Indigenous peoples and natural hazard research, policy and practice in southern temperate Australia : an agenda for change

Engaging with Indigenous peoples is clearly on the agenda of natural hazard leaders in southern Australia, but there is very little research, policy or practical experience to support this work. Indeed, with a few important exceptions, natural hazard organisations and research institutions have had little engagement with Indigenous peoples, their organisations or research priorities or protocols. While there are substantial gaps in the research evidence, it is important to start identifying the issues at hand and consider what might be done in response. This paper provides a brief overview of the fraught relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Australia and some common misunderstandings. The paper includes specific suggestions for current research, policy and practice, noting that natural hazard agencies and research institutions are influential and closely related. It is clear there are challenges. However, changing practice is essential to foster more respectful terms between Indigenous peoples and Australia’s natural hazard and emergency management sector

Scientific Diversity, Scientific Uncertainty and Risk Mitigation Policy & Planning: Final Report

This is the Final Report of the ‘RMPP project’ (Scientific Diversity, Scientific Uncertainty and Risk Mitigation Policy and Planning project), which addressed the use and utility of science and other forms of knowledge by natural hazard practitioners, and the pragmatic meaning these hold for their risk mitigation work. Natural hazard managers often expect, and are expected, to achieve outcomes by using scientific facts and rational problem-solving to increase certainty of decisions in the face of hazardous events (Funtowitcz and Ravetz, 2003). At the same time, the uncertainties of natural hazards means that this sector has always set different terms to the this ‘pipeline’ approach to the use science (also called the ‘linear model of scientific expertise’). The ability of policymakers and practitioners to explain and justify risk mitigation and its evidence is compromised without greater insight into how science and other forms of knowledge are used in emergency management policy and practice. The sector does not receive the full range of information it requires, and continues to be vulnerable to the perpetuation of ‘myths’ about science, its use and its usefulness. Instead of relying on facts to generate better policy and practices, as invaluable as they are, we ask: what are ‘facts’, how do facts, values and action interrelate, and what are the implications of these insights to allow practitioners to make better decisions? Two literature reviews were conducted, the first examined the use of scenario methods for environmental risk, and the second identified the types of scientific uncertainties in flood and bushfire science. These uncertainties were then organised into three categories: historicist, reliance on historical data, due to assumed determining relationship between the past, the present and the future; instrumental, uncertainty arising out of limitations of a given apparatus, heuristic or theory, and interventionist, are those uncertainties in the predictive calculations about the effect of mitigation interventions (e.g. flood levy banks). Three case studies were conducted, each located in an important risk landscapes in which scientific knowledge was being used to change policy and/or practice and address a complex emergency management problem: Wildfire risk and prescribed burning, in the Barwon-Otway region, Victoria; Wildfire risk and an invasive fire-weed, in the Greater Darwin area, Northern Territory; and, Flood risk and mitigation planning in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, New South Wales

South East Australia Aboriginal Fire Forum: An Independent Research Report

The Southeast Australia Aboriginal Fire Forum was a landmark event, bringing together Aboriginal and non-indigenous peoples personally invested in expanding the use of cultural burning and supporting the authority of Aboriginal peoples in the management of bushfire in southeast Australia and across the Australian continent more generally. As the diverse presentations demonstrated, Aboriginal fire management practitioners in southeast Australia face distinct challenges and opportunities moving forward. This report identifies several key themes that emerged from across the forum: creating knowledge, sharing knowledge, everyone together, and making it genuine

Hazards, Culture and Indigenous Communities: Final Project Report

This is the Final Report of the Hazards, Culture and Indigenous Communities (HCIC) project. This project considered the challenges and opportunities arising out of engagements between Indigenous peoples and natural hazard and land management government agencies in southern Australia. The majority of this activity has focused on cultural burning, which has also been our focus. Significantly, there is very limited existing research about these engagements, and limited public sector experience in engaging with Indigenous peoples. This constrains evidenced-based policy and practice and practitioner decision making. This lack of capacity was clear in the responses to the 2019-20 bushfires. The natural hazard sector is now required to do this retrospective and forward-looking learning, to foster more culturally safe natural hazard mitigation, and better connect the logics of hazards, risk and resilience. We undertook qualitative research, primarily through forming partnerships with key practitioners working in this space and undertaking research activities that iteratively learnt from these partnerships. In this, researching both Indigenous and non-indigenous values has been important in order to navigate and analyse this intercultural context. Our research findings are structured in two sections: the first presents the results from our literature review, the second presents a synthesis of the research findings arranged under six headings, as listed below, with recommended first steps for the natural hazard sector under each heading. Given previous sector and research practices, the suggested first steps require significant sector leadership and investment in Indigenous-led research

Negotiating risk and responsibility through law, policy and planning

The 2011 National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (COAG 2011) sets the context for natural disaster management as a 'shared responsibility' of all sectors of government and society, as part of building a more comprehensive approach to emergency management. However, it remains difficult to change relationships and practices to share responsibility, either between emergency management agencies and other government sectors, or between governments and at-risk communities. This paper reports on the research of three independent but complementary projects established through the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre to identify the legal, policy and planning structures and processes that could enhance integration of emergency management imperatives across public policy sectors, agencies and portfolios. This article distils and summarises some key conclusions regarding a central, yet seriously under-acknowledged facet, of developing public policy for natural hazard risk in Australia: the political and social negotiation of risk and responsibility. This is an overview paper and many of the issues raised require further exploration

Investigating best practice : doctoral fieldwork experiences with and without Indigenous communities in settler-colonial societies

Through the sharing of personal commentaries about our doctoral fieldwork experiences, this paper contributes to decolonial literatures about academic knowledge generation in settler-colonial societies. The commentaries each illustrate shifting understandings of our roles in perpetuating the colonial knowledge-violence and material power of the academy, and our personal ethics to do something useful in response. Such experiences are often unreported or under reported for diverse reasons. Seeking to address injustice, and to move away from extractive research relationships, we highlight four matters: consent and risk; the resource gap in research collaborations; the consequences of not collaborating with Indigenous people; and, the importance of examining knowledge frames. As constrained and compromised as it is, we argue the doctoral experience is an important opportunity for decolonising the academy. Whilst we appreciate that this paper does not address the material circumstances that perpetuate colonial privilege, we go beyond descriptive reflection to offer prescriptions for change

Science in motion: integrating scientific knowledge into bushfire risk mitigation in southwest Victoria

Scientific knowledge and scientific uncertainties play a significant role in the mitigation of natural hazard risk. As such, the natural hazards sector is often represented as ‘science-led’ or ‘researchled’. However, in actuality, relationships between scientific research, policy and practice are neither simple nor linear, and there are presently few studies that focus on the layers of practitioners who find themselves mediating these relationships. In order to provide insight into the integration of scientific knowledge, this paper considers the findings of a case study of bushfire practitioners in the Barwon-Otway area of southwest Victoria. This region has recently been the site of multi-agency efforts to reduce the residual bushfire risk using the PHOENIX RapidFire bushfire simulator.The paper concludes by posing several questions relevant to this and other risk mitigation contexts

Discrete choice experiment data for street-level urban greening in Berlin

The data presented in this DiB article are the outcome of a survey implemented in a Berlin neighborhood from January to March 2018. The data consist of socio-demographic, attitudinal and perception questions, and, most importantly, a discrete choice experiment. This dataset is complementary to the full research article, “Economic valuation of street-level urban greening: A case study from an evolving mixed-use area in Berlin” [1]. The analysis of the discrete choice experiment provided in the full article could be used to guide policy- and project-level decision-making for green building practices and urban green initiatives, while the dataset available here can be used to provide insight about how our sample population responded to the remaining parts of the questionnaire and how the experiment could be replicated in context or elsewhere in Berlin.DFG, 414044773, Open Access Publizieren 2019 - 2020 / Technische Universität Berli

Engineering sustainable shorelines: an evaluation framework

Over the past century, many of the shorelines in the Salish Sea have undergone a transformation from natural to armoured. In response, there is now a significant push to use soft solutions, such as gravel beaches and vegetation, to try to mitigate effects on the natural environment. While in many areas soft solutions are entirely appropriate, in others they do not provide adequate protection from erosion or flooding. This presentation explores the idea that a one-size-fits-all solution is insufficient, and outlines a novel evaluation framework to assess the feasibility of shoreline protection works using 11 environmental and engineering performance indicators. SNC-Lavalin Inc developed an Engineering and Environmental Evaluation Framework for the Town of Qualicum Beach, BC, to assess the feasibility of shoreline protection works proposed for the Town’s waterfront. The Framework assesses the relative feasibility and impact of shoreline protection alternatives (or options), recognizing that there may only be a ‘best’ option and not necessarily a ‘right’ option in some cases. Each shoreline protection alternative is evaluated based on the same set of 11 criteria, which identify option- and site-specific relationships with the expected coastal/marine conditions, foreshore ecological services, and efficacy of investment. We will outline the Framework basis and criteria, and present two real-world examples of how it was applied to waterfront projects in Qualicum Beach. The first project is a low-lying property with a natural shoreline that was undergoing significant erosion. The second project is located along a portion of the Town’s waterfront walkway, where upgrades to the adjacent roadway and estuary are underway. The examples illustrate the importance of considering multi-faceted performance indicators to determine the best option for a shoreline, whether that be a beach fill or a seawall