Policy into practice: Adoption of hazard mitigation measures by local government in Queensland:A collaborative research project between Queensland University of Technology and Emergency Management Queensland in association with Local Government of Queensland Disaster Management Alliance

The focus of the present research was to investigate how Local Governments in Queensland were progressing with the adoption of delineated DM policies and supporting guidelines. The study consulted Local Government representatives and hence, the results reflect their views on these issues. Is adoption occurring? To what degree? Are policies and guidelines being effectively implemented so that the objective of a safer, more resilient community is being achieved? If not, what are the current barriers to achieving this, and can recommendations be made to overcome these barriers? These questions defined the basis on which the present study was designed and the survey tools developed.\ud \ud While it was recognised that LGAQ and Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ) may have differing views on some reported issues, it was beyond the scope of the present study to canvass those views.\ud \ud The study resolved to document and analyse these questions under the broad themes of: \ud \ud • Building community capacity (notably via community awareness).\ud • Council operationalisation of DM. \ud • Regional partnerships (in mitigation/adaptation).\ud \ud Data was collected via a survey tool comprising two components: \ud \ud • An online questionnaire survey distributed via the LGAQ Disaster Management Alliance (hereafter referred to as the “Alliance”) to DM sections of all Queensland Local Government Councils; and\ud • a series of focus groups with selected Queensland Councils\u

Urban Floodplain Land-Use - Acceptable Hazard?: The Case Study of Flood Risk Perception on the Guragunbah Floodplain (Nerang River System), Gold Coast

Floodplain management in Queensland has traditionally been the responsibility of individual local government areas. The minimal state and federal government involvement has lead to a wide variety of responses at the local government level, from basic acknowledgement through to award winning management strategies. In the last seven years, more guidance has come from higher levels of government in the form of the Australian/ New Zealand Standard ‘Risk Management Framework’ (AS/NZS 4360 1995), adopted in 1995 (Salter, 1996, 1997; Angus, 1997, 1998; Standards Australia, 1999), and the Australian National Floodplain Management Guidelines, adopted in 1996 (SCARM, 2000). Both frameworks, which can be adopted by individual local government areas, prescribe processes by which risks should be identified, assessed and treated within a community and legislative environment. In Queensland today, there are attempts underway to formally draft a state planning policy specifically related to land-use within hazardous areas, such as on floodplains/ flood affected land. In an attempt to reduce the levels of community vulnerability to flooding and assist local governments that may have not yet have had the financial opportunities to assess their own levels of flood exposure and community perception, it has been suggested that a base design flood level (acceptable flood risk) be defined within the policy. It is anticipated that this level, currently proposed as the 1 in 100 year flood event, be adopted as the design standard unless individual local governments can prove another level is suitable through detailed flood risk analysis and mapping that also includes a community vulnerability assessment and consultation process (Personal Interview with Queensland Department of Emergency Services Representative, 18 April 2002). The 1 in 100-year flood event is already the design standard adopted by many local governments throughout the State, as well as internationally – but who decides this level is acceptable and how does it compare with other stakeholders definitions of acceptable flood risk? And do the stakeholders really understand what this flood risk benchmark represents? This project seeks to answer the following questions: 1. Does a generally accepted level of flood risk exist for the urban floodplain or do variations exist in the way in which the stakeholders perceive risk? 2. What effect do/ may any differences in acceptability have on community vulnerability? 3. Can the decision-makers within the local government justify the level of risk acceptability they set or are they being too restrictive or relaxed when it comes to acceptable land-use? 4. And are the stakeholders making land-use decisions based on a level of risk and associated consequences they understand and accept

Urban Floodplain Land-Use - Acceptable Risk?

There has been little research to examine how the flood standards adopted as ‘acceptable risks’ by decision makers such as local government (and communicated via a technical language) are interpreted by other stakeholders, and whether the formal standards can be accurately labelled ‘acceptable risks’. This paper presents a study, based on a Queensland local government area – the Gold Coast City Council (GCCC), examining the flood risks perceived ‘acceptable’ by the stakeholders. These stakeholders include local government, the residents and the development industry within a potentially flood-affected urban area of Guragunbah and the surrounding suburbs within the Nerang River catchment

Urban Floodplain Land-use – Acceptable Risk?

Local Government, for the planning and management of potentially flood-affected areas, adopt formal levels of ‘acceptable’ flood risk (for example, the-1-in-100 year flood event for residential land). The results of this study suggest stakeholders external to the Local Government (such as residents and a proportion of development industry representatives) do not understand the risks flooding represented by the formal standards and may misinterpret their level of exposure. The results also indicate that variation exists in the flood risks perceived ‘acceptable’ by the stakeholders, particularly when the potential consequences associated with events such as the 1-in-100-year flood are explained. The study raises doubts as to the true ‘acceptability’ of the formal standards being adopted in floodplain management policy at the Local, State and Federal levels of Government

Examining acceptable Risk

For land-use planning purposes, Australian Local Governments select levels of flood risk or exposure they consider to be ‘acceptable’ for given land-uses. One example is the commonly applied 1-in-100- year design flood for residential land, which is a level chosen by local governments as acceptable for the community. However, Local Government is not the only stakeholder to make decisions regarding ‘acceptable’ flood risk. Within the planning and risk management frameworks for floodplain land-use, it is possible to identify two additional stakeholder groups who also participate in the decision-making process – members of the development industry and the floodplain occupants. There has been little research to examine how the flood standards adopted as ‘acceptable risks’ by decision makers such as Local Government (and communicated via a technical language) are interpreted by other stakeholders, and whether the formal standards can be accurately labeled ‘acceptable risks’. This thesis aims to examine: (1.) The perception of ‘acceptable’ risk by the stakeholders (Local Government, the floodplain occupants and the development industry); and (2.) The risk management context and land-use planning context of an urban floodplain (Guragunbah and the surrounding suburbs within the Nerang River Catchment, Gold Coast)

Urban Floodplain Land-use on the Gold Coast – Acceptable Risk?

A study conducted on the Gold Coast by the author (Godber, unpublished) examined the flood risks considered to be acceptable by the stakeholders: Local Government, the development industry and floodplain residents. The study has raised a number of interesting issues concerning floodplain land-use planning and risk management

Urban Floodplain Land-use – Acceptable Risk? Examining Stakeholder Perceptions of ‘Acceptable’ Flood Risk within the Nerang River Floodplain, Gold Coast

The development of ‘at-risk’ urban flood plain and flood-affected environments continues to occur despite acknowledgement that there is a potential for flood impacts (Handmer, 1995; Lambley, 1996; Smith, 1998; Granger et al, 1999, 2000, 2001). For land-use planning the local government selects levels of flood risk or exposure they consider ‘acceptable’ (one example is the 1 in 100 year design flood for residential homes, which represents a minimum level of flood risk occupants should be exposed to). However, local governments are not the only stakeholders in such decision-making – other groups such as the development industry and residential/ commercial occupants also perceive and ‘accept’ some level of flood risk when making decisions to develop and reside in the potentially flood-affected areas. To date, there has been little research examining how other stakeholders (such as residential occupants and the development industry) perceive the formal levels of ‘acceptable’ flood risk adopted for land-use planning (such as the 1 in 100 year flood event for residential homes), and whether the actual risks associated with these levels can really be labelled as acceptable from the broader perspective of all stakeholders. This project aims to address these issues by examining the way in which a ‘case study’ flood-affected urban area is managed by a local government and how ‘acceptable risk’ is perceived and expressed by the stakeholders (residential occupants and the development industry). The Guragunbah flood-affected area and surrounding suburbs (within the Nerang River urban floodplain system) on the Gold Coast forms the case study for this project. This paper will present an overview of the research in progress and preliminary areas of potential interest that have been drawn from the responses of a range of stakeholders

Urban Floodplain Land-use – Acceptable Risk? Examining Stakeholder Perceptions of ‘Acceptable’ Flood Risk within the Nerang River Floodplain, Gold Coast

The development of ‘at-risk’ urban flood plain and flood-affected environments continues to occur despite acknowledgement that there is a potential for flood impacts (Handmer, 1995; Lambley, 1996; Smith, 1998; Granger et al, 1999, 2000, 2001). For land-use planning the local government selects levels of flood risk or exposure they consider ‘acceptable’ (one example is the 1 in 100 year design flood for residential homes, which represents a minimum level of flood risk occupants should be exposed to). However, local governments are not the only stakeholders in such decision-making – other groups such as the development industry and residential/ commercial occupants also perceive and ‘accept’ some level of flood risk when making decisions to develop and reside in the potentially flood-affected areas. \ud \ud To date, there has been little research examining how other stakeholders (such as residential occupants and the development industry) perceive the formal levels of ‘acceptable’ flood risk adopted for land-use planning (such as the 1 in 100 year flood event for residential homes), and whether the actual risks associated with these levels can really be labelled as acceptable from the broader perspective of all stakeholders. This project aims to address these issues by examining the way in which a ‘case study’ flood-affected urban area is managed by a local government and how ‘acceptable risk’ is perceived and expressed by the stakeholders (residential occupants and the development industry). The Guragunbah flood-affected area and surrounding suburbs (within the Nerang River urban floodplain system) on the Gold Coast forms the case study for this project. This paper will present an overview of the research in progress and preliminary areas of potential interest that have been drawn from the responses of a range of stakeholders