includes the Port of Newcastle, Newcastle Airport, Newcastle City Centre, John Hunter Hospital and the University of Newcastle. A condition assessment of this infrastructure (not currently available) would provide some bearing of the degree to which built capital adds to or detracts from community resilience. Transport infrastructure for the region services population and industries focused on coal, metal, wine, power generation, defence, manufacturing, tourism and retail (DIT, 2008). As new urban areas are released, and population growth continues, congestion is becoming an increasingly prevalent problem (DIT, 2008). This could be regarded as a reduction or strain on adaptive capacity especially in terms of the ability to have immediate responses to disasters. The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, which was re-endorsed by the NSW Government in February 2010, has provisions for 115,000 new homes and improved growth centres (a greater choice of housing and jobs in Newcastle's CBD and specified major centres) (DoP, 2011). Further, there are provisions in the Strategy to ensure ‘utilities, open space and communication are provided in a timely and efficient way’ (DoP, 2006). In terms of its built capital, the Lower Hunter may be a key distribution area with important major infrastructure provisions, however pressure on infrastructure in the Lower Hunter will persist with continued economic growth.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 17
5.0 Hazard Profile
5.1 Overview The following chapter provides an overview of natural hazards in the Lower Hunter region. To determine the resilience of a community to natural hazards particularly as result of the expected exacerbations due to climate change, an assessment of the natural hazards likely to be faced by that community is crucial. Furthermore, it is essential that the results of these assessments are incorporated into the decision making process concerning future urban planning and the focus of future development. A modelling tool to measure and improve community resilience to climate change should provide an instrument for undertaking this natural hazard vulnerability assessment. A hazard can be defined as ‘a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation’ (UN/ISDR, 2004). A hazard assessment may include consideration of the frequency, duration, intensity, magnitude and rate of onset as well as the likelihood and consequence of hazards. As it is costly and time consuming to assess all potential natural hazards faced by a region, an assessment (and accordingly a modelling tool) must focus on the hazards to which the region is most vulnerable or exposed. This requires a thorough understanding of the community capitals (see Chapter 4.0), in addition to an appreciation of historical extreme weather events and climate projections for the region. In the case of the Lower Hunter, the hazard profile focusses on sea level rise, coastal recession, fluvial flooding, storms, extreme heat, bushfire and earthquakes.
5.2 Sea Level Rise 5.2.1 Key trends Sea level rise (SLR) is one of the significant anticipated consequences of climate change with significant implications for coastal infrastructure and communities as a result. SLR contributes to coastal erosion and inundation of low-lying coastal regions, particularly during extreme sea level events (CSIRO, 2012). Rates of present day SLR are not uniform across the globe, and records show sea levels vary from year to year (CSIRO, 2012). Differences can come as a result of variations in broad scale atmospheric and oceanographic circulation patterns (DECCW, 2010). In Australia, SLR has been shown to vary across coastlines, with the largest observed trends around the north and west Australian coastline adjacent to the Indian Ocean (BoM, 2011). Sea levels have risen more substantially across the western Pacific than across the eastern Pacific, due primarily to inter-decadal sea level variability (BoM, 2011). Since the early 1990s, NSW has experienced SLR of approximately 2.1 mm per year (DCCEE, 2011). Sea level data from Newcastle Harbour for the period 1966-2006 show a SLR of 1.15 mm per year (HCCREMS, 2010g). 5.2.2 Projections Taking into consideration projections from multiple sources, such as CSIRO and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as the uncertainty in the science, SLR of 0.4 m by 2050 and 0.9 m by 2100 is considered as a conservative estimation to be used until more updated projections are released. These projections of SLR levels have been adopted by the NSW Government (Draft Policy, 2008) for coastal planning and hazard assessments. Table 7 provides a breakdown of the components contributing to future projections of SLR in NSW (DECCW, 2010b).
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 18
Table 7 Components contributing to future projections of SLR in NSW (DECCW, 2010b)
Component 2050 2100 SLR due to thermal expansion 0.3 m 0.59 m SLR due to accelerated ice melt Included in thermal expansion 0.2 m Regional SLR variation 0.1 m 0.14 m Rounding - -0.03 m Total 0.4 m 0.9 m
Considering that SLR can occur at different rates at the regional level due to sedimentation, land subsidence and tectonic movement, HCCREMS synthesised a number of regional studies on SLR in NSW to produce SLR estimates for the Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast (HCCREMS, 2010g). HCCREMS have projected SLR in the region of 0.37 m by 2050 and 0.845 m by 2100. This projection is greater than the IPCC forecasts, however slightly less than NSW State Government policy levels. Notwithstanding, the differences are not significant from a planning perspective, and thus the NSW Government policy levels remain recommended (HCCREMS, 2010g). 5.2.3 Discussion There is a high level of confidence associated with the projections discussed above for both global and state scale projections. This is due to the well-established sea level monitoring network throughout Australia and the high confidence and agreement surrounding the primary causes of SLR. Further, there is scientific consensus that anthropogenic warming and SLR would continue for centuries even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilised, due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks (IPCC, 2007). This hazard profile has shown that coastal communities in the Lower Hunter, such as Newcastle, will be particularly vulnerable to SLR, and it is therefore necessary to capture SLR data in a resilience modelling tool for the region. Capturing the risk and vulnerability of a community to SLR in a publicly-available modelling tool would allow members of the community access to information on the impacts to both people and environments (in the context of the capitals discussed in Chapter 4.0). It would have the potential to assist the community and planners with coastal planning and management decisions. It should also be noted that SLR is likely to have significant implications for high value real estate located on or near the coast, with substantial flow on effects to the community resilience in terms of the Capitals discussed in Chapter 4.0.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 19
5.3 Coastal Recession 5.3.1 Key trends Coastal recession (a product of sustained coastal erosion) is a result of the action of wind, waves, tides, storm surges, and from other sources or sinks such as river inflows, reefs or cliffs. These processes can act in isolation or in combination. Coastal erosion is a hazard and climate change is potentially impacting some of the influencing factors. Anthropogenic influences such as sand extraction, construction and development activities may exacerbate these natural erosion processes. Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between factors influencing coastal recession. Figure 3 Conceptual diagram showing the relationship between factors influencing coastal erosion
Coastal recession is caused by three different mechanisms:
1) short-term erosion due to extreme storm events 2) long-term shoreline recession of whole beaches or sections of beaches due to natural and anthropogenic influences 3) recession of the coastline due to sea-level rise. A combination of the following effects also tends to cause coastal recession (DCC, 2009): - changes in the frequency and magnitude of transient storm erosion events (related to mechanism No.1 above) - extent of supply and loss of sediments from nearby sources and sinks (related to mechanism No. 2) - re-alignment of shorelines due to changes in wave direction (related to mechanism No. 2) - change in mean sea level (related to mechanism No. 3) - beach and dune morphology (sediment type, slope and particle size) - geology and geomorphology of the beach system and offshore.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 20
While there remains uncertainty about how some of the factors above will influence changes in coastal recession rates, trends for factors such as mean sea level, wave behaviour and storm events can be used to indicate potential changes. Sea Level Rise and Storm Tide In open coastal areas of NSW (based on data from Fort Denison, Sydney Harbour), the present still water level for a 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) is 1.435 m Australian Height Datum (AHD) (DECCW, 2010a). This still water measurement factors in astronomical tides and variations in meteorological conditions such as wind and barometric pressure (i.e. storm tides). If SLR meets current NSW projections of up to 0.4 m from baseline levels by 2050 and 0.9 m by 2100 (see Section 5.2), the ARI levels at 2050 and 2100 are projected to be 1.775 m and 2.275 m respectively (HCCREMS, 2010f). Wave Height With respect to wave height, once in 100 years Crowdy Head, in the Lower Hunter region, experiences wave heights exceeding 7 m for periods of up to 12 hours, and wave heights of 8.6 m, for a 1 hour period (DECCW, 2010a). An 8% increase in the maximum storm wave height and period is projected for 2050 (DECCW, 2010a). The frequency of swell waves is also projected to increase (DECCW, 2010a). 5.3.2 Projections Currently, shoreline recession in the Lower Hunter region occurs at a rate of 0-1.0 m/year (DECCW, 2010a).There remains significant uncertainty of how shoreline recession may vary as a result of climate change. However in the Lower Hunter region, it is expected that the rising sea level, coupled with storms is ‘virtually certain to increase coastal inundation and erosion events, causing permanent recession of the erodible coastline, typically of 20-40 cm by 2050 and 45-90 cm by 2100’ (DECCW, 2010b). It is recognised that other local factors may intensify or reduce recession rates, however erosion is certain to affect sandy beaches along the entire Hunter coastline (DECCW, 2010b). 5.3.3 Discussion Future coastal recession rates in the Lower Hunter have the potential to be outside of the projections described above due to the absence of site specific analysis. In order to better project coastal recession rates and identify potential changes, detailed site-specific assessments taking into account local processes and conditions are required (HCCREMS, 2010f). Types of data needed to project coastal recession include: - sediment characteristics (type, size distributions, settling velocities) - high resolution bathymetric data - high resolution (temporally and spatially) data for waves, currents, sea levels and storm tides - detailed geological and geomorphological data - information on future wind and waves. Whilst the general physics of sand transport are understood, the mechanisms governing the transport, deposition and erosion of fine-sediment (silts and clays) are complex and are difficult to predict. The formulations for fine sediment are based on a combination of observations, experimental data and theoretical analysis. Similarly, the ability to accurately model the transport of sediments in a breaking wave environment remains problematic. The level of confidence in the theoretical analysis and projections of SLR is high, but the level of confidence is low for projections in terms of winds, waves and storm surges. The science on theoretical formulations on storms, extreme event occurrences, shoreline configurations and sediment transport and how these relate to climate change are presently not well-established. Consequently, identifying the areas of the Lower Hunter that are at high risk from coastal recession is challenging. By default then, capturing representative coastal recession data in a resilience model for the region would be difficult. Building resilience to coastal recession in the Lower Hunter, however, would provide the community with the capacity to better manage the potential infrastructure, economic and livelihood impacts. Collecting the required data and capturing coastal recession in a modelling tool could improve the ability of the community to analyse the risk presented by the hazard and support informed planning responses to improve resilience generally.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 21
5.4 Fluvial Flooding 5.4.1 Definitions and Principles A flood is defined as the overflowing of the normal confines of a stream or other body of water, or the accumulation of water over areas that are not normally submerged. Floods include river (fluvial floods), flash floods, urban floods, pluvial floods, sewer floods, coastal floods, and glacial lake outburst floods. This section focuses on fluvial flooding. Fluvial flooding occurs when increased stream flow causes rivers to exceed the capacity of the river channel or break the river banks, in turn inundating the floodplain. There are a number of complex processes which affect where runoff goes and how much runoff enters river channels to become stream flow (flow of water in streams/rivers). Factors involved include rainfall intensity and duration, soil type and pre-existing soil moisture, infiltration, land cover, evaporation, topography, ground water storage (Met Office, 2011). A conceptual diagram of the factors which influence fluvial flooding is provided below.
Figure 4 Conceptual diagram showing the relationship between factors influencing fluvial flooding 5.4.2 Existing conditions and key trends In a number of catchments in the Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast region, high magnitudes of rainfall over short time periods have contributed to significant river and flash flooding, posing an ongoing management challenge for the region (HCCREMs, 2010f). In low lying areas flash flooding has been particularly severe due to the large proportion of impervious ground cover from buildings and roads (HCCREMS, 2010f). In 2007, flash floods inundated approximately 10,000 properties in Newcastle, Maitland and other areas in the region.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 22
In 2010 HCCREMS identified and mapped flood risk areas using geographic flood model data provided by local councils. Some data was based on historic flood levels, and some made an allowance for climate change projections and /or local characteristics (HCCREMS, 2010f). The findings of the study identified that at least 130,000 hectares are exposed to a 1 in 100 year flood, of which 80% is agricultural land and 10% conservation reserves (HCCREMS, 2010f). Other findings are presented in the report (HCCREMS, 2010f) in terms of potential exposure to sensitive communities and infrastructure. The HCCREMS flood study (2010d) identified that there has been no consistent approach to integrating climate change extreme rainfall projections into hydrological/flood modelling and flood hazard mapping in the Lower Hunter region. Further, it cannot be determined from the report where or how climate projections were incorporated into the hazard mapping. Although useful in presenting potential future challenges as a result of flooding, these maps cannot be relied on absolutely for flood risk projections in a future impacted by climate change. In the absence of flood models incorporating climate change projection, trends and projections relating to rainfall are often used to broadly indicate whether fluvial flood risk will increase or decrease. This is the case for the Lower Hunter region. As such past trends and projections concerning rainfall are considered as part of this analysis. Historical analysis of rainfall events along the Lower Hunter coast have indicated that extreme rainfall events occur more frequently during January, February and March and through to June for Newcastle (HCCREMS, 2010g). Spatial Representation of Fluvial Flooding Using gridded BoM data, the map at Figure 5 was created showing mean rainfall for the Lower Hunter region. This illustrates a marked rainfall gradient within the Lower Hunter with coastal locations receiving over twice as much rainfall as inland areas. The management of the fluvial flooding is often informed by flood studies which include flood maps. These maps are based on historical data and display on a map the extent of flooding for a different return period (for instance 1 in 100 year event). The terms ‘return period’ or ‘X-year event’ are often used when designing and managing flood control facilities and in flood management plans. The return period is defined as “the average period of time expected to elapse between occurrences of events at a certain site” (HK DSD, 2013). An X-year event is “an event of such size that over a long period of time, the average time between events of equal or greater magnitude is X years” (adapted from HK DSD, 2013). Return period is generally expressed as either average recurrence interval (ARI) or annual exceedance probability (AEP). Figure 6 to Figure 9 provide an illustrative example of flood mapping undertaken by the LGAs in the Lower Hunter. While the approach is generally consistent in terms of flood mapping, the number of return periods considered tend to differ. For instance, there are available flood maps for 1 in 10 year event, 1 in 100 year event and the Probable Maximum Flood Depths, (i.e. the largest flood that could occur based on the catchment size and characteristics) which display the extent of the flood and the estimated depth of floodwater for Newcastle and Maitland (see Figure 9 and Figure 6). Other maps take into account the influence of climate change on flood patterns; see for instance Figure 7 for Lake Macquarie. The details of the parameters and approach for flood studies (including flood maps) can be found in each of the flood studies which are available on the relevant LGA web sites (URL to the site has been provided in Figure 6 to Figure 9). 5.4.3 Projections Rainfall related projections for the Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast region indicate that the frequency of extreme rainfall events (95th percentile) is likely to increase in summer and autumn and decrease in the winter (HCCREMS, 2010g). The maximum intensity of extreme rainfall events is also likely to increase by up to 20% by 2050 for a 24 hour event. The increase in maximum intensity is likely to increase by more than 20% for shorter duration events in the long term (HCCREMS, 2010g). In light of the projections for extreme rainfall discussed above, it is expected that the annual exceedence probability (AEP) of a given flood magnitude in the region is likely to increase, as well as the probable maximum flood and 1 in 100 year flood levels for a given location (HCCREMs, 2010g). There are currently no available resources for the Lower Hunter which indicate the extent of these increases.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 23
Figure 5 Annual Average Rainfall in the Lower Hunter Newcastle
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 24
Figure 6 Newcastle 1% Annual Exceedence Probability Flood Depths (reproduced from The City of Newcastle, 2012)
The flood study for Newcastle is available online (http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/environment/flooding_and_waterways/draft_newcastle_city- wide_floodplain_risk_management_study_and_plan)
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 25
Figure 7 Cockle Creek Foreshore Management Area Permanent Inundation by 2100 (Reproduced from Lake Macquarie City Council, 2012)
The flood study for Lake Macquarie is available online (http://www.lakemac.com.au/environment/natural-disaster/flooding)
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 26
Figure 8 Port Stephens Flood Prone Land (Port Stephens Council, 2009)
The flood study for Lake Macquarie is available online http://www.maitland.nsw.gov.au/UserFiles/File/FloodStudy2010/TextBranxtontoGreenRocksFloodStudySept2010.pdf)
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 27
Figure 9 Maitland (downstream of Oakhampton) 1% Annual Exceedence Probability Flood Depths (Reproduced from WMA Water for Maitland City Council, 2010)
The flood study for Maitland is available online (http://www.maitland.nsw.gov.au/UserFiles/File/FloodStudy2010/TextBranxtontoGreenRocksFloodStudySept2010.pdf)
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 28
5.4.4 Discussion The IPCC has determined that there is medium confidence that projected increases in heavy rainfall in some catchments would contribute to increases in rain-generated local floods (IPCC, 2012). However, as there are multiple variables that affect changes in floods (such as precipitation or soil moisture), confidence in change on one of these variables may not be adequate to confidently project changes in floods (IPCC, 2012). The level of confidence in extreme rainfall projections for Australia is low to medium since there is a lack of consistency between climate change projection models and the models cannot actually simulate extreme rainfall events (IPCC, 2012). Considering these IPCC conclusions, and the absence of detailed fluvial flood modelling which takes into account future projections, there is a medium confidence associated with the projected increase in fluvial flood events for the Lower Hunter region. The risks to people and property that are associated with fluvial flooding and the projected increase in extreme rainfall and AEP will necessitate the inclusion of fluvial flooding in the Lower Hunter resilience model. Inclusion of this hazard information in the modelling tool would allow emergency agencies to better plan responses to these extreme events, and will assist planners with decision making for floodplains and the sizing of traditional civil infrastructure (e.g. stormwater). There is a large body of literature that identifies factors determining both people and community resilience to disasters such as flooding, many of which have found that adaptive capacity is a critical factor in the ability of a community to recover after a disaster event (Dufty, nd). Thus, understanding both these risks in conjunction with the community profile of the Lower Hunter will be essential to determine the resilience (or lack thereof) of the region.
5.5 Storms The following section discusses thunderstorms and East Coast Lows (ECLs). ECLs are associated with low- pressure systems off the eastern coast of Australia. These systems can cause flooding, hail, wind and coastal erosion (DECCW, 2010a). One notable ECL hit the Lower Hunter region in June 2007, which caused heavy rainfall and subsequently the worst floods since 1971 at Singleton and Maitland (DECCW, 2010a). The storm also caused wind gusts of over 120 km/hr, contributing to the 76,000 tonne bulk carrier, Pasha Bulker, running aground on Nobbys Beach, Newcastle (DECCW, 2010a). 5.5.1 Key trends ECLs occur on average 10 times each year in the Hunter region (DECCW, 2010a).Three to five per year are associated with gale force winds which lead to coastal impacts. ECLs occur from autumn through to spring and are most dominant in winter (DECCW, 2010a). No significant trends in their frequency have been found since 1970 (HCCREMS, 2010g). However, a statistically significant increase in inland trough lows since 1980 has been identified (HCCREMS, 2010g). With respect to thunderstorms, according to DECCW (2010a), existing information on present day thunderstorm frequency is tied to storms which generate hail. Approximately eight such events occur in the Hunter region annually. Severe thunderstorms generally occur from late spring through to autumn, with the most occurring in December. There is no literature on observed trends in intensity of thunderstorms. 5.5.2 Projections As stated in DECCW (2010a), there are no consistent projections for changes in ECLs beyond 2050. The Eastern Seaboard Climate Change Initiative (ESCCI) has proposed to fill this research gap as a priority (DECCW, 2010a). However, with respect to seasonality of ECLs, no change is expected due to their requirement of a strong temperature gradient between a cold land surface and a warm inshore sea surface temperature (DECCW, 2010a). Research is also limited for thunderstorms in a changing climate. Thunderstorms are not adequately captured in the resolution of current climate models (DECCW, 2010a). This is therefore an area requiring further improvement.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 29
5.5.3 Discussion Data on storms in the Lower Hunter, and Australia as a whole, is inconsistent for both historical records and projections, except for a statistically significant increase in inland trough lows since 1980. Consequently, capturing storm hazard vulnerability in a modelling tool for the region would be challenging. Notwithstanding these challenges, modelling community storm resilience could provide an indication of the community’s preparedness for both storms and storm recovery. Better understanding storm hazards, in conjunction with an understanding of the community as a whole, could identify weaknesses in a community, and identify critical infrastructure which may assist in minimising the impact of the extreme storm events.
5.6 Extreme heat and human health effects 5.6.1 Key trends Heat waves and heat related illness are thought to pose the greatest health risk in NSW arising from climate change (HCCREMS, 2010e). Australia has a long history of heat waves with the worst recorded heat wave in 1939 resulting in 438 fatalities. This heat wave affected South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales and coincided with the Black Friday bushfires in Victoria, which were responsible for 71 fatalities. In Australia heat waves have accounted for more deaths than any other climatic event. Between 1895 and 2010, a total of 33 heat waves were recorded, resulting in 2,586 fatalities and 3,553 persons injured (Attorney General’s Department/Emergency Management Australia, 2010). Records of historical temperatures and projections for the future suggest that there is likely to be a continuation, and perhaps an enhancement of the degree to which heat waves affect Australia. Specifically, the recent State of the Climate report produced by the BOM indicates an upward trend in the number of record hot day maximum temperatures in Australia during the last decade. At regional, national and global scales, a statistically significant trend in increasing temperature has been shown and this trend is projected to continue (HCCREMS, 2010e). The regional impacts of such increases in temperature include extreme heat related events which in turn can cause heat-related illness and mortality, particularly in elderly people and infants. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has defined a heatwave as at least three consecutive days with maximum temperatures above the 90th percentile for the month (DCCEE, 2010a). In the period 1979 to 2008, within the Lower Hunter region, Newcastle experienced 16 heatwave events in spring and 8 in summer (DCCEE, 2010a). Heatwaves are more prevalent in the western regions of the Hunter, which also have higher mean temperatures (DCCEE, 2010a). The sea breeze reduces the frequency and intensity of heatwaves along the coast. 5.6.2 Spatial Representation of Extreme Heat A map showing daily maximum temperature (as a proxy for extreme heat) was created using gridded BoM data (Figure 10). As shown, the warmer parts of the Lower Hunter occur predominately in the inland areas of Maitland and Port Stephens.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 30
Figure 10 Average Daily Maximum Temperature Annual
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 31
5.6.3 Projections Average temperatures in the Lower Hunter region have increased in recent decades, consistent with global and national trends (HCCREMS, 2010). This trend is expected to continue. As a consequence, heatwaves are likely to become more frequent by 2050; however this is dependent on mid-latitude circulation patterns which have not yet been confidently projected to 2050 (DCCEE, 2010a).Compared with the frequency of heatwaves, it is more certain that by 2050 the intensity of heatwaves will increasingly exceed the 1979-2008 90th percentile (DCCEE, 2010a). In a case study undertaken by HCCREMS on the potential impacts of climate change on extreme heat events in the Hunter, Lower North Coast and Central Coast region (2010e), the findings illustrated that the frequency and intensity of extreme heat event occurrences are expected to increase. This is consistent with the expectations of the DCCEE (2010a). 5.6.4 Discussion Research into extreme temperature projections for eastern Australia is limited (DCCEE, 2010a). There is a need for an improved understanding of the potential human health effects of changes to heatwave occurrences. HCCREMS (2010) has indicated a number of possible methods including: - improved regional economic and social indicators and datasets - datasets of regional housing stock, age and quality - vulnerability assessment of human health to climate change that accounts for sensitive subpopulations and quality of housing stock. Given the inconsistent heat wave data for the Lower Hunter, capturing valuable information for the hazard in a modelling tool would be challenging. As there is evidence to suggest that the greatest health risks arising from climate change in NSW will come as a result of heat waves, there is a compelling need to understand in more detail the relationships between both the climate system and the social and built environments with respect to extreme heat. Hazard data could be used in conjunction with information about community vulnerability (as outlined in Chapter 4.0), to inform decision making for extreme heat event response frameworks for the Lower Hunter. The scientific understanding of what exactly makes populations more vulnerable to extreme heat is evolving. There are indications that factors affecting community vulnerability include: age, income, pre-existing conditions, work location (working outside), access to doctors, access to information and social connectedness (NRDC, 2011). Incorporating extreme heat data into the modelling tool could assist the community with identifying what factors affect heat exposure, which groups within the community are most susceptible to heat related illness, and how this affects their adaptive capacity.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 32
5.7 Bushfire 5.7.1 Definitions and Principles Bushfires in Australia occur as grass fires or forest fires. Grass fires generally occur on grazing, farming and peri- urban regions and forest fires usually occur in forests of eucalyptus trees. Australia is considered the most fire- prone continent on Earth with hundreds of thousands to millions of hectares burnt in any one year (Bryant, 2008). Bushfires are an intrinsic part of Australia’s environment. Natural ecosystems have evolved with fire and the landscape has been shaped by both historic and recent fires. Many of Australia’s native plants are fire prone and very combustible, while numerous species depend on fire to regenerate. The ignition of bushfires can either be by humans (malicious, careless or accidental) or by lightning. In this report, the term ignition encapsulates both human and natural causes. In most Australian states, fire-weather risk is quantified using either the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) or Grassland Fire Danger Index (GFDI). Each of these indices are calculated using observed data on air temperature, relative humidity, or wind speed in combination with an estimate of fuel levels. The FFDI incorporates fuel state through the ‘drought factor’ which depends on daily rainfall and time since the last rain, with an aim to account for long-term and short-term rainfall and its impact on fuel moisture. The GFDI incorporates fuel state through the curing factor which is a measure of dryness of grassland from visual estimates expressed as a percentage (CSIRO, 2009). Climate change is expected to affect individual fire risk through at least three ways (CSIRO, 2009; Climate Commission, 2011).
1) changes to precipitation, humidity and wind, elevated atmospheric CO2, and higher temperatures influence volume of biomass and hence fire fuel loads 2) higher temperatures and droughts lead to increased drying of fuels, thereby increasing susceptibility to burning 3) more extreme heat, low humidity and high winds increase the severity of fire weather. An exacerbated fire-weather risk on any given day in turn leads to increased frequency or intensity of ‘extreme’ and ‘very high’ fire weather days (CSIRO, 2009). This is likely to cause a higher frequency of fire if other conditions for fire are met (i.e. sufficient fuel loads and ignition (CSIRO, 2009). Furthermore, an increased accumulated fire risk over a year leads to a longer fire season and a subsequent reduction in the number of days suitable for prescribed burning (CSIRO, 2009). The effects of climate change on fuel loads are complex. Fuels loads are a function of productivity, decomposition and consumption, which are factors influenced by rainfall. Therefore, where climate change causes an increase in rainfall, fuel loads may increase, and vice versa. Elevated atmospheric CO2 may also influence fuel load, through increasing vegetation productivity (and hence fuel loads) by its fertilisation effect, and though favouring certain types of vegetation, thereby altering the distribution of fuel (CSIRO, 2009). Elevated atmospheric CO2 may also change decomposition rates and palatability of leaf litter (CSIRO, 2009). Whether these interactions increase or decrease fuel loads will vary at landscape scales (CSIRO, 2009). It is uncertain whether the frequency of lightning strikes will change as a result of climate change and hence the frequency of natural bushfire ignition. It is generally still considered as a potential impact along with likely changes in the intensity and frequency of thunderstorms. The conceptual diagram below illustrates the relationship between different factors which influence bushfire occurrence.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 33
Figure 11 Conceptual diagram showing the relationship between factors influencing bushfire
5.7.2 Existing conditions and key trends When investigating the potential impacts of climate change on bushfires, studies have predominantly examined the effects of climate change on variables affecting fire weather. Findings of such studies are discussed in this section. In 2010, HCCREMS mapped fire prone areas for the Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast region, enabling the subsequent analysis of the extent of exposed and vulnerable people, infrastructure and ecosystems (HCCREMS, 2010d). The study determined that over 58% of the region is considered to be bushfire prone including significant residential areas in Lake Macquarie, Newcastle and Port Stephens of the Lower Hunter (HCCREMS, 2010d). A number of significant fires occurred in recent history in the region (HCCREMS, 2010f): - 1990/91- Cessnock, Gosford and Wyong - 1996- Lower Hunter Valley - 1991/92- Gosford, Lake Macquarie and Wyong - 1998- Lower Hunter Valley - 1993/94- Hunter region - 2001/02- Cessnock, Gosford, Muswellbrook, Singleton. According to DECCW (2010b), within the Hunter region 10 very high to extreme fire danger days occur each year in coastal areas with 10 – 15 occurring annually inland. There are no available studies which investigate past trends in fire danger weather or the occurrence of bushfires for this region. Comprehensive analyses of past trends in fire weather have been undertaken for south-eastern Australia (Lucas et al., 2007; CSIRO, 2009). These analyses show evidence, with medium confidence, of ongoing inter-decadal variation in fire weather, with a recent jump in fire danger. There has been an increase in FFDI and longer and stronger fire seasons since the 1940s. Lucas et al. (2007) suggests that a reasonable hypothesis is that this increase in fire weather is partly due to natural forcing within an interdecadal time scale, with an exacerbation by subtle, ongoing effects of anthropogenic climate change (CSIRO, 2009). Spatial Representation of Bushfire Figure 12 and Figure 13 provide an indication of the cause of fire and history of fire within the Lower Hunter region. Most bushfire are wildfires with a large proportion of the events occurring in the 1990s and 2000s. Figure 14 provides an example of a bushfire prone land map. These maps are prepared by LGA and certified by the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS). Development in areas zoned as ‘prone to bushfire’ must comply with provisions of the Planning for Bushfire document (RFS 2006) and should include consideration of bushfire protection measures to protect occupants and assets. Such maps are available for all LGA within the Lower Hunter.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 34
Figure 12 Fire History in the Lower Hunter (cause of bushfires)
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 35
Figure 13 Fire History in the Lower Hunter (dates of bushfires)
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 36
Figure 14 Port Stephens Bushfire Prone Land Part 1 (reproduced from Port Stephens Council, 2009)
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 37
5.7.3 Projections An analysis of key climate variables known to significantly influence wildfire behaviour and management in the Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast region of NSW, projected the following changes for the period 2020-2080 (HCCREMS, 2010d): - decrease in maximum temperature during summer and spring and increases during winter and autumn - decrease in relative humidity during autumn and winter and an increase during spring - no change in precipitation, except for in summer, where summer rainfall is projected to increase - decrease in pan evaporation during summer and spring, and increases during autumn and winter - increases in the number of extreme heat days during summer and autumn. Projected changes in climate variables for the Hunter region for 2050 are published in DECCW’s NSW Climate Impact Profile: the impacts of climate change on biophysical environment of NSW (2010b). Interestingly, there are inconsistencies in terms of projected direction of change compared with projections for the Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast region detailed in HCCREMS (2010d). Inconsistencies apply to projected changes in maximum temperature, for example DECCW (2010b) projects increases in maximum temperatures in all seasons, compared to the projected decreases in summer and spring reported by HCCREMS (2010d). Projections in precipitation are also partially inconsistent where DECCW (2010b) projects increases in spring, summer and autumn and decreases in winter, compared to HCCREMS (2010d) which projects no changes except for increases during summer. In DECCW (2010b) evaporation is projected to increase in all seasons except for in the south-west of the Hunter region, whereas projections in HCCREMS (2010d) indicate decreases in summer and spring and increases in autumn and winter. These inconsistencies could be due to differences in modelling methodology and the size of the study area and associated data inputs. Based on projections published in DECCW (2010b) the Hunter region’s fire regime is expected to be altered by changes in fire frequency, fire intensity and the fire season. Fire frequency is projected to increase by 2050, however the return period is likely to remain within the current range across most of the region for 5 to 30 years (DECCW, 2010a; DECCW, 2010b). Although the timing of peak fire danger in the Hunter region is not projected to change, by 2050 fire danger levels are expected to intensify due to projected increases in number of days with high temperature, high wind speed or low humidity, as well as prolonged drought (DECCW, 2010a). The number of very high to extreme fire danger days in the Hunter region is projected to increase by 10-50% from the current number of 10-15 per year inland and 10 per year in coastal areas (DECCW, 2010a). The number of moderate to high fire danger days are expected to increase by 1-5% from the current number of >120 per year, which results in more potentially suitable days for prescribed burning (DECCW, 2010a). An increase in fire danger weather is also predicted by HCCREMS (2010d), particularly in autumn, which results in an extension of the fire season. Due to the complexity surrounding the influence of climate change on fuel, projections of future fuel availability in the Lower Hunter region remain uncertain. 5.7.4 Discussion Generally, there is a medium confidence and widespread agreement that climate change will lead to increased severe fire weather, which will likely to lead to increased fire intensity, a greater area burnt, and reduced intervals between fires (CSIRO, 2009). This is consistent with the projections discussed above, tailored for the Hunter region. Incorporating bushfire data into the Lower Hunter resilience modelling tool would add value to the model, and could be undertaken with relative ease alongside other hazard data. As climate change is projected to result in an increased bushfire risk, the need to manage impacts from bushfires is increasing. Although bushfires are a natural part of Australia’s ecosystems, the risks to people and property increase in prevalence as settlements expand further into bushland (Bushnell and Cottrell, 2007) and population increases. Thus, having bushfire data incorporated into a resilience modelling tool would be increasingly useful as it would provide a resource for improving bushfire awareness and emergency response planning and for use in community and town planning.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 38
5.8 Earthquakes 5.8.1 Definitions and Principles Earthquakes are the vibrations caused by rocks breaking under stress along fault planes. The magnitude of an earthquake is a measure of the energy released by the earthquake. It is determined by measuring the amplitude of the seismic waves recorded on a seismograph and the distance of the seismograph from the earthquake (GA, 2012).Traditionally, earthquake magnitude was measured on the Richter scale, which is a logarithmic scale. Earthquake magnitude is now often calculated from seismic moment, proportional to the fault area multiplied by the average displacement on the fault (Geoscience Australia, 2012). The effects of an earthquake are rated using the Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale which is qualitative assessment. The effects depend on the magnitude, distance from the epicentre, depth of focus, topography and the local ground conditions (GA, 2012). The focus of an earthquake is the point at which it originated, and the epicentre is the point on the Earth’s surface directly above the focus. Table 8 provides in indication of the Richter scale and MM scale relative to each other, along with their effects. Geoscience Australia (GA) maintains a searchable database of all recorded earthquakes which can be accessed at: http://www.ga.gov.au/earthquakes/searchQuake.do
Table 8 Earthquake magnitude and intensity. Source: Pacific Northwest Seismic Network Richter MM scale Earthquake Effects scale Instrumental. Not felt except by a very few especially favourable conditions I 2 detected mostly by Seismography. II Feeble. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Slight. Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of III buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of a truck. 3 Moderate. Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night some IV awakening. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like a heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rock noticeably. Rather strong. Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened, Some dishes, windows 4 V broken. Un-stable objects overturned. Strong. Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances VI of fallen plaster. Damage slight. 5 Very Strong. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight VII to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in ordinary structures considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures. Destructive. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built 6 VIII structures. Fall of factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Ruinous. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed IX frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with 7 partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Disastrous. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame X structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bend greatly. Very Disastrous. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges XI destroyed. Rails bend greatly. 8 Catastrophic. Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown XII into the air. In Australia, earthquakes of magnitudes less <3.5 rarely cause damage. Earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 occasionally result in fatal damage, and earthquakes of magnitudes >4.0 can trigger landslides (GA, 2012). In addition to shaking, some impacts of earthquakes include liquefaction which is the flow of wet sediment like quicksand, tsunamis, and fires caused by damage to power lines and other infrastructure (GA, 2012).
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 39
5.8.2 Historical Events Australia has a relatively low rate of seismicity, due to its location near the centre of the Indo-Australian Tectonic Plate (Sinadinovski et al., 2004). However, thousands of historic ‘intraplate’ earthquakes in the Australian continent have been recorded, many of which have occurred in areas with small populations (Sinadinovski et al., 2004). The origin and nature of Australian earthquakes is not completely understood, and thus requires significant research (Sinadinovski et al., 2004). In the Hunter region, since European settlement there have been at least five earthquakes of magnitude greater than 5 (GA, 2002). One of these resulted in extensive damage to buildings and other structures, and 13 fatalities, when an earthquake measuring 5.6 on the Richter scale occurred in Newcastle in 1989. Until this event, the threat of damaging earthquakes wasn’t realised in Australia. Table 9 lists significant earthquakes that have occurred in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie region since 1990. Table 9 Significant earthquakes in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie region (Sinadinovski et al.,2004) Max intensity Richter Date Place (Modified Comments Magnitude Mercalli Scale 10/06/1916 Seal Rocks 4.6 VI-VII Felt in Newcastle 15/08/1919 Kurrajong 4.6 V Felt in Newcastle 18/12/1925 Boolaroo 5.3 VI Felt in Newcastle, damage reported 21/05/1961 Robertson-Bowral 5.6 VII Felt in Newcastle 09/03/1973 Picton 5.5 VII Felt in Newcastle 15/11/1981 Appin 4.6 V Felt in Newcastle 13/02/1985 Lithgow 4.3 VI Felt in Newcastle 20/02/1986 Upper Colo 4.0 IV Felt in Newcastle 24/06/1987 Lithgow 4.3 VII Not felt in Newcastle 27/12/1989 Newcastle 5.6 VIII Felt in Newcastle, damage and casualties 08/06/1994 Ellalong 5.4 VII Felt in Newcastle 17/03/1999 Appin 4.8 V Not felt in Newcastle
5.8.3 Current Earthquake Risk In 2002 Geoscience Australia (GA) undertook a study for the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie area which presented the most comprehensive and advanced earthquake risk assessment at that time. In the study, earthquake hazard was described in terms of the level of ground shaking that has a 10% chance of being exceeded in a 50 year period. The results of the study show that the earthquake hazard in the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie region is higher than the hazard suggested by the Australian earthquake loading standard (AS1170.4-1993) (GA, 2002). Further, the regolith in the area causes a significant increase in the earthquake hazard, and variations in regolith thickness indicate that the hazard level is not uniform across the study area (GA, 2002). Across most of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie, the earthquake risk is from events that have annual probabilities of occurrence in the range of 0.02 to 0001 which equate to return periods of 50 – 1,000 years (GA, 2002). Approximately half of the risk is from moderate-magnitude earthquakes which occur <30 km from Lake Macquarie and Newcastle. In the region, the risk to the built environment varies with building construction type, with unreinforced masonry structures having a higher average risk (GA, 2002). Brick veneer buildings constitute 50% of the total risk due to the large proportion of such buildings in Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. Timber frame buildings contribute 25% of the risk and one-sixth is contributed by unreinforced masonry buildings. Overall, it is residential buildings which contribute most of the risk (GA, 2002).
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 40
The conclusions of the study by GA (2002) state that the risk of casualties in Lake Macquarie and Newcastle from earthquakes is generally low, and that it is extremely unlikely that an event capable of causing widespread casualties will occur in the region. 5.8.4 Discussion There is currently no effective way of identifying which pockets of the Lower Hunter are at greater or lesser risk from the direct impacts of earthquakes. Thus, capturing earthquake hazard data would provide little added value to a resilience modelling tool. There would, however, be value in assessing the resilience of a community to earthquakes, as the impacts of the hazard will differ depending on a community’s adaptive capacity and the existing strength of their various capitals (see Chapter 4.0 for more information). Understanding the existing community resilience to earthquakes would allow the community as a whole, and in particular planners, to develop appropriate earthquake emergency procedures and long term response plans. Although managing earthquakes is complicated, there is also the opportunity for planners to introduce building codes land use controls generally.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 41
6.0 Formal Risk Response
6.1 Overview As noted in Section 3.0, a key stage of developing a vulnerability resilience indicator model is analysing and evaluating the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the mechanisms developed to build community resilience and counter or mitigate the various impacts from natural hazards. Federal, state and local governments have a responsibility for developing and implementing such mechanisms and are accountable (individually and collectively) for: - adapting policy regulation and legislation that will stipulate and encourage appropriate community behaviours that increase resilience - mitigating risks that present a danger to the welfare of the community - providing emergency response and recovery capabilities to manage the results of unmitigated residual risks. This section therefore provides a high level overview of federal, state, local and regional natural hazard response planning arrangements. In order to consider the development of an indicator based model that measures the adequacy of formal and informal responses to potential and actual natural hazards, the current arrangements must be considered. The section focusses on describing the formal coping mechanisms (legislative, regulatory, plans and policies) for natural hazards and developing and managing community vulnerability and resilience. Particular examples of best practice, both from the Lower Hunter region and nationally across Australia have also been included. However it must be recognised that adaptive responses to the challenges posed by natural hazards must be the outcome of collaboration between governments, communities, individuals and industries. For a model to be effective in creating and fostering community resilience, each of these parties ‘needs to orchestrate individual responses in their field of influence that contribute positively to the overall community response’ (ICA, 2008). For each of the state, regional and local governments of the Lower Hunter a discussion is presented on the key land use planning legislative arrangements as well as the strategic policy and program documents. The scope and coverage of the Acts and strategies is documented as well as an overview of measures for mitigating natural hazards or building community resilience. The result of the review is a clear indication of the degree to which natural hazards are already being taken into account in the Lower Hunter. It also provides an indication of areas that may require further investigation or local initiatives that may offer value to the wider Lower Hunter region.
6.2 Key Commonwealth arrangements States and Territories have a constitutional responsibility to coordinate and plan for the response to disasters and emergencies. However, when the total resources of an affected State or Territory cannot reasonably cope with the situation assistance can be sought from the Australian Government. A division of the Attorney-General's Department, Emergency Management Australia (EMA) is responsible for planning and coordinating such assistance to the States and Territories under the Commonwealth Emergency Management Policy. In December 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to adopt a whole-of-nation resilience- based approach to disaster management, which recognises that a national, coordinated and cooperative effort is needed to enhance Australia’s capacity to prepare for, withstand and recover from disasters (EMA, 2011). The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (Strategy) which was adopted by COAG on 13 February 2011 builds on these arrangements and seeks to provide high-level guidance on disaster management to Federal, State, Territory and local governments, business and community leaders and the not-for-profit sector. While the Strategy focuses on priority areas to build disaster resilient communities across Australia, it also recognises that disaster resilience is a shared responsibility for individuals, households, businesses and communities, as well as for governments. EMA (2011) notes that the Strategy is the first step in a long-term, evolving process to facilitate behavioural change and build relationships and partnerships across the various stakeholder groups.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 42
6.3 NSW planning arrangements 6.3.1 Policy and legislation The NSW planning and development assessment system is the means by which the environmental conservation and resource use is managed at a State level through the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) (the primary statute governing land use in NSW) and the supporting Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA Regulation). As stated in the EPA Act, one of its objects is to encourage the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment. There is also an emphasised intention on collaborating between differing levels of government as well as providing increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment. Regarding planning for natural hazards, sections S42 and S146 of the EPA Act have a set of provisions for certifying bushfire prone land (confirming and recording where land is bushfire prone). Other than this, however, there is no specific focus on regulating land use for the mitigation of natural hazards. These provisions are instead detailed in the EPA Regulation. Sections 7 and 8 emphasise that specific planning instruments developed under the EPA Act can dictate: - whether or not the land is affected by a policy… that restricts the development of the land because of the likelihood of land slip, bushfire, tidal inundation, subsidence, acid sulphate soils or any other risk (other than flooding) - whether or not development on that land or part of the land for the purposes of dwelling houses, dual occupancies, multi dwelling housing or residential flat buildings (not including development for the purposes of group homes or seniors housing) is subject to flood related development controls. Within clause 228(2(p)) of the EPA Regulation the following considerations are identified for activities proposed to be undertaken under Part 5 of the EPA Act: - factors to be taken into account when consideration is being given to the likely impact of an activity on the environment include any impact on coastal processes and coastal hazards, including those under projected climate change conditions. The EPA Act provides for two types of environmental planning instruments to be made to guide the process of development and regulate competing land uses in NSW. These are: - State environment planning policies (SEPPs) - Local environmental plans (LEPs) SEPPs regulate land use and development. While the State planning system previously also included regional environmental plans, as of July 2009 all such plans have been deemed SEPPs. SEPPs allow the NSW Government to prohibit certain types of development in an area or to allow certain types of development even where local councils prohibit it. The table below provides an overview of key SEPPs noting which account for preparing for or mitigating natural hazards. Of all the reviewed SEPPs, it is only SEPP Infrastructure where it is stated for various sites that the DCPs must provide for amelioration of natural and environmental hazards, including bushfire, and flooding.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 43
Table 10 SEPPs and Natural Hazard Planning
SEPP Policy aims Natural Hazard Planning SEPP (State + - to identify development that is State No specific measures identified Regional significant development Development) 2011 - to identify development that is State significant infrastructure and critical State significant infrastructure - to confer functions on joint regional planning panels to determine development applications SEPP (Exempt and - streamlines process for 3.36C Development standards for flood Complying Development) development that complies with control 2008 specified development standards 3A.37 Development standards for bush fire - to provide exempt and complying prone land development codes that have State- Subdivision 38 Subdivision 2.75 specified wide application development SEPP (Rural Lands) 2008 - to facilitate orderly and economic No specific measures identified use and development of rural lands for rural related purposes SEPP (Infrastructure) - to provide a consistent planning Division 6 s46-s49 Emergency services 2007 regime for infrastructure and the facilities and bush fire hazard reduction provision of infrastructure across Division 7 s49-50 Flood mitigation works NSW S15 Consultation with councils – development with impacts on flood liable land Division 25 Waterway or foreshore management activities SEPP (Major - to facilitate development, Across a variety of sites there are certain development 2005) redevelopment or protection of requirements regarding natural hazards: important urban, coastal and - development within coastal zone regional sites of economic, - development control plans environmental or social significance - temporary and interim use of land to the State - bush fire hazard reduction - flood planning - emergency management planning SEPP (Building - to encourage sustainable residential No specific measures identified Sustainability Index: development (BASIX scheme) and BASIX) 2004 to ensure consistency in the implementation of the BASIX scheme *Key word searches in SEPPs included: hazard, emergency, disaster, risk, resilience, vulnerability, flood, bushfire, coastal. 6.3.2 Strategic planning Through the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) strategic planning process, the NSW Government also plays a key role in contributing to strategic planning in the Lower Hunter. This is predominately through the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. DPI has developed this plan in partnership with the local governments, communities and businesses in the Study Area to develop a long term regional strategy. DPI also has a Strategic Regional Land Use Policy which was finalised in 2012 to provide greater protection for valuable agricultural land and better balance between competing land uses, in particular accounting for growth in the mining industry and coal seam gas industry. The policy has 27 measures that cooperate to identify, map and protect the State’s most valuable agricultural land and critical water resources. As part of these initiatives Strategic Regional Land Use Plans for regions across the state are also being prepared, however, a plan for the Lower Hunter has yet to be finalised.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 44
While there is no consideration of future or current natural hazards or planning for natural hazards in the strategic policy itself, in the Land Use Plan prepared for the Upper Hunter region, a section is dedicated to natural hazards and climate change. The plan identifies likely future weather patterns and challenges for the region including increased flooding and bushfire events. The actions commit the Government to working with local councils and industry to avoid flood and bushfire prone development and to encourage low emission energy development. The management of natural hazards is also specifically covered by the NSW State Emergency Management Plan (EMPLAN). Most recently updated in 2012, the EMPLAN describes the NSW approach to emergency management, the governance and coordination arrangements and roles and responsibilities of agencies. The Plan is supported by hazard specific sub plans and functional area supporting plans (including a Hunter emergency plan as detailed below). The EMPLAN follows an Emergency Risk Management (ERM) process. It is a systematic approach to identifying, analysing, assessing, treating and mitigating risk to people, property and the environment. The process begins with an understanding of the hazards and produces a range of treatment options to minimise the impact or, if possible, eliminate the resulting risk. ERM is achieved by reducing, eliminating or mitigating the effect of the risks either individually or in combination. For example: - the hazard that has to be dealt with, for instance reducing bush fire fuel loads - the physical exposure that an asset or a community has to a hazard, for instance encouraging building above the typical flood level of a catchment or developing community understanding of when to evacuate or stay away from areas under threat - the exposure and vulnerability of these assets, for example the resistance of structures to fire or water. Within the EMPLAN, disaster resilience is a key principle. It is acknowledged that disaster resilience is an outcome derived from sharing of responsibilities between all levels of government, business, the non-government sector and the community who then act on this basis prior to, during and after a disaster and that a shared understanding of disaster risks at community level is a vital precursor. The plan emphasises that agencies operating under EMPLAN promote disaster resilience by helping to understand and share risk information by engaging communities in the development of plans and in their exercise and by supporting the development by communities of local capability.
Good Practice Case Study: Floodplain Development Manual - NSW The Floodplain Development Manual (FDM) is a leading example of large scale action on natural hazard management at a state and local government level. Coupled with the State's floodplain management grant program, the manual highlights the government's ongoing commitment to managing the risks resulting from natural hazards to reduce their impacts on the people of NSW. Gazetted in 2005, the manual relates to the development of flood liable land for the purposes of section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993. It incorporates the NSW Flood Prone Land Policy, which aims to reduce the impact of flooding on individual owners and occupiers of flood prone property and to reduce private and public losses resulting from floods. The manual indicates that responsibility for management of flood risk remains with local government and assists councils to balance the conflicting objectives of the floodplain by providing technical, financial and policy assistance in floodplain risk management.
6.4 Lower Hunter regional planning arrangements 6.4.1 Policy and legislation As there is no regional level of government within Australia, there is no government directly responsible for developing legislation or policy relevant to particular regional areas. Rather policy and planning for regional areas is generally formed at a State or Commonwealth level with input from local governments, interest groups, businesses and community. In the last few years changes to both the Australian and State governments have increased the emphasis on regional Australia and regionalism. A number of these plans are reviewed under strategic planning below.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 45
6.4.2 Strategic planning The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy 2006 - 2031 is the pre-eminent planning document for the Lower Hunter Region and has been prepared to complement and inform other relevant NSW planning instruments. The primary purpose of the strategy is to ensure that adequate land is available and appropriately located to sustainably accommodate the projected housing and employment needs for the region’s population over a 25 year period. One of the key elements of the strategy is planning for Natural Hazards. The Strategy recognises that as a coastal plain the region has inherent risks of flooding and coastal recession which are difficult to plan for due to uncertainty regarding climate change where changes in global temperatures will result in changes to the intensity and frequency of storms, annual rainfall and sea level. The Strategy notes that Councils in the region have undertaken planning through the preparation of plans under the Coastal Protection Act 1979 and the NSW Floodplain Development Manual. Actions outlined for planning for natural hazards by the Strategy include: - councils undertaking flood investigations of lands with the potential to be affected by SLR and inundation in order to manage risk associated with climate change and to ensure that risk to public and private assets are minimised - local environmental plans making provisions for adequate setbacks in areas of coastal erosion risk and ocean-based inundation in accordance with Coastal Zone Management Plans - until such plans or investigations are complete, Councils are to not zone land or approve new development or redevelopment in potential hazard areas unless assessed within a Council adopted risk assessment - local environmental plans zoning waterways to reflect their environmental, recreational or cultural values including a Working Waterways Zone for the Port of Newcastle to reflect its status as working port - local environmental plans zoning areas subject to high hazard to reflect the limitations of the land. The other key regional strategic planning document for assessing community and natural hazard risks is the Hunter Central Coast Emergency Management District Disaster Plan (DISPLAN). In 2012 the Emergency Management Districts were changed to Emergency Management Regions and consequently new Emergency Management Plans are currently being developed. Like all current Emergency Management District Disaster Plans, the Hunter Central Coast DISPLAN describes the arrangements at a regional level to effectively and efficiently prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies and also to provide policy direction for the preparation of Local DISPLANs, Local and District Supporting Plans and District Sub Plans. The Hunter Central Coast DISPLAN accounts for both natural hazard and community vulnerability risk assessment across three areas: - S123 outlines sources of risks including hazards such as bush and grass fire, earthquakes, floods (riverine, dam and flash), severe storms, tidal inundation and tsunamis and provides a risk rating of likelihood and consequence for each. S205 delegates the responsibility for controlling operations to combat these hazards. - Under Part 3 ‘Prevention and Mitigation’ of the DISPLAN, mitigation and prevention strategies are detailed for each hazard e.g. landowners clearing firebreaks and removing fire hazards or regulating burning off for bush, grass or rural fires or regulating property development and building construction through LEPs and DCPs for riverine floods as well as the preparation of flood plain management plans. - Part 4 ‘Preparation’ of the DISPLAN requires State Emergency Management Committees to conduct Emergency Risk Management studies and reviews to identify, analyse, evaluate and treat community risk. It is expected that the outputs and outcomes (including risk assessments community vulnerability risk assessments) are to form the basis of all emergency management plans. The table below provides an overview of some of the other key Lower Hunter and Hunter regional plans. It includes a general description about each of the plans as well as detailing whether they account for mitigating natural hazards or building community resilience.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 46
Table 11 Regional strategic land use planning
Regional Overview and how the plan accounts for natural hazards and/or community resilience strategies Regional Overview Development RDA Hunter is the peak regional development consultative organisation for the Hunter Region. Its Australia (RDA) activities focus on collaboratively linking regional community members and businesses to Hunter Regional government to address challenges and create opportunities for long-term and sustainable Plan 2010-2020 economic growth, while fostering community well-being. The RDA Hunter Regional Plan has been developed to plan to understand regional challenges and to maximise the available opportunities for sustainable growth and enhanced community well-being in the Region. Accounting for Natural Hazards or Community Resilience Within the strategic priorities set for the region by RDA, there are none which directly focus on natural hazard planning (or the effects of climate change on planning) nor building community resilience. There is a mention in the document that the Hunter region already has a reputation for resilience but that its ability to counter major challenges such as climate change and competing land use opportunities will be determined by its effective planning for and overcoming such challenges. Hunter Regional Overview Action Plan The Hunter Regional Action Plan is part of the NSW2021 Strategy. It outlines that the NSW NSW 2021 Government’s actions for the region focuses on growing and diversifying the Hunter region, building on critical industries and revitalising Newcastle and regional centres to cater for a growing population. The NSW Government in partnership with the community aims to: - unlock the region’s productive potential, maintaining its positioning as a strong contributor to the state and national economy by capitalising on key industries and unlocking potential through critical infrastructure - connect, integrate and communicate, by developing more efficient and client focussed services, and provides opportunities to engage in government decisions - renew the focus on liveability, lifestyle and land use, through affordable housing options, well- planned land and resource use, and through revitalisation of areas under population and industry pressure. Accounting for Natural Hazards or Community Resilience There is not a direct priority or action regarding community resilience or planning for natural hazards within the Action Plan. There are some actions regarding protecting the local environment in particular coastal areas and a stated priority to support the vulnerable in the community through improved health services and community safety. Urban Planning for Overview the Hunter’s Urban Planning for the Hunter’s Future is an issues paper developed by the RDA Hunter which Future focusses on the key theme that the lower Hunter be considered a combined urban area that works 2012 together to present itself as a major city. The paper provides a number of recommendations for future regional land use planning including that regional planning agencies adopt a collaborative approach to address government urban policy and consider regional relationships. It also recommends that future regional-scale planning documents contain greater detail about future infrastructure and its relationship to land use. Accounting for Natural Hazards or Community Resilience While the plan focuses on integrating future approaches to land use planning across the Hunter region it does not specifically acknowledge or recommend land use planning that accounts for mitigating the impacts of natural hazards or building community resilience.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 47
Regional Overview and how the plan accounts for natural hazards and/or community resilience strategies Lower Hunter Overview Regional The Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan (RCP) sets out a 25-year program to direct and Conservation Plan drive conservation planning and efforts in the Lower Hunter Valley. It is a partner document to the 2009 Government’s Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS) that sets out the full range of Government planning priorities, and identifies the proposed areas of growth. Accounting for Natural Hazards or Community Resilience The report does not specifically account for or recommend land use planning that accounts for mitigating the impacts of natural hazards or building community resilience. It does, however, in Section 3.8 examine the likely effects of climate change and notes that several concepts have been employed in developing the conservation plan in relation to the effects of climate change on biodiversity. The concepts are consistent with actions for mitigating effects of climate change.
Good Practice Case Study: Ready123 in an Emergency Ready123 is a website prepared in collaboration between Cessnock, Dungog, Maitland and Port Stephens Council as a program under the Natural Disaster Resilience Program. The aim of the interactive website is to provide information to residents and workers on how they can prepare for an emergency and what they should do in the event of an emergency like a natural hazard disaster. The information is provided under three headings: 1) Be prepared 2) Act safe 3) Stay alert
Within each of the areas is a set of steps that provide community members with suggestions as to how to minimise the impact of an emergency before and during an event. Further information is also provided about emergency management more generally and where to access further information about preparing for and responding to emergencies.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 48
6.5 Lower Hunter LGA planning arrangements 6.5.1 Policy and legislation The main planning standard instrument for local governments in NSW is the LEP. Through zoning and development controls, LEPs guide planning decisions and allow councils and other authorities to manage the ways in which land use occurs. LEPs can be relevant to part, or all of, an LGA and divide the area into zones such as rural, residential, industrial, public recreational, environmental conservation or commercial. For each zone, LEPs provide a set of zone objectives which indicate the intended use for the zone. Each zone also identifies the type of development within a zone that are: - permissible without development consent - permissible with development consent and - prohibited (EDO, 2013). The LEP standard instrument was initiated in 2006 ‘to create a common format and content for LEPs… to simplify the plan making system in NSW, as previously there was no standard approach… resulting in an increasingly complex local planning system’ (DPI, 2013).The new program prescribes the form and content of LEPs throughout NSW by providing a standard LEP instrument issued by the NSW Government and containing standard definitions, zones, clauses and land use tables as well as a standard format. Key outcomes of implementing the LEP program have included: - a consistent way strategic land use planning undertaken by councils and the NSW Government - provision of an adequate supply of land for housing and employment - effective management of natural, environmental and cultural resources. As a result of the standardisation there are only certain parts of each of the Councils LEPs where they can account for natural hazard or community resilience within the local land use planning framework. Some examples of areas where the five LGA LEPs make reference or dictate natural hazard mitigation or community resilience are detailed in the table below. The current draft LEPs for Lake Macquarie and Port Stephens demonstrate that the standard provisions required account for natural hazard planning. The table also provides examples the other central local level land use planning instrument for each of the Councils, Development Control Plans (DCPs). DCPs are developed in accordance with provisions in Part 3, Division 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and contain detailed development controls that apply to particular types of development or development in particular areas. DCPs support LEPs with more specific planning and design guidelines. Table 12 LGA LEPs and DCPs
Planning Document Natural Hazards and Community Resilience References Cessnock LEP s6.3 DCP 2011 (3) The DCP must provide for all of the following: (f) amelioration of natural and environmental hazards, including bush fire, flooding and site contamination and, in relation to natural hazards, the safe occupation of, and the evacuation from, any land so affected s7.3 Flood planning (1) the Objectives of this clause are as follows: (a) to minimise the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land (b) to allow development on land that is compatible with the land’s flood hazard, taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change (c) to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 49
Planning Document Natural Hazards and Community Resilience References Lake Macquarie s1.2 Aims of the Plan LEP 2012 (Draft) (f) to encourage development that enhances the sustainability of the City including the ability to adapt to and mitigate against climate change s5.5 Development within the coastal zone (3) consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (d) the proposed development will not: - be significantly affected by coastal hazards, or - have a significant impact on coastal hazards, or - increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other land. s5.11 Bushfire hazard reduction Bush fire hazard reduction work authorised by Rural Fires Act or another Act, may be carried out on land without development consent s7.5 Flood planning (1) Objectives are to minimise flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land, to allow development on land that is compatible with the land’s flood hazard taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change, to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment. s7.6 Coastal risk area (1) Objectives are to maintain existing coastal processes and to avoid significant adverse impacts on development from these coastal processes, to ensure users are compatible with coastal risks, to enable safe evacuation of coastal risk areas in an emergency, to avoid significant adverse effect on the environment
Lake Macquarie Under each Part of the DCP (Development in Rural Zones, Residential Zones, Business DCP 2012 Zones, Industrial, Business Park and Infrastructure Zones, Recreation and Tourist Zones, Environment Protection Zones) there is a Bushfire and Catchment Flood Management section which both notes that developments must consider and respond to hazards.
Maitland LEP 2011 s1.2 Aims of the Plan (i) to ensure that land uses are organised to minimise risk from hazards including flooding, bushfire, subsidence, acid sulphate soils and climate change (j) to organise orderly, feasible and equitable development whilst safeguarding the community interests environmentally sensitive areas and residential amenity s6.3 Development Control plan (3) The development control plan must provide for all of the following: (f) amelioration of natural and environmental hazards, including bush fire, flooding and site contamination and, in relation to natural hazards, the safe occupation of, and the evacuation from, any land so affected
Newcastle DCP In the Newcastle DCP, Section 4.0 directly dictates Risk Minimisation Provisions 2012 including: 4.01 Flood management (covering floodways, flood storage areas, management of risk to property and management of potential risk to life) 4.02 Bush fire protection (aims of this section, objectives and development controls
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 50
Planning Document Natural Hazards and Community Resilience References Port Stephens LEP S2.8 Temporary use of land 2012 (Draft) (3) Development consent must not be granted unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (c) the temporary use and location of any structures related to the use will not adversely impact on environmental attributes or features of the land, or increase the risk of natural hazards that may affect the land. s5.5 Development within the coastal zone (3) consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that: (d) the proposed development will not: - be significantly affected by coastal hazards, or - have a significant impact on coastal hazards, or - increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other land. s5.11 Bushfire hazard reduction Bush fire hazard reduction work authorised by Rural Fires Act or another Act, may be carried out on land without development consent s6.3 DCP (3) The DCP must provide for all of the following: (f) amelioration of natural and environmental hazards, including bush fire, flooding and site contamination and, in relation to natural hazards, the safe occupation of, and the evacuation from, any land so affected 7.3 Flood planning (1) The objectives of this clause are to minimise the flood risk to life and property associated with the use of land, to allow development on land that is compatible with the land’s flood hazard, taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change, and to avoid significant adverse impacts on flood behaviour and the environment.
6.5.2 Strategic planning Each of the local Councils within the Lower Hunter have a suite of strategic planning documents such as community plans, social and community plans or economic development strategies. These documents have been developed as part of the Councils’ strategic planning processes and are generally the result of extensive collaborative engagement with government agencies, the business community and community groups. The objectives of these strategic documents are to address social, environmental, economic and civic issues and goals in an inclusive framework. Consequently, many of the strategies recognise the importance of developing community resilience and its alignment with responding to natural hazards and the effects of climate change on the frequency and duration of natural hazards. Two examples of these community plans are provided in Table 13.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 51
Table 13 Local strategic planning examples
Strategic planning Natural Hazard and Community Resilience Reference document Newcastle 2030 S19) Responding to climate change and peak oil Community Strategic Increased awareness, education and action in response to these threats will strengthen Plan our resilience as a community. Local reach organisations and community groups are actively working towards initiatives to minimise energy consumption and greenhouse emissions… We can plan, protect and enhance Newcastle’s bushland, waterways an coastline and develop more localised, small scale systems of urban water treatment including water harvesting and recycling. S38) Environment and climate change risks and impacts are understood and managed. We want to address our vulnerability to climate change by building resilience. We recognise the need to understand and proactively address environmental risks like flooding and coastal erosion. We would like to build on environmental community education to develop skills in sustainable living. Ideas for the future: - improved measurement and education about our carbon footprint - education and monitoring of the environment to encourage appropriate behaviour - continue to support and promote volunteer environmental programs including Landcare and the Community Greening Centre
Lake Macquarie Priority 1.3 Environmental Risk Community Plan - identify and quantify threats (hazards) to and from the environment - prioritise strategies to reduce threats to and from the environment while maximising well being Priority 1.4 Environmental Security - develop and implement policies and programs to adapt to climate change - develop and implement policy and programs to reduce the risk from natural disasters and environmental health hazards Priority 2.9 Emergency Services - ensure adequate emergency services are provided in the event of a natural disaster
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 52
Good Practice Case Study: Shire of Yarra Ranges Landslip Study The Shire of Yarra Ranges is located east of Melbourne and provides a best practice example of local natural- hazard mitigation and land-use planning. The reason for its success is the emphasis placed on knowledge and education for both the land-use planners and the population. A frequent occurrence for the shire is landslip events as a result of the underlying geology and steep slopes of the area. These events that occur include falling boulders, debris flows, slow and long-term earth movements, small landslips up to the size of a residential block and large landslips involving entire hillsides. To reduce the financial burden and the risk of landslip events upon infrastructure and the population, the shire conducted a landslip study from 1998-1999. The study, carried out by a specialist geotechnical engineering firm produced a computerised map of the Shire identifying six categories of landslip risk ranging from exempt to high risk. Utilising the results from the study, the Shire has implemented planning controls in the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme that ensures new development takes into account the potential of landslip risk. The planning controls require property owners to adopt improved hillside development practices. The Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme applies the Erosion Management Overlay to land which has been identified as having a high or medium landslip risk and asserts that any development within these areas is subject to a thorough geotechnical assessment. Furthermore, it requires a planning permit for buildings and works, subdivision and vegetation removal on land affected by the Erosion Management Overlay. To develop further on the inclusion of landslips to land-use planning, the Shire developed fact sheets which include construction guidelines for development in each of the landslip categories.
6.6 Discussion Strategic and land use policy documents for the Lower Hunter, particularly those produced in the last five years, emphasise how land use planning can account for natural hazards and play a role in minimising potential impacts. For example, the standard LEP text under Section 6.3 dictates that an LGA’s DCP must provide for the amelioration of natural and environmental hazards including bush fire and flooding and in relation to natural hazards, the safe occupation of, and the evacuation from, any land so affected. There is also recognition in some strategic planning of the importance of community resilience and building community resilience. Within land use planning policy and standard instruments, however, emphasis on community resilience is generally absent. It is likely that accounting for community resilience within these particular planning and standard instruments is not considered appropriate and that building community resilience for preparing for and responding to natural hazards is more relevant within community and social strategic plans and policies. Land use planning instruments do still play an important role in building community resilience (particularly infrastructure and physical resilience) and it is important that there is recognition of this role and government’s ability to shape resilience and mitigate hazard impacts through legislative policies and plans. Consequently a resilience model or framework that incorporates a review of government land use and strategic planning processes can draw attention to the responsibility and role (individually and collectively) of varying levels of government to contribute to community resilience and their adaptive capacity. While the analysis of the legislation and planning here does not suggest that there is specific quantitative data that could be drawn on to measure resilience through government policy, formally integrating the assessment of such policy should be a key element or component of a resilience framework or model. While integrating natural hazard mitigation into land use planning can be complicated, there is a specific and accountable role for governments to play which can be reviewed.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 53
7.0 Discussion
7.1 Overview The following section of the Discussion Paper contemplates a number of options for the Lower Hunter in developing a community resilience model. These options have emerged from a review of the literature in Chapter 3.0 and the analysis of the region, the hazards it faces and its current risk response in Chapters 4.0 to 6.0. The options focus on three key areas: - model or framework approach - data and indicators - governance. There are a range of options under each area and it is not suggested that the adoption of one option removes the possibility of another, however it should be noted that individual model or framework options may have different implications in terms of data requirements and governance arrangements. The objective of the following discussion is to highlight some of the different aspects of effectiveness of each option and provide and focus on the key aspects appropriate to a Lower Hunter model. The different options are summarised in the table below. Priority or recommended options have not yet been developed and the numbering used does therefore not reflect recommendations. Table 14 Options for a Community Resilience Model
No. Options 1 Model or framework approach 1.1 Develop a qualitative framework 1.2 Develop a quantitative ‘live’ model 1.3 Build a model or framework which includes both qualitative and quantitative elements 2. Data and indicators 2.1 Develop measures of general adaptive capacity, and sensitivity 2.2 Develop indicators for a qualitative framework model 2.3 Develop indicators for hazard specific resilience 3. Governance 3.1 Develop LGA pilot model then regional model 3.2 Establish technical working group with Federal, State and Local stakeholders to develop and run model 3,3 Ownership by one LGA with input from other LGAs and Government 3.4 Regional ownership with Council input
7.2 Model or framework approach This group of options seeks to offer an example of the type of model or framework that might be developed for application in the Lower Hunter. Option 1.1 – Develop a qualitative framework As recognised in Chapter 3 some models such as those developed by Price-Robertson and Knight or the Insurance Council of Australia are qualitative in nature. More like a framework than a live model, a model of this type can establish a logical set of framework principles as well as a number of specific indicators to evaluate community resilience. The indicators would be developed specifically for the Lower Hunter region recognising what is relevant considering the region’s community and hazard profile and current risk response. Under each headline indicator could be a range of benchmarks against which progress towards building and advancing community resilience could be tracked.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 54
It would be expected that frequent monitoring (especially after hazard events) and annual or biannual review of progress would allow for opportunity to adjust community and government responses and actions as required. This approach is well regarded in the literature due to the inherent complications in building a live quantitative based model and the potential reliance on a quantitative model to be all encompassing for all aspects of community resilience, when it is extremely difficult to measure quantitatively some components of resilience such as risk appropriate land use planning and zoning. It is nevertheless important to ensure that accurate and reliable interpretation of each framework indicator is possible so that progress can be quantitatively tracked. Option 1.2 – Develop a quantitative ‘live’ model Another option for building a community resilience model would be developing a ‘live’ model to continually generate a result based on indicators. Orencio and Fujii for example have created an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) which involves modelling paired comparisons of various alternatives by weighting alternatives and ranking criteria to create resilience building priorities within certain criteria. These live models, while built on simple elements, involve more complex modelling and require the availability of up-to-date and precise data. For example, a model which was built on ABS census data would be frustrated by the publication of data only on a five year basis. This would similarly be the case for one based on projections about certain hazards that didn’t have strong certainty about the projection modelling. Furthermore such live models so far have generally been built only for small geographical areas or populations or to measure resilience towards particular hazards. A live model for the Lower Hunter may be more beneficial if a number of models were established based on different hazards, however this would be costly and time consuming. To ensure the effectiveness of the model, SEWPaC or the ‘owner’ of the model would need to ensure that the data remained up to date and that there was continued review of the appropriateness of the included indicators. Option 1.3 – Build a model or framework which includes both qualitative and quantitative elements Recognising the potential challenges of a quantitative live model another approach may be the development of a quantitative framework based model with some in-built live components. The model may have an overarching set of benchmarks and indicators which could be informed by live tracking of a community’s hazard profile or a set of elements from a community profile for example community understanding of preparedness and response to emergencies based on community surveys. The priority of differing benchmarks could be adjusted according to the oscillating risk of differing hazards. This option could allow for some quantitative continuous tracking within a wider framework which models community resilience based on the achievement of benchmarks.
7.3 Data and indicators This set of options seeks to offer a variety of examples about what indicators may be appropriate for a Lower Hunter model based on an understanding of available data and what would be most effective in measuring community resilience. Without accepted, measurable indicators and knowledge of the behaviour and thresholds of relevant indicators, it becomes very difficult to assess whether management initiatives are actually increasing or decreasing resilience or adaptive capacity (Gibbs, 2009). The concept of resilience to specific hazards and general resilience is a central issue for consideration in determining potential data sources and indicators. Ultimately a model developed for the Lower Hunter might integrate a range of general and specific, qualitative and quantitative indicators.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 55
Option 2.1 – Develop measures of general adaptive capacity, and sensitivity General adaptive capacity refers to a set of characteristics, which may be considered to be indicative of a population’s ability to adapt to the natural hazards under consideration. Figure 15 provides an indication of adaptive capacity mapped within the Lower Hunter, based entirely on ABS census data. By considering a range of factors across the statistical areas, it is possible to gauge in relative terms the differences across a given region. This example developed for the purpose of the Discussion Paper utilised the following data sources: - education levels - home loan repayments - home ownership - household income - unemployment - language skills - access to internet Specifically, the relative proportion of dwellings with no Internet access and the relative proportion of the population who did not complete year 12 or greater and who speak English poorly, or not at all was considered representative of poor adaptive capacity in terms of natural hazard awareness and disaster preparedness. The relative proportion of owner occupied dwellings was used as a proxy data for what could be considered a “neighbourhood dynamic”. Areas with large proportions of owner occupied dwellings may present better solidarity and informal social networks. Some of the Lower Hunters rental market specificities (for instance transient workers) were not captured in this assessment. The remaining factors (household income, unemployment and home loan repayments) were taken into account for their representation of the relative financial resources available for households to assist in supporting climate change adaptation measures. Given the illustrative nature of this exercise, care should be taken in interpreting the results. In practice, it is likely that different data sources would be weighted to take into account the degree of confidence associated with each, i.e. data sources with a high degree of confidence would be weighted higher than data sources with a lower degree of confidence. In the same manner information could be derived from ABS and other local sources to develop an indication of the general sensitivity of the population to natural hazards. The percentage of young children, elderly people and elderly people living alone for example would contribute to general sensitivity, in that higher percentages of this demographic would be more sensitive to events such as extreme temperature but also because they may be more difficult to evacuate in an emergency situation. At the same time, council information on specific land uses, and the density of specific buildings (e.g. retirement villages) would also be useful in helping shape an understanding of local sensitivities. By combining this information within a GIS platform there is an opportunity to track over time changes in both different indicator subsets, and changes in specific geographic areas. Correlation of these changes with other initiatives for example to the implementation of new policy initiatives, or the rollout of new planning schemes could be used as a proxy for the effectiveness of these initiatives in influencing adaptive capacity. Detailed and targeted stakeholder analysis would however provide a greater degree of confidence in the cause of any identified changes to community adaptive capacity. One limitation of this approach is that the data proposed here relies heavily on ABS data collected every five years. Alternatives could be explored that utilise other more readily available and updated data, for examples changes in council rates information.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 56
Figure 15 An indication of spatial analysis used to generate a map of general adaptive capacity within the Lower Hunter
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 57
Option 2.2– Develop indicators for a qualitative framework model Indicators for a qualitative framework could be derived from national and international literature on community resilience to natural hazards. High level indicators could include: 1) risk appropriate land use planning & zoning 2) risk appropriate property protection standards 3) risk appropriate mitigation measures 4) community emergency and recovery planning 5) community understanding of weather related risks. The objective of including such indicators would be to identify areas where the region is addressing community resilience to natural hazards and to also identify benchmarks that could be used to enhance the regional response and further bolster community resilience. The diagram below provides an example of appropriate benchmarks for each indicator as well as the applicable strategy or policy where new responses could be integrated and formalised.
Option 2.3 – Develop indicators for hazard specific resilience Building on the conceptual frameworks identified in Chapter 5.0 specific indicators could be developed to track changes in resilience throughout the Lower Hunter. For example combining the population living within a defined area likely to be exposed to a particular hazard and tracking this information over time could provide one proxy for changes in resilience. A potential example might be tracking the number of dwellings or value of properties located within 5 m AHD of the 0 m AHD, as a percentage of the total number or total value of dwellings within the region. Noting that the population of the Lower Hunter is projected to experience substantial growth in the future, a reduction in the number of dwellings located within this zone as a proportion of total dwellings may represent a proxy indicator of increased resilience towards the impacts of SLR. However further investigations would need to confirm the value of this approach within the broader context of developing a model. A similar measure could be considered, for example, with population and development located within floodplain areas. This indicator would however be subject to a need to consider accurate flood modelling based on rainfall projections that consider climate change (an issue which as noted in Chapter 5.0 is handled differently across the Lower Hunter study area).
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 58
7.4 Governance The questions of how a modelling tool would be managed, how it would be paid for, who would own the data, and who would have access to it are crucial in determining the type of model used, and its application in the Lower Hunter. Given that the objective of measuring resilience is something that relies on tracking the community’s response to what can be slowly changing variables and risk sources, a long term approach is likely needed to be meaningful in application terms. Option 3.1 – Develop LGA pilot model then regional model The AGSO Cities Project provides a case study of a model which was created and tested for a variety of urban communities in South East Queensland as well as for the wider South East Queensland region. With each of the early tests the model was refined and adapted in order to ensure the appropriateness and effectiveness of the final South East Queensland Study which was the first multi-hazard risk assessment in the project encompassing a large population and a wide range of hazards. A similar approach could be suitable for establishing a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model where a model is developed as a pilot for one of the LGAs and run for a certain period of time before being broadened and realigned to incorporate the regional area if the model is effective and appropriate. Option 3.2 – Establish technical working group with Federal, State and Local stakeholders to develop and run model A community model needs to be based on a variety of inputs from different stakeholders across the community – government, industry, and community members. It could be a particularly beneficial ownership model in ensuring that a model is developed and overseen by a collaborative group with representatives from the varying relevant stakeholder groups. Members for the group could be selected based on willingness to participate in an advisory role or as nominated through peak bodies representing industry and community groups. Option 3.3 – Ownership by one LGA with input from other LGAs and Government The governance of the model could also be arranged to allow for one LGA to develop and oversee the model with data input and feedback provided by the other Councils as required. This could even be on a rotating basis to ensure that data collection and reporting is neither biased nor burdensome to one Council only. There could, however, be difficulties with such a governance structure in potentially not being representative of all LGAs as well as challenges in allocating additional Council resources to the data collection or framework analysis process and in cases (such as the development of a live ‘quantitative model’) additional training in using the model. Option 3.4 – Regional ownership with Council input Another option for ownership of the model could be the development of the model at the State level with input from Councils for data collection. With the development of the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy by NSW DP&I it may be more efficient for a team with a detailed holistic knowledge of the region to have ownership of the model. Inputs would still be garnered from government (Commonwealth and councils) and the model could be developed in a collaborative fashion but driven at a State level. Challenges may still exist in allocating additional resources to the data collection or framework analysis process and in some cases (such as the development of a live ‘quantitative model’) additional training in using the model, however this would ensure accountability for the model in one area while still allowing for input and involvement of other stakeholders.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 59
8.0 Recommendations This section of the Discussion Paper provides a set of recommendations for preferred options and model elements for a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model. It outlines the outcomes of the testing of the Discussion Paper ideas with key stakeholders as well as ranking the options against a set of criteria.
8.1 Stakeholder testing The following table provides an outline of the key issues that were raised by stakeholders during the workshop phase of the project regarding the key options for a resilience model and the current issues and desired future for natural hazard management and resilience. Details about the workshop and invited participants are included in the appendix to this Discussion Paper. Table 15 Current and future values
Issue Current situation Desired Future
Metrics - Current indicators might not be - Respond to the real issues not just effective in representing resilience the process - They do not reflect real life responses Co-ordination - Many organisation doing different - Co-ordination and facilitation things across institutions - Shared vision and understanding of the Hunter and its issues Communication - Community does not know who to - Common messages and community go to - Single point of contact preparedness Data and - Some natural hazards are well - Information is used and shared information understood effectively - There are gaps (e.g. extreme heat) - Clear responsibilities in terms of - There is reasonable data on the data collection and management Hunter community wellbeing (inc. - Data is integrated on the spatial, income) temporal and sectoral dimensions - There is good technical information - Data reflects concentration of risks but socio-economic aspects are less covered - - Data is not co-ordinated Education and - Some decision makers don’t seem - Individuals and communities level of awareness to understand the hazards understand the risks affecting them - Unclear responsibilities - Stakeholders are engaged in - Lack of understanding and decision making with equal access communication on current and to data future risks result in risks being - Key decisions on natural hazards cross-subsidised are taken based on available technical information There was a view expressed by stakeholders that if a model or framework was developed for the Lower Hunter that there would need to be effective and appropriate coordination of the model in order to foster an improved, more effective response to natural hazards. It was determined that a model should be built using data integrated on spatial, temporal and sectoral dimensions which reflects the concentration of risks, to ensure that key decisions on planning for and responding to hazards are taken based on available technical information. One suggestion from the workshop was that while there seems to be a significant amount of technical data available regarding the hazards, there are non-negligible gaps in terms of the socio-economic and institutional aspects of resilience. It was suggested that it may be useful to think of the model as providing support to the “prevention” function. Prevention aims to reduce vulnerability to natural hazards, especially through strategic planning and land use planning and is very relevant to the strategic assessment process. This might provide a useful filter in understanding which data would be of most relevance.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 60
Furthermore, workshop stakeholders recognised that even though there is currently limited coordination in terms of data collection and management as well as general natural hazard management; a resilience model could create a catalyst and forum for greater coordination. In terms of a recommended model there was support from stakeholders that one advisable governance structure could be the creation of a cross-institutional working group, with some ability to raise funding that could be initiated in parallel (or as a starting point) to the development of a resilience model. It was noted, however that a developed governance arrangement of the model and the “model owner” would need to be further clarified. A regional organisation could be the natural recipient for such a model. There was consensus from stakeholders that the initial model should be simple, easy to use and easy to maintain, and would be largely based on qualitative aspects with the ability of integrating quantitative data and analysis later.
8.2 Ranking options Against this context of stakeholder testing, a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) was developed to rank each of the options presented in section 7. The four criteria forming the basis of the MCA include: - support for the option from a broad range of stakeholders - alignment of option with universal understanding of effective and appropriate model elements - ability to implement, update and manage option in a timely manner. - cost effectiveness of the option. Recognising the importance of stakeholder feedback and support, a paired comparison has been used to weight each of the criteria before being included as part of the MCA. Paired comparison analysis ensures that the importance of criteria relevant to each other can be judged. The chart below illustrates the results of the paired analysis for each of the criteria. Figure 16 Weighting for MCA Criteria
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% Stakeholder Support Effective and Appropriate Timeliness of Cost of Implementation Model Elements Implementation
Table 16 provides an assessment of the options outlined in section 7 using the weighted criteria. For each option evaluated, a score has been allocated based on the perceived performance of that option relative to the specific criteria with 5 representing the best performance and 1 representing the worst. The total score are calculated based on the weighted scores for each option.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 61
Table 16 Results of the MCA for a preferred model
Effective + Weighted Stakeholder Raw Option Appropriate Timeliness Cost Total Support Score Model Score
Approach
A1 Develop a qualitative 4 4 5 5 18 4.5 framework
A2 Develop a quantitative 'live' 3 4 2 2 11 2.7 model A3 Build a model or framework which includes both qualitative 5 5 3 3 16 4.1 and quantitative elements Data
D1 Develop measures of general adaptive capacity and 4 5 3 3 15 3.7 sensitivity
D2 Develop indicators for a 5 4 5 5 19 4.8 qualitative framework model
D3 Develop indicators for 3 4 4 3 13 3.4 hazard specific resilience Governance
G1 Develop LGA pilot model 5 5 4 5 19 4.8 then regional models G2 Establish a technical working group with Local, 5 5 4 5 19 4.8 State and Federal stakeholders G3 Ownership of the model by one LGA with input from other 3 4 2 4 13 3.3 LGAs and government G4 Regional ownership with local council and other 5 5 4 4 18 4.5 stakeholder input
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 62
8.3 Recommendations Based on the outcomes of the stakeholder workshop and MCA, it is possible to identify a set of recommendations for developing a community resilience model for the Lower Hunter. These recommendations are not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to suggest an approach to development of a community resilience model, including the type of benchmarks and data which may be included to measure resilience, and offer a case study for developing a particular tool that could be incorporated into a multi-hazard mapping tool. It is important to recognise that the recommendations are based on an understanding that the use of one option does not eliminate the possibility of other options. The overall recommended approach, therefore, is not for the development of an exclusive model. Rather, the recommendations favour staged development of a model suited to the Lower Hunter region. In the first instance a simple, qualitative model should be developed by, and be the responsibility of, a regional body informed by a technical working group. This model should be tested at a local level before regional application. This model could then be expanded into a more sophisticated tool which integrates both quantitative and qualitative elements, and is applicable to the whole region. The long term goal should be the development of a resilience model that includes both quantitative and qualitative modules, covers general aspects of resilience as well as hazard specific dimensions and multi-hazard analysis ability; the quantitative modules should also be exploited in a GIS domain to be able to generate spatial outputs. Type of model In the first instance it is recommended that a qualitative model or framework be initially developed to establish a logical set of framework principles as well as a number of specific indicators to evaluate community resilience. The data required for this model would be qualitative. This initial model does not focus on a specific hazard, but rather aim to capture the region's resilience to natural hazards. The indicators should be developed specifically for the Lower Hunter region, recognising what is relevant considering the region's community and hazard profile and current risk response. Under each highline indicator should be a range of benchmarks against which progress towards building and advancing community resilience could be tracked. It is recommended that monitoring (especially after hazard events) and an annual review of progress would provide opportunities to adjust community and government responses and actions as required. While the indicators and benchmarks need to be considered and finalised by key stakeholders and the party responsible for the framework, one set of indicators that could be used as a starting point are those provided by the Insurance Council of Australia: - community understanding of weather related risks - risk appropriate land use planning & zoning - risk appropriate mitigation measures - risk appropriate property protection standards - financial risk mitigation in the community - community emergency & recovery planning. Within the ICA's Improving Community Resilience to Extreme Weather Events, the provided qualitative framework offers a number of benchmarks against each indicator. Depending on the success of the initial model, it could then be further developed to a quantitative and qualitative based framework model with some in-built "live" components. This second iteration of the model could include hazard specific modules in addition to the consideration of general resilience aspects. The updated model could use the overarching set of indicators and initial benchmarks and then adjust some benchmarks to be measured and tracked quantitatively. This could include, for example, a benchmark for live tracking of understanding weather related risks through continuous update of a community's hazard profile through hazard mapping. One quantitative element could be a multi-hazard spatial mapping tool, as described in the case study below. Another set of quantitative benchmarks could include community understanding of preparedness and response to emergencies based on community surveys or measuring social and economic resilience through ABS census data. Quantitative benchmarks would need to be agreed by key stakeholders as appropriate for inclusion in the broader qualitative framework.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 63
Under this new approach, the priority of differing benchmarks could be adjusted according to the fluctuating risk of differing hazards. This option could allow for some quantitative continuous tracking within a wider framework which models community resilience based on the achievement of benchmarks. The developed model would draw on qualitative and quantitative elements. The AGSO Cities Project provides a case study of a model which was created and tested for a variety of urban communities in South East Queensland as well as for the wider South East Queensland region. With each of the early tests, the model was refined and adapted in order to ensure the appropriateness and effectiveness of the final South East Queensland Study which was the first multi-hazard risk assessment in the project encompassing a large population and a wide range of hazards. A similar approach would be suitable for establishing a Lower Hunter Community Resilience Model, where the qualitative model is developed as a pilot for one of the LGAs and tested for a certain period of time before being broadened and as necessary, refined to incorporate the regional area. The ultimate model for the Lower Hunter would include quantitative elements (for instance for natural hazards and socio-economic aspects) and qualitative elements (capturing the institutional and governance aspects) and cover multi-hazards and be partially built in a GIS domain (i.e. having a spatial representation function). This model would have some 'live' modules built-in; see Figure 17 for a diagram illustrating this possible model.
Good Practice: Developing a Multi-Hazard Mapping Tool for the Lower Hunter A multi-hazard analysis tool using a GIS platform could be the ultimate goal following the gradual development of a resilience model for the Lower Hunter. A multi-hazard analysis tool enables a holistic approach to natural hazards management and avoids misleading conclusions and recommendations as a result of single hazard analysis. A multi-hazard spatial tool would include quantitative data on the physical attribute of each hazard to determine likelihood and exposure for each hazard as well as social, economic and institutional data to characterise community resilience to a specific hazard and to multiple hazards occurring within the region. A multi-hazard spatial tool would also highlight hotspots for natural hazard management. Figure 17 provides an overview of a conceptual approach for the development of a multi-hazard mapping tool. Each biophysical, social, economic and intuitional aspect would be represented by a GIS layer. The layers could be connected by calculation within the GIS framework to represent relationships exacerbating hazard and risk or increasing resilience. Such as tool would present a number of advantages, including a modular structure (hazards and aspects can be easily added to removed) and the ability to rapidly update outputs by updating the data inputs, without modifying the tool structure (for instance when new ABS data is published or when new hazard studies are completed).
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 64
Figure 17 Conceptual approach for a multi-hazard mapping tool
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 65
Key Stakeholders and Governance Arrangements A community model needs to be based on a variety of inputs from different stakeholders - government, industry, and community members. A model should therefore be developed and overseen with input from a collaborative group of representatives from the various relevant stakeholder groups. Members for the group could be selected based on willingness to participate in an advisory role, or as nominated through peak bodies representing industry and community groups. While it is imperative to have input and feedback from a broad range of stakeholders during the development of a model, success is more likely if there is a single responsible party 'in charge' of the development and tracking of the model. The recommended governance structure for developing the model is therefore a working group led by a regional body which has central responsibility to both coordinate and pilot the model and then report back to the working group. This governance structure would ensure that there is a central responsible party while still allowing for collaboration between important stakeholders and government representatives. In summary, key recommendations for governance are: - Identifying a regional organisation that would be responsible for establishing and maintaining the model and coordinating data collection and inputs from stakeholders. This organisation would need to be established at the regional level and have some in-house expertise on natural hazards and a track record in delivering multi-disciplinary projects within the Hunter Region, as well as established connection and engagement with relevant stakeholders. An organisation for consideration would be HCCREMS. - Establishing a working group which includes specialist stakeholders from Local Governments and State Governments' Agencies involved in natural hazards prevention, protection and preparedness (e.g. SES, OEH and Council technical staff) , as well as other stakeholders with relevant knowledge and direct involvement in natural hazard management (e.g. CMA, University of Newcastle, CSIRO and BoM). Commonwealth Agencies like the Attorney-General's Department EMA Branch could also be included as part of the consultation process. The role of this working group would be to define the model (including the details of a staged approach) and act as a technical advisory body supporting the regional organisation. - Temporarily establishing another group focusing on the funding aspects (and including possible funding stakeholders). This group would be initially accountable for sourcing the funding necessary for developing the model. This funding group would comprise of organisations involved in funding natural hazards management activities (such as local government); and other organisations which are ultimately involved in providing funding following damages (such as NSW Treasury). Investment in a natural hazard resilience model would translate in the longer term to fewer damages across the region and result in savings in terms of recovery and reconstruction efforts. The level of investment of each organisation should be proportional to the possible benefits and cost savings. Once established, this funding function could be transferred to a sub- group within the working group mentioned above.
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 66
Structure/Flagships/Climate-Adaptation-Flagship/rural- References adaptive-capacity.aspx>, accessed 22 February 2013. CSIRO, (2012) Sea Level Rise, Understanding the past – Australian Bureau of Statistics, (ABS) (2009) Labour Force Improving projections for the future, available at: Australia, cited in NSW Minerals Council (2010), Mining
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 67
Measuring Sustainability Program available at: HCCREMS, (2010G) Potential Impacts of Climate Change
Dufty, N. (no date) The Importance of Connected Insurance Council of Australia, (2008) Improving Communities to Flood Resilience, Victorian Flood Community Resilience to Extreme Weather Events, Conference, available online: available:
Geoscience Australia, (GA) (2002) Earthquake Risk in IPCC, (2012) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Newcastle and Lake Macquarie. Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
GA, (2012) What is an Earthquake?, available at: < Kappes, M., Papathoma-Kohle, M. and Keiler, M. (2012) http://www.ga.gov.au/hazards/earthquakes/earthquake- Assessing physical vulnerability for multi-hazards using an basics/what.html>, accessed 11 February 2013. indicator-based methodology Applied Geography (32) 577- 590. GISS Services Unit. (2009, March 12). Bushfire Prone Land. Available at, Newcastle City Council Environment : Lake Macquarie City Council. (2012, June 26). Lake Mac http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/environment/bushland_a Waterway Flood Study Appendix B. Available at Lake nd_fire/bushland_prone_land> Accessed on June 06, Macquarie CityCouncil : 2013 http://www.lakemac.com.au/page.aspx?pid=109&vid=10&fi d=3892&ftype=True> Accessed on 06 June 2013 Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environment Management Strategy (HCCREMS) (2010a) Historic and Lucas, C., Hennessy, K., Mills, G. and Bathols, J. (2007) Projected Impacts of Climate Change on the COASTAL Bushfire weather in southeast Australia: Recent trends and Climatic Zone of the Hunter, Central and Lower North projected climate change impacts. Prepared by Bushfire Coast. CRC, Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research for the Climate Institute HCCREMS, (2010b) Historic and Projected Impacts of of Australia. Climate Change on the CENTRAL Climatic Zone of the Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast. Maitland City Council. (2011, February). Bushfire Prone Land. Available at Maitland City Council: HCCREMS, (2010c) Historic and Projected Impacts of http://www.maitland.nsw.gov.au/UserFiles/File/PlanningDe Climate Change on the WESTERN Climatic Zone of the v/BushfireProneLand.pd> accessed June 2013 Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast. McIntosh, A, Stayner, R. et al, (2008) Resilience in Rural HCCREMS, (2010d) Potential Impacts of Climate Change Communities: Literature Review, Centre for Applied on Bushfire Risk in Hunter, Lower North and Central Coast Research in Social Science. Region, Hunter, Central and Lower North Coast Regional Climate Change Project: Case Study 3. Met Office, (2011) Climate: Observations, projections and impacts – Australia, available at: HCCREMS, (2010e) CASE STUDY 2: Potential Impacts of
26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter 68
Orencio, P. and Fujii, M. (2013) A localised disaster- resilience index to assess coastal communities based on an analytical hierarchy process (AHP), International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.
Port Stephens Council. (2009, June). Bushfire Information. Available at: Port Stephens Council: http://www.portstephens.nsw.gov.au/index.php?option=co m_content&view=article&id=1132879:bushfire- information&catid=2846:maps- portstephens&Itemid=4057> Accessed June 2013
Property Council of Australia, (2005) Initiatives for the Lower Hunter, available online: 0for%20the%20Lower%20Hunter.pdf>, accessed 25 February 2013. Price-Robertson, R and Knight, K, (2012) Natural disaster and community resilience, a framework for support, CFCA Paper No. 3 for 2012. Ritchie, L. & Hunt, G. (2001) Landslips - a moving story (a Municipality’s perspective), Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28-32. Schelfaut, K., Pannemans, B., van der Craats, I., Krywkow, J., Mysiak, J. and Cools, J, (2011) Bringing flood resilience into practice: the FREEMAN project, Environmental Science & Policy (14) 825 – 833. Shire of Yarra Ranges (1999) Landslip Fact Sheets, Numbers 1 to 10, Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme. Sinadinovski, C., Jones, T., Stewart D. & Corby, N. (2002) Earthquake History, Regional Seismicity and the 1989 Newcastle Earthquake. In Dhu, T., & Jones, T. (ed.) Earthquake Risk in Newcastle and Lake Macquarie; Geoscience Australia Record 2002/15. Canberra: Geoscience Australia Steffen, W. (2009) Climate Change 2009 Faster Change & More Serious Risks, available at: The City of Newcastle. (2012). Newcastle City-wide Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan.available at: The City of Newcastle Environment : http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/environment/flooding_an d_waterways/draft_newcastle_city- wide_floodplain_risk_management_study_and_plan>; accessed 04 June 2013 26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter Appendix A Stakeholder Workshop 26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter A-1 26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter A-2 Appendix A Stakeholder Workshop Workshop Details and Invited Participants On 29 April 2013 a workshop was held in Newcastle as part of this Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) project ‘Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter’. The draft version of this Discussion Paper formed the basis of the workshop and discussion. Such targeted consultation were organised to explore: - feedback on the developed options - potential additional work already being undertaken in the region around building community resilience which has not been identified in the report and to which this project may align - governance arrangements and the potential future development of a model. The following table provides a list of invited workshop participants and minutes from the workshop are included below. These minutes were circulated to all invited workshop participants with an invitation for participants to provide comments, additional information or suggestions in relations to the points highlighted in the minutes. Organisation Maitland City Council Lake Macquarie City Council Cessnock City Council Port Stephens Council Newcastle City Council Hunter Councils NSW Office of Environment and Heritage NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet Emergency Management Australia (Attorney General’s Department) Lower Hunter DISPLAN Representative Hunter Development Corporation SES Lower Hunter NSW Rural Fire Service Lower Hunter Zone Tom Farrell Institute for the Environment Hunter- Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority Hunter New England Health Hunter Valley Research Foundation Hunter Environment Lobby RDA Hunter 26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter A-3 Minutes from Workshop These minutes reflect the key points discussed during the stakeholder workshop. Introduction Jennifer McAllister (AECOM) provided an overview of the objectives for the day: 1. Share research to date 2. Understand stakeholder roles in Hunter NH management (R.R) 3. Discuss features and benefits for different approaches 4. Discuss potential governance arrangements. Additional objectives or points for discussion identified by stakeholders included: 5. How can we measure improvement at community level in terms of awareness and benefits? 6. How does natural hazard management fit in the EPBC framework and Strategic Assessment? 7. Really need to look at existing information; the focus is on the lower hunter but the project should also look at upper hunter, especially in relation to flooding. 8. There is an increasing number of people involved and arrangements around natural hazard management; opportunities for collaboration should be explored. 9. There are limits on previous experience and new thinking is required. The project should explore bets practice and avoid limits identified through previous work on indicators. Paul Keighley (SEWPaC) provided an overview of the strategic assessment and the broader approach adopted by SEWPaC: - Introduce EPBC strategic assessment provides a strategic and consistent approach and reduce the number of individual project-by-project referrals. o The Regional Sustainability Planning/ Strategic Assessment framework will provide efficiency for the next 25-30 years - The Strategic Assessment focuses on urban development and associated infrastructure - SEWPaC aims to provide information and data to inform future work in the region. o SEWPaC assessed information gaps and is providing additional information (e.g. in terms of natural hazards and vegetation mapping). - In response to item (6) above; the regional sustainability planning process provides an opportunity to investigate a broad range of activities relating to sustainability. Natural hazards and resilience is one of a suite of projects that will be considered as part of the EPBC Strategic Assessment, in particular with regards to decision-making for future planning and potential long-term effects on Matters of National Environmental Siginficance. - In response to item (7) above; the Strategic Assessment must operate within the NSW planning jurisdiction. Through discussions with relevant agencies early in the process prior to the Lower Hunter Community Resilience Project, it was deemed that the Lower Hunter was the most appropriate unit of analysis for regional sustainability planning and the strategic assessment. Marcus Sainsbury (AECOM) delivered a short presentation on the project and some of the key findings outlined in the Discussion Paper. 26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter A-4 Exercise 1- Roles in Resilience The workshop participants were asked to reflect on their organisation roles and responsibilities in terms of natural hazard management. The PPRR (Prevention / Preparedness / Response / Recovery) framework was used to support the identification of roles and responsibilities. Many of the stakeholders present had roles in prevention and preparedness, with limited functions associated with response and recovery. It was agreed to follow up with response and recovery representatives such as RFS and SES (who were invited but could not attend the workshop). The key roles and responsibilities identified included: Prevention - Zoning - Flood mitigation and planning work - Building standards - Funding for coastal erosion - Land use planning and compliance - Natural resources plans and associated enforcement activities - Information on inter-dependencies and critical infrastructure Preparedness - Education - Training - Asset assessment and planning - Information and data management - Risk assessments Response - Evacuation centres - Operation of flood protection systems - Road closures - Media and communication - Staff requirements - Fault and leak detection - Social services coordination (noting that DPC has previously co-ordinated social service elements of the response) Recovery - Post-incident surveys - Funding for recovery (NDRRP) - Damage repairs to flood protection assets 26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter A-5 Exercise 2- Exploration of a model and values for natural hazard management and resilience This second exercise explored some of the current issues, desired future and values through a “value sheet” discussion. The key points of that discussion are reflected below. Issue Current situation Desired Future Metrics - Current indicators might not be - Respond to the real issues not just effective in representing resilience the process - They do not reflect real life responses Co-ordination - Many organisation doing different - Co-ordination and facilitation across things institutions - Shared vision and understanding of the Hunter and its issues Communication and - Community does not know who to - Common messages community go to - Single point of contact preparedness Data and information - Some natural hazards are well - Information is used and shared understood effectively - There are gaps (e.g. extreme heat) - Clear responsibilities in terms of - There is reasonable data on the data collection and management Hunter community wellbeing (inc, - Data is integrated on the spatial, income) temporal and sectoral dimensions - There is good technical information - Data reflects concentration of risks but the socio-economic are less covered - Data is not co-ordinated Education and level of - Some decision makers don’t seem - Individuals and communities awareness to understand the hazards understand the risks affecting them - Unclear responsibilities - Stakeholders are engaged in - Risks are being subsidised decision making with equal access to data - Key decision on natural hazards are taken based on available technical information 26 June 2013 AECOM Resilience to Natural Hazards in the Lower Hunter A-6 The workshop finished with group discussion on the needs, objectives and functionality of a possible natural hazard resilience model for the Hunter. A proposed resilience model for the Hunter should consider these points. Some of the key points of this final discussion are presented below: - There seems to be a significant amount of technical data available regarding the hazards but there are non-negligible gaps in terms of the socio-economic and institutional aspects of resilience. - There is currently limited coordination in terms of data collection and management as well as general natural hazard management; a resilience model could create a catalyst and forum for greater coordination. - It may be useful to think of the model as providing support to the “prevention” function, given its association with the strategic assessment process and land use planning decisions. This might provide a useful filter in understanding which data would be of most relevance. - The creation of a cross-institutional working group with some ability to raise funding could be initiated in parallel (or as a starting point) to the development of a resilience model. - The initial model should be simple, easy to use and easy to maintain; it would be largely based on qualitative aspects with the ability of integrating quantitative data and analysis. - The governance arrangement of the model and the “model owner” would need to be further clarified. A regional organisation could be the natural recipient for such model. 26 June 2013 About AECOM AECOM is a global provider of professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation, facilities, environmental, energy, water and government. With approximately 45,000 employees around the world, AECOM is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence in delivering solutions that create, enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural, and social environments. A Fortune 500 company, AECOM serves clients in more than 130 countries and had revenue of $8.3 billion during the 12 months ended June 30, 2012. More information on AECOM and its services can be found at www.aecom.com. Follow AECOM on Twitter at @AECOM. Contact Details: Level 2, 60 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra, ACT 2600 PO Box 1942 Canberra City 2601 T +61 2 6201 3000 F +61 2 6201 3099 www.aecom.com