Queensland’s New Framework for Flood Risk Management Economic Assessments

Author(s):  
Brendan Moon ◽  
Ella Harrison

<p>Flooding is one of Australia’s more prevalent natural disasters, causing injury to people, damage to property and infrastructure, losses to business earnings, increases to the costs of providing government services, and intangible impacts such as environmental or social damages.</p><p>Australia’s National Strategy for Disaster Resilience<strong> </strong>(2011) and Queensland’s Strategy for Disaster Resilience (2017) provide the overarching framework to build disaster resilient communities in Queensland and Australia. Within this, Government has the role of identifying and implementing strategies to manage the disaster risks. The National Strategy recognises that consistent information on the costs and benefits of risk management options, which considers the full impacts on the social, built, economic and natural environments, is required to support this.</p><p>In Australia economic assessments for flood management projects have traditionally focused on the tangible damages of flooding, particularly to property. Other impacts of flooding, such as environmental or social impacts, are typically considered qualitatively or assessed through a multi-criteria assessment. The absence of state and/or national guidance on undertaking such assessments has also led to a wide variety of approaches, methodologies, data and results. This creates an unnecessary layer of complexity when seeking to compare and prioritise projects, within states and across Australia. It can also lead to the underestimation of the return on investment resulting from flood risk management projects, due to the incomplete capture of benefits.</p><p>The Brisbane River Strategic Floodplain Management Plan (SFMP) was publicly released in 2019 and includes 52 actions aimed to improve the resilience, safety and prosperity of the community and businesses in the Brisbane River floodplain, and Queensland more widely.  The Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) was allocated the lead to implement Action FM7 ‘Extend the economic framework established in the Strategic Plan and Technical Evidence Report to include community awareness and resilience, disaster management and land use planning.’</p><p>The Economic Assessment Framework for Flood Risk Management Projects is due for publication in early 2021. It was developed through a collaborative process with other state governments, universities, private practitioners, and key stakeholders to road test a number of approaches and develop the guideline to support a consistent methodology for economic assessments, which also quantify the impacts from non-structural options such as community awareness and resilience, building and development controls, and emergency management.</p><p>The new framework promotes consistent, comparable and complete economic assessments, and forms a key component of Queensland’s toolkit towards greater investment in risk mitigation and fostering disaster resilient communities.</p>

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 3343
Author(s):  
James Gondwe ◽  
Mtafu Zeleza .A Manda ◽  
Dominic Kamlomo

This study examines how discriminatory land use planning predisposes the low income residents to flood disaster risks in Karonga town, Malawi. Using a qualitative research design, in-depth interviews were conducted with ten government and non government institutions engaged in land use planning and disaster risk management and traditional leaders. The study showed that theoretical aims of land use planning to improve the living environment remain partial and in certain cases exacerbate risks posed by floods because the planning tool divides the urban landscape into formal and informal spaces. Such separation which coincided with incomes levels forced the marginalised and urban poor to occupy flood-prone areas While literature on flood control promotes an integrated approach to flood risk management, land use planning practice is singled out as a regulatory measure which ironically not only fails to meet the needs, but also increases vulnerability to flood risks, of the urban poor residents. The study further revealed that land use planning has failed to reduce flood disaster risks in informal spaces because it is not compatible with the needs of the urban poor.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (18) ◽  
pp. 10099
Author(s):  
Nejc Bezak ◽  
Martina Kovačević ◽  
Gregor Johnen ◽  
Klaudija Lebar ◽  
Vesna Zupanc ◽  
...  

Floods are among the most frequent and deadliest natural disasters, and the magnitude and frequency of floods is expected to increase. Therefore, the effects of different flood risk management options need to be evaluated. In this study, afforestation, permeable concrete implementation, and the use of dry and wet retention reservoirs were tested as possible options for urban flood risk reduction in a case study involving the Glinščica river catchment (Slovenia). Additionally, the effect of dry and wet reservoirs was investigated at a larger (catchment) scale. Results showed that in the case of afforestation and permeable concrete, large areas are required to achieve notable peak discharge reduction (from a catchment scale point of view). The costs related to the implementation of such measures could be relatively high, and may become even higher than the potential benefits related to the multifunctionality and multi-purpose opportunities of such measures. On the other hand, dry and wet retention reservoirs could provide more significant peak discharge reductions; if appropriate locations are available, such reservoirs could be implemented at acceptable costs for decision makers. However, the results of this study show that reservoir effects quickly reduce with scale. This means that while these measures can have significant local effects, they may have only a minor impact at larger scales. We found that this was also the case for the afforestation and permeable concrete.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Huynh Thi Lan Huong ◽  
Nguyen Mai Dang ◽  
W. Grabs ◽  
Le Huu Ti ◽  
M. Marchand

Author(s):  
J Hall ◽  
T Phillips ◽  
R Dawson ◽  
S Barr ◽  
A Ford ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd Bridges ◽  
Jeffrey King ◽  
Johnathan Simm ◽  
Michael Beck ◽  
Georganna Collins ◽  
...  

To deliver infrastructure that sustain our communities, economy, and environment, we must innovate, modernize, and even revolutionize our approach to infrastructure development. Change takes courage, but as one starts down the path of innovation, what was once novel becomes more familiar, more established. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is walking this path with our partners through the Engineering With Nature (EWN) Initiative, integrating human engineering with natural systems. The International Guidelines on Natural and Nature-Based Features for Flood Risk Management are the next step toward revolutionary infrastructure development—a set of real-world guidelines to help familiarize us with what was once novel. USACE and collaborators around the world have been building, learning, and documenting the best practices for constructing Natural and Nature-Based Features (NNBF) for decades. The consolidation of these lessons into a single guidance document gives decision-makers and practitioners a much-needed resource to pursue, consider, and apply NNBF for flood risk management while expanding value through infrastructure. Relationships and partnerships are vital ingredients for innovation and progress. The NNBF Guidelines was achieved because of the strong relationships in the nature-based engineering community. The magnitude and diversity of contributors to the NNBF Guidelines have resulted in a robust resource that provides value beyond a single agency, sector, or nation. Similarly, the work of incorporating NNBF into projects will require us to strengthen our relationships across organizations, mandates, and missions to achieve resilient communities. I hope you are inspired by the collaborative achievement of the NNBF Guidelines and will draw from this resource to develop innovative solutions to current and future flood risk management challenges. There is a lot we can achieve together along the path of revolutionary infrastructure development.


2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 537-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamish Harvey ◽  
Jim Hall ◽  
Roger Peppé

Flood risk management is in many countries a major expense, and while the returns on this investment, in terms of risk reduction, are also high, the process of developing and choosing between management options is of critical importance. New sources of data and the falling cost of computation have made possible new approaches to options appraisal. The state of the art has a number of limitations, however. We present a comprehensive but parsimonious framework for computational decision analysis in flood risk management that addresses these issues. At its core is a simple but flexible model of change on the decadal time scale of typical option appraisals, including the management interventions that are the subject of decision along with influences, such as climate change, that are independent of the processes of flood risk management. A fully integrated performance model is developed, estimating both costs and benefits. Uncertainty analysis can thereby be applied to performance metrics of direct interest to stakeholders. We illustrate the framework with an implementation for a hypothetical flood risk management decision. We discuss possible variants of the framework that could be extended to fields other than flood risk management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document